[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Representation of the annexes in Akoma ntoso
Please find also this interesting post from Véronique. Yours, mp -------- Messaggio originale --------
Dear Monica, dear Fabio,
This is a small reflexion on the representation of the annexes and attachment of an act or a bill.
In the European legislation among others, there is an important semantic distinction between the annexes and the attachments :
Akoma Ntoso represents these two concepts with a componentRef inside an attachments element and considers that both are independent documents. But the annexes are, by their nature, an integral part of the current act. It is more a structural decomposition than another document. It has no special metadata. In the European legislation, it has not other heading that the word ANNEX with, eventually, an number in the case of multiple annexes. So, the constraint to structure it has an independent document is an inconvenient.
Why not represent the annexes with a specific structural element (for example, called <annex>) that has a content of type "maincontent" and can occurs after the conclusions of the act/bill ?
If there is a need to represent it as another XML instance (voluminous), it is still possible to represent it as a fragment (a componentRef inside the annex element). So, the decision to leave the annex as part of the xml instance of the bill or to put it in a specific xml instance will become a technical decision. We can reserve the attachments element only for the other legal act that is attached to the current act and is really another document with its own metadata.
This proposal simplifies also the representation of the amending bill or the amendment when the modification is about a complete annex, as you can see in the following examples.
The file COM_COM(2011)0876_EN.doc contains an example of an amending bill, with a annex (annex 1) containing a new annex (annex X) to introduce in the amended act (Directive 2000/60/EC) .
As you can see in the drawing amending-bill.jpg, with the current representation in Akoma Ntoso, 3 xml instances are needed :
With representation of annexes by a structural element <annex>, the representation can be more simple, because there is only one xml instance : the annex is a structure inside the bill and contains a quotedStructure containing an annex. The structure will be something like this :
<akomantoso> <bill> <body> </body> <annex> <num>ANNEX I</num> <p><mod> <quotedStructure> <annex> <num>ANNEX X</num><heading>LIST OF PRIORITY SUBSTANCES IN THE FIELD OF WATER POLICY</heading> <table> ...
And, finally, the representation of amendment like the following is also simplified (in blue: text of the amendment; in green, text of the annex of the amending bill; in bruin, the text of the annex in the amended act):
<DocAmend>Proposal for a directive</DocAmend> <Article>Annex II a (new)</Article> <DocAmend2>Directive 2008/105/EC</DocAmend2> <Article2>Annex II (new)</Article2>
Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original> What do you think of this proposition ?
Kind regards
Véronique Parisse |
Attachment:
COM_COM(2011)0876_EN.doc
Description: MS-Word document
Attachment:
amending-bill.jpg
Description: JPEG image
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]