[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from LegalDocML - OASIS technical committee
|
Dear all, please find in attachment the minutes of the last TC meeting 4th March. The next TC meeting of LegalDocML is planned for tomorrow 9th March 18.30 CET. The agenda is focused on documentation: D1, D2, D3. Best regards, Monica -------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Fabio Vitali:hello Alejandro Silvera:Hi Grant Vergottini:Sorry I'm late. Just saw the invite. Fabio Vitali:we're waiting for Veronique Monica Palmirani:hello Monica Palmirani:we can start Fabio Vitali:have you had the chance to read through the new version of the Naming Convention? Monica Palmirani:It is missing veronique Grant Vergottini:Fabio, for an <rref>, should I use the @from as a URL to the initial provision and the @upTo as the end eId? Grant Vergottini:I only glanced through the naming convention Fabio Vitali:@Grant: yes, of course, I renamed href to from, and we should update the documentation as well Grant Vergottini:ok, thanks Grant Vergottini:I glanced through the updated naming convetion (not thorougly), but didn't find any objections Monica Palmirani:https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legaldocml/event.php?event_id=42530 Monica Palmirani:In my version I have detected some typos but I would appreciate if you can check the pink parts. Monica Palmirani:I have detected some typos in the simplified annotation according with the new syntax of URI Grant Vergottini:pink parts? Fabio Vitali:pink parts? Monica Palmirani:pink yes Monica Palmirani:purple if you prefer Grant Vergottini:I only see red parts Fabio Vitali:I see a note on page 33 and one on page 42, is it all? parisse:hello parisse:I don't heart anything Fabio Vitali:noone is talking, veronique Monica Palmirani:doc@vers.!component~fragment Fabio Vitali:ciao! anyway Alejandro Silvera:hi Monica Palmirani:bill@v1.!main/~art_2 Monica Palmirani:originally it was bill@v1!main/~art_2 without dot before ! Monica Palmirani:also this "Y!main~art_2" is not correct isn't it FABIO? Monica Palmirani:Y.!main~art_2 Monica Palmirani:this is correct parisse:what is Y ? Fabio Vitali:I did not go this far. I probably should have parisse:before the ! Monica Palmirani:act Y Fabio Vitali:It is considerably different from what I wrote parisse:I dont have time to read the doc until the end. Fabio Vitali:Monica, if you are talking I don't hear it Monica Palmirani:I am talking Monica Palmirani:yes Alejandro Silvera:yes Grant Vergottini:I can Monica Palmirani:For instance, using the following simplified naming convention: doc@vers.!component~fragment, we can describe the four situations as follows Monica Palmirani:page 48 Monica Palmirani:my question: is it correct? Fabio Vitali:Why on earth did we introduce a simplified convention? Monica Palmirani:I don't know Monica Palmirani:for me is a mistake Fabio Vitali:It makes no rhetorical sense to use yet another syntax just as an example Monica Palmirani:for this reason I am asking Fabio Vitali:use the convention, the FULL convention Monica Palmirani:yes Fabio I agree Fabio Vitali:Ok. I'll read the rest and update it Fabio Vitali:Groan Monica Palmirani:but in the document it still have and so I am asking Fabio Vitali:Sorry, I should have had done this. I stopped at the end of the part of URI, instead of going on to the part about ids Fabio Vitali:My mistake Monica Palmirani:it is strange indeed to see this simplifications Monica Palmirani:ok Monica Palmirani:thanks I am ended form my side Monica Palmirani:any other comments? Monica Palmirani:to the FABIO document? Grant Vergottini:I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly. I will try and find some time this weekend. Fabio Vitali:Ok. I'll see to it that I finish the part about ids by tomorrow, or Sunday at the latest. I will NOT touch sections before 5, Fabio Vitali:so you are free to read and comment on them in the meantime Grant Vergottini:Ok Monica Palmirani:please use this version Fabio parisse:which version ? Fabio Vitali:yes Monica Palmirani:23 Monica Palmirani:also this example need to be checked: sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1 parisse:ok, the one sending today ? Monica Palmirani:I have added . before ! Monica Palmirani:according with the new syntax of / Monica Palmirani:before it was: sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21!schedule_1 parisse:also the example of European, to use the inter-institutional convention for doc type Fabio Vitali:why a single dot? Fabio Vitali:Single dots are NOT allowed Monica Palmirani:the specification is to replace / with dot Fabio Vitali:? Monica Palmirani:now the rule written in the document is that Fabio Vitali:??? where? Monica Palmirani:The domain-less IRI of the Work, _expression_, Manifestation, as specified in this document, or the full IRI of the Item, with all slash substituted with dots. Monica Palmirani:4.10.1.10 TLCReference Fabio Vitali:Oh. That's the identifying part of the TLCReference parisse:eu/bill/PROP_DIR/COUNCIL/2005/31 Monica Palmirani:yes Fabio Vitali:(whew) Monica Palmirani:/akn/sl/act/2004-02-13/2/eng@2004-07-12/!schedule_1 Monica Palmirani:it is transformed in: sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1 Fabio Vitali:good Monica Palmirani:(missing akn) Monica Palmirani:do we need also akn.sl.... Monica Palmirani:in the beginning parisse:what ? we change the