RE: [legaldocml-comment] [AkomaNtosoCore-v1.0-Vocabulary] French National Assembly AKN implementation

[CARIZZONI Olivier <Olivier.CARIZZONI@dila.gouv.fr>]

Dear Monica,

 

Thanks for your precise answer from you and Fabio. Also thank you for your whole contribution about the standard.

 

Yes I would be glad in the future to access your service for an assessment of our custom implementation.

 

Sorry to have used the inappropriate mailing list !

 

PS: indeed, I have seen the @id in AKN 2.0 exemples, now I understand it is just deprecated.

 

Best regards,

 

Olivier

 

De : legaldocml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legaldocml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org] De la part de monica.palmirani
Envoyé : mercredi 3 mai 2017 14:51
À : legaldocml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Objet : Re: [legaldocml-comment] [AkomaNtosoCore-v1.0-Vocabulary] French National Assembly AKN implementation

 

Dear Olivier,

many thanks for your email. This is the list for the comments addressed to the LegalDocML third public review but you are very welcome with your queries. It is an occasion for clarifying some issues about AKN XML practical adoption.

The LegalDocML TC is very honoured to see new applications of AKN and to support them. France gov is very welcome on board in the AKN community.

Just for your information, very soon we will open a new service for providing official assessment, as OASIS LegalDocML TC, to the customization documentation presented by an OASIS members.

So one possible solution is to be member of LegalDocML TC for accessing to this opportunity in the next future.

In meantime please find our answers (Fabio and mine) in the text. We hope this can help you.

All the best,
Monica and Fabio

Il 02/05/2017 18:31, CARIZZONI Olivier ha scritto:

Dear all,

 

I’m Olivier, developer at la DILA, a French organism responsible for publishing legislative texts and official data.

 

We are looking at Akoma Ntoso Schema Implementation to replace the Word authoring system of the French National Assembly (inputs are currently transmitted in word format, then converted to some complex xml).

 

If you don’t mind me to, I’m calling on you for some questions about the core vocabulary specification :

 

- 4.7 Custom Elements

We have to keep our XML valid against the global standard, but do you recommend restraining the schema for easier authoring and to fit only our needs ?

** We are definitely in favor of custom schemas that are restrictions of the global schema. There are ways to make sure that such restrictions are made in a comfortable and reasonable way (i.e., by using <xsd:redefine> in XML Schema 1.0 or <xsd:override> in XML Schema 1.1). We are just facing this topic in the current TC meetings.

 

- 6.3 Hierarchical Structure :

Is there a hierarchical order to respect among the hcontainer elements listed in the table page 70 ? (eg: a section must be included in a chapter)

Or can we choose and create our own structure of hcontainer ? (for local understanding purpose)

** Akoma Ntoso is agnostic by design to specific sequences of hierarchical containers, as they are very much country-specific and cannot be required for all situations. Therefore the language, in general, will never impose a specific sequence. On the other hand, having one required sequence is indeed one of the main reasons for considering a custom schema. Please do restrict the list of hcontainers as you see fit. 

 

Our only caveat, out of experience: do not over-restrict: in our experience, the past is full of acts that should have adhered to the guidelines for legislation, but unfortunately haven't.

 

I have some more questions not approached in this specification thus outside the scope of this email list :

 

- Structure approach: an hcontainer for each paragraph ?

Most of the exemples I have seen take advantage of using an hcontainer for every paragraph. I haven’t seen any recommendation about that in the vocabulary specification:

So I’d like to have your opinion between the two structures below, which would be the recommend one to you ?

 

Structure 1 : an article containing several hcontainer for each paragraph:

<article>

                <num>Article 1^er</num>

                <paragraph>

                               <num>1</num>

                               <content>

                                               <p>La division 2 du chapitre III du titre Ier du livre Ier de la deuxième partie du code général des collectivités territoriales est ainsi modifiée :</p>

                               </content>

                </paragraph>

                <paragraph>

                               <num>2</num>

                               <content>

                                               <p>1° L’article L. 2113–10 est ainsi modifié :</p>

                               </content>

                </paragraph>

</article>

 

Structure 2 : an article with an unique content:

<article>

                <num>Article 1^er</num>

                <content>

                               <p>La division 2 du chapitre III du titre Ier du livre Ier de la deuxième partie du code général des collectivités territoriales est ainsi modifiée :</p>

                               <p>1° L’article L. 2113–10 est ainsi modifié :</p>

                </content>

</article>

** A <paragraph> is a hierarchical structure that is called paragraph in the local tradition. A <p> on the other hand is just a container of text that is organized sequentially and vertically, as in HTML. 

 

Both your examples are fine and correct, but they mean two different things: the first one says that your articles have a hierarchical substructure composed of explicitly numbered paragraphs that contain exactly one (unnumbered) block of text; the second one says that your articles contained an arbitrary quantity of (unnumbered) blocks of text. Which is the correct one is yours to decide, but in all frankness, from your example, the second solution seems more natural. 

 

- PDF numbering for easier navigation

A specific need for our PDF concerns a numbering for easing the viewing of an article content:

Sometimes the numbering isn’t linear, it is provided by a tool, so we have to store and reuse the information for PDF output. I haven’t seen a tag or attribute addresses this need in the specification. To your opinion how could we implement it ?

