Re: [legaldocml] Your Public Review for Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0, Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention Version 1.0, and Akoma Ntoso Media Type Version 1.0 have been announced

[James E Cabral <jec@mtgmc.com>]

LegalDocML,

Here are a some comments/suggestions for improving the Akoma Ntoso specifications.

Core Spec:

1. Several occurrences of “judgements” should be spelled “judgments”.
2. Most of Section 4, particularly 4.2-4.6, is Informative but non-normative.   For example, there are no MUSTs and SHOULDs per RFC2119.   You could probably create a conforming legal document without even reading this section.  Please consider moving the non-normative guidance to an appendix or at least marking it “informative/non-normative”.
3. There are several references to elements borrowed from HTML without clarifying which version of HTML the supported elements originate from. There should also be a citation to the correct version of HTML in section 1.2
4. The definition of “judgment” in Section 4.2.1 includes “The structure reflects typical narrative of sentences. “ which appears to be missing a word or two.
5. Similarly, the definition of “statement” in Section 4.2.1 includes “Used to represent those legal documents that not have a prescriptive power” which appears to be missing a word or two.
6. Section 4.2.2 begins with “Akoma Ntoso is designed for use in all applications that use legal documents.”  Does this include judicial documents other than judgments?  If so, which document type applies to those?
7. Section 4.2.3 lists actors the deal with legal documents including “and the people affected by the resulting law”.  What about law enforcement, attorneys and judges that interpret, apply and enforce the laws?
8. Section 4.2.5 includes the claim that “all the varying traditions found around the world stem from a relatively small set of legal traditions originating back in history.”  This may be overstated. What about tribal and Sharia courts?
9. Section 4.26 claims that “Akoma Ntoso is designed to anticipate the future needs made possible by a uniform standard for legal documents while also being flexible enough to adapt to past practices, allowing all the variances that have occurred in the past to be modeled in a single document structure.”  Again, this seems overstated. How can we predict and claim support for all future requirements?
10. Section 4.28 includes “So the vocabulary should be as close as much as possible to the legal domain terminology, but it should be as much as possible neutral with respect to any legal specific tradition.”  The two occurrences of “as much as possible” are both awkward.
11. The second paragraph of Section 4.3 is redundant with section 2.3.
12. The description of “bill/act" in Section 5.1 includes “an’hcontainer” which is missing a space.
13. There appear to be come formatting issues/inconsistencies with the tables in 5.7.1, particularly 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2. 
    

Naming Convention:

1. There are 2 broken links at the bottom of Section 4.4

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

From: Chet Ensign
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎May‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎9‎:‎22‎ ‎PM
To: legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org

Members of the LegalDocML TC,

Your 30-day public reviews for Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0, Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention Version 1.0, and Akoma Ntoso Media Type Version 1.0 have been announced. The reviews end on 05 June 2015. You can find the announcement at https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-akoma-ntoso-v1-0-ends-june-5th. 

The parties on your notification list were bcc'ed on the announcement to alert them to the review while protecting the privacy of their email addresses. 

I also posted an announcement on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. Feel free to like/share/retweet any of these to further spread the news. 

Note that the TC has obligations with respect this public review. These are explained in detail at [1]. 

- Non-TC member feedback can only be submitted to the TC's comment list legaldocml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org. The Chairs are automatically subscribed to this list, other TC members must join themselves. TC must have someone subscribed to this mail list to monitor comments. 

- All submitted comments must be acknowledged by the TC. A simple note back to the provider acknowledging receipt and thanking them for their feedback will suffice.

- The TC must maintain a log of comments received and how the TC chooses to resolve them. This comment resolution log must be sent to the legaldocml@ mailing list when complete and loaded to the TC's document repository. It must be available when you begin your next public review or take any other steps with regards to the work.

A simple comment resolution log template is available in OpenDocument [2] and Office [3] format. 

Congratulations on reaching this first milestone. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the review or next steps.

=== Additional references:

[1] https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin/handling-the-comments-received-during-a-public-review

[2] https://www.oasis-open.org/sites/www.oasis-open.org/files/Simple-comment-resolution-log-template_0.ods

[3] https://www.oasis-open.org/sites/www.oasis-open.org/files/Simple-comment-resolution-log-template_0.xls

--

/chet 
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration 
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393