slash to . ? why ? Monica Palmirani:Fabio what do you think? akn.sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1 Fabio Vitali:As long as we are clear: this is the identifying part of a ontology uri where you are using the TLC Reference element Monica Palmirani:yes Fabio Vitali:and the full URI is the following parisse:? Fabio Vitali:[httphttp://www.authority.org]/akn/ontology/_expression_/akn.sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1 parisse:which ontology ? parisse:it is not in the standard Fabio Vitali:Yes. Section 4.10. We do NOT have the ontology. We only specify how an ontology should refer to elements of the document, if they exist Fabio Vitali:Thta's the whole point of TLC elements and of section 4.10 of the Naming Convention Fabio Vitali:they are anchoring points for external ontologies parisse:Ok I need to read it Fabio Vitali:ok Grant Vergottini:I do too Monica Palmirani:ok Grant Vergottini:I think we need a reading assignment and then another meeting Monica Palmirani:So the modifications done are ok from my side. Only in this part of id for external ontology parisse:@grant totally agree Monica Palmirani:Ok please read it within next Monday ok? Monica Palmirani:so we can plan another TC for the next 9th March Grant Vergottini:Yes, I will read it this weekend parisse:I am on holiday, so I think that I will have some times :-) Monica Palmirani:9th March is ok for the next? parisse:I will do my best I will be at Roma :-) Monica Palmirani:Can I modify also the D1 according to the Fabio proposal "/!component~portion"? Grant Vergottini:yes Grant Vergottini:I will be in Oregon, but should be able to do the meeting Fabio Vitali:ok March 9th for me. parisse:what is this proposal ? Monica Palmirani:secondly can Fabio produce new XSD? Fabio Vitali:I will not be available the week 21-25 March. parisse:I have also ~portion ? Monica Palmirani:1. MARCH 9th approved next TC meeting Monica Palmirani:2. updated D1 Fabio Vitali:We only have modifications in the documentation, no need for a new schema Monica Palmirani:3. new XSD for generating D2 Monica Palmirani:we need a new XSD but same WD16 Fabio Vitali:I am NOT chancing Namespace, ok? parisse:We still have have also ~portion ? Monica Palmirani:and also XML.XSD need modifications Fabio Vitali:shanging parisse: have also ~portion ? Grant Vergottini:Please please please don't change the namespace Monica Palmirani:nooo modification of the namespace Fabio Vitali:c h a n g i n g parisse:~art_3 is still valid ? Fabio Vitali:Veronique: only in a document whose base has a portion or component part Fabio Vitali:otherwise, not parisse:what does it means ? Monica Palmirani:<portion> or <component> correct? parisse: what does it means ? It is reference to the same component part Fabio Vitali:Veronique Fabio Vitali:My mail was very clear, and your answer to it seemed to imply that you understood. parisse:why is the meaning of !main ? As the "main" document includes the attachments ? parisse:!main is equivalent to all the document , no ? Fabio Vitali:~art_5 is only appropriate if the BASE of the document has a component or fragment part, i.e. has already a !something or ~something in it Fabio Vitali:No. Main is equivalent to the main component of the document, Fabio Vitali:this is equivalent to the whole document only for documents who are only composed of the main part parisse:I don't remember of this but ok the base will be always ended by !main parisse:Could you add examples with this ? Fabio Vitali:there are examples in the document parisse:ok fine :-) I really need to read it :-) parisse:who are only composed of the main part : what means the "main part" ? from which xml element ? parisse:what are Monica Palmirani:[http://www.authority.org]/akn/eu/act/2003-11-13/87/!main~art_3 The portion containing article 3 of the Work of the European Directive 2003/87/EC parisse:what means !main ? from which xml element ? Monica Palmirani:it is different from [http://www.authority.org]/akn/eu/act/2003-11-13/87/!main#art_3 The whole document of the Work of the European Directive 2003/87/EC with scrolling to art_3 Monica Palmirani:veronique this is very clear in the email of Fabio and my email later Fabio Vitali:A composite document is composed of many independent XML documents, organized in a hierarchical structure. parisse:because the attachments are inside the !main parisse:so I really don't understand this !main Monica Palmirani:if you have schedule_1 it is a separate logic component parisse:they are grouped at the attachments part of the main document Monica Palmirani:it doesn't matter if you have in the same XML parisse:the attachments is inside !main Monica Palmirani:no parisse:what is !main so in term of xml ? Fabio Vitali:There is NO connection between XML and the naming Convention, except for the ids used in the Portion parts, and even there, it is not a strict connection Fabio Vitali:It is a logical structure, not a concrete one parisse:what is the correspondent xml of the "logical structure" ? I really dont understand what is the meaning of "main" parisse:I understand "body", "preamble", "attachment" but not "main" Monica Palmirani:The main is the main document. Schedule is an annex and in the FRBRWork you have to say: Monica Palmirani: <componentInfo> <componentData href="" showAs="Schedule 1" name="Schedule 1"/> </componentInfo> Fabio Vitali:Monica do not use XML examples Monica