**

 

If by numbering you are referring to the round box with (1) and (2) on the left, they are clearly presentational artifacts that do not belong, in our view, to the actual content of the document (in fact, you are creating them with a presentation oriented tool, apparently). We usually suggest to not pollute the long-term perspective of the XML document with presentational artifacts, but if you insist on reporting it in the XML as well, you could probably use a <note placement="side"> element, as follows. A third option is to use mechanism for automatic numbering <p>: 

1. option with notes
    <meta>
        ...
        <notes source="#fv">
            <note eId="note_1" placement="side">
                <p>1</p>
            </note>
            <note eId="note_2" placement="side">
                <p>2</p>
            </note>
        </notes>
    </meta>
 

            <article eId="art_1">
                        <num>Article 1^er</num>
                        <clause>
                                   <content>
                                               <p><noteRef href="#note_1"/>Après l'article...</p>
                                   </content>
                        </clause>
            </article>


2. option with <p class="numbering"> where @class expresses the name of rendering instructions for preforming the automatic numbering
                            <article eId="art_1">
                                    <num>Article 1^er
                                    </num>
                                    <paragraph eId="art_1__para_I">
                                        <num>I. </num>
                                        <content>
                                            <p class="numbering">– Après l’article L. 521-5 du code de l’environnement, sont insérés des articles L. 521-5-1 et L. 521-5-2 ainsi rédigés :
<mod eId="mod_1">
                                                    <quotedStructure eId="mod_1__qts_1" inlineQuote="«" class="forEachP">
                                                        <article>
                                                            <num>Art. L. 521-5-1.</num>
                                                            <paragraph eId="mod_1__qts_1__art_1__para_IA">
                                                                <num>–I. A <span status="edited">(nouveau)</span>
                                                                </num>
                                                                <content>
                                                                    <p class="numbering">. – Le plan national de substitution des substances chimiques préoccupantes comprend des actions de recensement, d’information sur les modalités de substitution et d’aide à la substitution des substances chimiques préoccupantes.</p>
                                                                </content>
                                                            </paragraph>
                                                            <paragraph eId="mod_1__qts_1__art_1__para_I">
                                                                <num>I. </num>
                                                                <content>
                                                                    <p class="numbering">.
– Tout fabricant, importateur ou formulateur d’une substance telle quelle ou contenue dans un mélange ou tout producteur ou importateur d’articles soumis, dans l’exercice de ses activités industrielles, au règlement (CE) n° 1272/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 2008 relatif à la classification, à l’étiquetage et à l’emballage des substances et des mélanges, modifiant et abrogeant les directives 67/548/CEE et 1999/45/CE et modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1907/2006, au règlement (CE) n° 1223/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 30 novembre 2009 relatif aux produits cosmétiques ou à la directive 93/42/CEE du Conseil du 14 juin 1993 relative aux dispositifs médicaux est tenu de recenser et de déclarer, tous les deux ans, pour chaque site géographique concerné, à l’Institut national de l’environnement industriel et des risques, dans un objectif de traçabilité, d’évaluation des risques et d’information au public et afin d’inciter à la substitution de ces substances, l’identité, les quantités et les usages des substances incluses dans la liste mentionnée au I de l’article L. 521-5-2, ainsi que l’identité des utilisateurs professionnels à qui il les a cédées à titre onéreux ou gratuit.
</p>
                                                                    <p class="numbered"> Les personnes morales employant moins de dix salariés et les personnes physiques sont exemptées de cette obligation.</p>
                                                                </content>
                                                            </paragraph>
                                                        </article>
                                                    </quotedStructure>
                                                </mod>
                                            </p>
                                        </content>
                                    </paragraph>
                                </article>

 

- Misunderstanding of the use of custom attribute @id

My last question is curiosity about the use of custom @id I have seen in lots of exemples, especially those from the European parliament :

Exemple : <division id="_2012744_0015">

Why do they use custom @id instead of the attribute @eId provided ? It is because their identification method doesn’t match the one preconized for @eId attribute ?

** we thinks that the examples that you saw were marked-up with AKN 1.0 or 2.0. Now the new specifications AKN 3.0 requires @eId instead of @id.
However the use of AKN IDs (for eId and wId) is not mandatory for the Level 1 of AKN compliance. So in case a body wants to adopt customized IDs (i.e. for legacy systems reasons) it is allowed even if it is not the best option (e.g., it is always possible to use @GUID for local system IDs).

 

 

In advance thank you for taking the time to answer me.

 

Some of the questions aren’t relative to the understanding of the core vocabulary document, but it would be glad of you if you can provide me with an answer. This implementation is an entry point for introducing the AKN standard in the French legal data ecosystem.

 

Regards,

 

Olivier Carizzoni

 

 

-- 

===================================

Associate professor of Legal Informatics 

School of Law

Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna 

C.I.R.S.F.I.D. http://www.cirsfid.unibo.it/ 

Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3 

I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY) 

Tel +39 051 277217 

Fax +39 051 260782 

E-mail  monica.palmirani@unibo.it 

====================================