Re: Contribution regarding functionally equivalent naming conventions and the new compliance model

[monica.palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it>]

Dear Gianluigi, dear colleagues of OPs,

many thanks for sharing these contributions inside of the OASIS LegalDocML TC.
This is a good signal that we are working in the right direction for arriving to a common solution.

We will discuss the issues today in the LegalDocML TC meeting, as part of the regular standardization process.

Best regards,
Monica and Fabio



Il 31/08/2016 16:48, ALARI Gianluigi ha scritto:

Dear LegalDocML members,

I would like to submit the following comments to the latest proposal of changes with regard to the functionally equivalent naming conventions and the new compliance model and the related presentation attached to this mail for ease of reading.

These comments generate from the Publication Office of the European Union which analysed the latest proposal and exchanged with me on the subject.

Given the short notice and the urgency of this communication, we did not pay too much attention to the formulation of the comments which sometimes may seem very direct and synthetic.

 

 

PPT, page 3 and page 6 (point 7b):

FRBRportion shall remain optional, because someone may choose NOT to split a document in several XML instances.

 

PPT, pages 4-5:

As these requirements are subjective and therefore hard to measure and evaluate, we suggest that they are treated as guidelines.

 

PPT, pages 6:

Concerning requirements 5 and 6, we suggest removing them. The fact that one has to provide a resolver and a converter goes against the principle of having all naming conventions on an equal footing.

 

PPT, page 9:

"This chapter defines Akoma Ntoso conformance clauses. Akoma Ntoso specifications MUST be valid against the XSD schemas included in the zip file under the Annex B. The zip file includes:"

 

We understand that instead of "specifications", it should read "instances".

 

PPT, page 13:

The new compliance levels need to become clearer and further supported by examples. Moreover, we need to have a definition of the concepts (Basic metadata, Normative references, Advanced metadata, Semantic elements), so that one can safely determine against which level AKN documents are compliant.

Finally, we need to have one compliance level corresponding to simple conformance as it is defined in the conformance clause under: http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-core/v1.0/csprd02/part2-specs/materials/akn-core-v1.0-csd02-part2-specs-3.html

 

Thanks for considering these points as contribution to the LegalDocML standardization process

 

-gg

 

 

Gianluigi ALARI ICT applications specialist   European Parliament Directorate-General for Innovation and Technological Support Directorate for Development and Support Unit ICTCD Project Management LUX – SCH 06A003 - Tel. +352 4300 25938 gianluigi.alari@ep.europa.eu www.europarl.europa.eu

 

 

-- 
===================================
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 
====================================