Palmirani:Veronique doesn't know this fragment of XML parisse:The annexes are logically part of the act Fabio Vitali:Veronique: a complex document is composed of many sub-documents. Since this is often a hierarchy, there is an upper-level document containing all the others. This is the 'main' document parisse:yes, for documentCollection, amendmentList Fabio Vitali:An annex is a subdocument of the main document. For this reason it is referred to as !main/annex_1 Fabio Vitali:Since all documents are subparts of the main, the main part CAN be omitted, but it is still there Fabio Vitali:No. documentCollections and amendmentLists are XML representations, i.e., Manifestations. Components exists also for Works and Expressions parisse:I think that you use a logical model for the reference that does not correspond to the logical model used for the ako representation Fabio Vitali:Why? parisse:that is why I don't understand parisse:because in ako, attachments are the last part of the main document Fabio Vitali:No they re not. Monica Palmirani:no no veronique Monica Palmirani:attachment is a component of the main Fabio Vitali:This is just ONE way to put them parisse:yes you have <conclusions> then <attahcments> Fabio Vitali:You CAN place the attachment at the end of the document, or specify them via documentRef from a different place Monica Palmirani:Veronique this was defined several months ago. It is part of the original core of AKN. parisse:where is the content of the attachment is technical choice. But they are defines in the attachments part of the "main" document parisse:so if you take the "main" manifestation, it is with the attachments element Fabio Vitali:They are defined as subdocuments of the main document. They are placed in the attachment elements within the main body in the XML representation of legal documents. The naming convention does NOT assume that you are using an XML representation parisse:yes, I see that the model is different parisse:because in the xml there is no element corresponding to what is called !main in the naming convention Fabio Vitali:And there is no element called schedule 1 Fabio Vitali:and there is no element called annex 1 Fabio Vitali:These are NOT element names, but cinceptual names Fabio Vitali:conceptual parisse:schedule 1 correspond to a <doc> that is the first <attachment> of the main document in ako Monica Palmirani:Main is the legal basic act/bill/doc that makes possible to have all the other attachemnts, annexes, schedules. Without the "main" the other parts are nothing legally speaking. It is a conceptual legal structure. Monica Palmirani:ako means akn? parisse:yes parisse:sorry Fabio Vitali:You are mixing levels. The naming convention does NOT imply or require we to use XML. Monica Palmirani:It is fundamental for me to have the concept of "main" legally speaking parisse:but the schedule_1 can also have attachments. Do you consider that they are part of schedule_1 Fabio Vitali:There must be a way to refer to documents that are NOT XML parisse:yes of course, I can apply this without xml. xml is a concrete syntax. But I dont see a good mapping with this concrete syntax. That is my problem Fabio Vitali:why not? Grant Vergottini:I need to go. I have another meeting in a few minutes. I will be better prepared for the next meeting on the 9th parisse:because !main has not corresponding element in xml. schedule_1, for example, correspond to the doc that is the first attachment Fabio Vitali:Do NOT consider schedule 1 as some kind on element name or id of some element.. It could be nowhere to be found Fabio Vitali:You could have a completely disaggregated structure of components each of which would have its independent structure, id, and so on. In this case, the term "schedule 1" could be nowhere Fabio Vitali:using the id is ONLY for portions Fabio Vitali:as in <akomaNtoso>...<portion>...</portion></akomaNtoso> parisse:Thanks to your explanation. But why do we have naming convention inside akoma ntoso then ? Fabio Vitali:Akoma Ntoso is three things: an XML vocabulary, a Naminc Convention, and a way to make ontological references to parts of legal documents. They are more or less independent from each other Monica Palmirani:These are the three pillars of AKN parisse:Maybe it mneed to be explained and, taking this into account, we can move the eId, wId outside the naming convention parisse:because it is a concrete syntax Monica Palmirani:this was one requirement from Patrick of OASIS but this means to reopen a new public review!!!!! Monica Palmirani:it could be a disaster parisse:ok, now I understand. Forget my suggestion ;-) Fabio Vitali:I will add a few sentences at the beginning of section 5 to the effect that this applies ONLY to XML representations parisse:I think that I will have a better reading, thanks :-) Fabio Vitali:I thought i did already, but I don't see it anymore, so I'll add it again Fabio Vitali:Must be going now parisse:very sorry, but I need to go now Fabio Vitali:See you next wednesday parisse:fine :-) parisse:I will make my best for this :-) Monica Palmirani:ok Fabio please send the new xsd no modification of the namespace so I can regenerate the D2 Monica Palmirani:thanks Monica Palmirani:ciao parisse:Ah Monica, I verify, I am payed for Ravenna :-) parisse:au revoir Monica Palmirani:great ! Monica Palmirani:bonsoir parisse:bonsoir . |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]