The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”,
“SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S.,
“Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.
[IRI] International
Resource Identifiers as per RFC 3987 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987).
[ISO3166] ISO 3166. (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm).
[ISO639-2] ISO 639-2 alpha-3. (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/).
[XML-SCHEMA] XML-Schema Part 0: Primer Second Edition (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/).
1.3 Non-Normative References
[RDF] Resource
Description Framework (http://www.w3.org/RDF/).
[FRBR] Functional
requirements for bibliographic records: final report / IFLA Study Group on the
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. — München: K.G. Saur, 1998.
— viii, 136 p. — (UBCIM publications; new series, vol. 19). — ISBN
978-3-598-11382-6. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf.
[AkomaNtosoNaming-v1.0] Akoma Ntoso
Naming Convention Version 1.0. Edited by Véronique
Parisse, Monica Palmirani, Fabio Vitali. OASIS Committee Specification
Draft 01. http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-nc/v1.0/csd01/akn-nc-v1.0-csd01.html.
Latest version: http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-nc/v1.0/akn-nc-v1.0.html.
The present document provides a presentation of the main
motivations, design principles, the benefits for using Akoma Ntoso vocabulary
and approach. The document is non-normative material and it is thought for
presenting the main pillars of Akoma Ntoso to the stakeholders that need to
take decisions about how to manage the legal sources in digital manner in the
Semantic Web society.
In this specification, when MUST
is used in the text, it MUST be understood as “in order to conform to level 2
of compliance with the Akoma Ntoso schema.”
The LegalDocumentXML Specifications provides a common legal
document standard for the specification of parliamentary, legislative, and
judicial documents, for their interchange between institutions anywhere in the
world, and for the creation of a common data and metadata model that allows
experience, expertise, and tools to be shared and extended by all participating
peers, courts, Parliaments, Assemblies, Congresses, and administrative branches
of governments. The standard aims to provide a format for long-term storage of
and access to parliamentary, legislative and judicial documents that allows
search, interpretation, and visualization of documents.
The LegalDocumentXML Specs aims to achieve the following
objectives:
·
To create a common legal document standard for the interchange of
parliamentary, legislative and judicial documents between institutions anywhere
in the world.
·
To provide a format for long-term storage of and access to
parliamentary, legislative, and judicial documents that allows search,
interpretation, and visualization of documents.
·
To create a common data and metadata model so that experience,
expertise, and tools can be shared and extended by the participating peers - be
they courts, Parliaments, Assemblies, Congresses or administrative branches of
governments.
·
To create a common mechanism for naming and linking resources
(URI) so that documents produced by Parliaments and Courts can be easily cited
and cross-referenced by other Parliaments, Courts or individual users.
·
To be self-explanatory - that is to be able to provide any
information for its use and meaning through a simple examination of schema
and/or example documents, without the aid of specialized software.
·
To be extensible - that is to allow modifications to the models
within the AKOMA NTOSO framework so that local customisation can be achieved
without sacrificing interoperability with other systems.
The specifications of the standard is based on the
experience of the Akoma Ntoso vocabulary as formalised in XML-schema. For this
reason, the specification keeps the name "Akoma Ntoso" and the root
of the XML-schema will be "akomaNtoso".
LegalDocML/Akoma Ntoso (hereafter referred to simply as
Akoma Ntoso) is an open standard meant to make the structure and meaning of
legal documents “machine readable.” The machine-readable descriptions of a
document enable content managers to add meaning to the content and to describe
the structure of the knowledge about that content. In this way, a computer can
analyse information using processes similar to human deductive reasoning and
inference, but in a massively faster way so that smart advanced services (such
as point-in-time consolidation of legislation) can be achieved.
Making documents machine readable occurs via “markup.”
Markup is the act of adding machine-readable annotation and labels to all the
parts of a document in order to allow computer-based processing to be carried
out (from publication to print to storage to technical analysis, etc. ). In
Akoma Ntoso, these annotations and labels consist of XML tags.
The next section describes the three main features that characterise Akoma Ntoso:
·
Descriptiveness;
·
Rich data models;
·
Separation of data and metadata.
The Akoma Ntoso standard distinguishes between concepts
regarding the description and identification of legal documents, their content,
and the context in which they are used.
Names are used to associate the document representations to
concepts so that documents can be “read/understood” by a machine, thus allowing
sophisticated services that are impossible to attain with documents containing
only typographical information, such as documents created in word-processing
applications.
To make documents machine-readable, every part with a
relevant meaning and role must have a “name” (or “tag”) that machines can read.
The content is marked up as precisely as possible according to the legal
analysis of the text. This requires precisely identifying the boundaries of the
different text segments, providing an element name that best describes the text
in each situation, and also providing a correct identifier to each labelled
fragment.
Tag names, formally known as element names, are the basic
vocabulary of the Akoma Ntoso language. The element name may be shared by many
text fragments of a document and reveals their structural or semantic role.
These include concepts such as preamble, section, paragraph, clause, reference,
etc. In Akoma Ntoso there are almost 200 different element names to select
from, covering a large majority of situations encountered in any legal
document.
Besides the very specific names, Akoma Ntoso provides many
generic names for those circumstances that are not precisely described by
specific names. It is of fundamental importance to use generic elements only
when no specific term is available in Akoma Ntoso.
In computer science, an ontology is a data model that
represents concepts within a single domain and relationships between those
concepts. Ontologies identify a number of classes of relevant concepts and the
properties and the relationships between those classes.
Akoma Ntoso uses ontologies to relate facts and statements
about the document and its content to concepts, things, individuals, and
organizations that are mentioned within, but not necessarily stored within, the
document being marked up.
For instance, the identification of a specific individual
acting as a “Deputy Minister” in a “Parliamentary Debate” requires not only
uniquely specifying the “name of the individual,” but also a mechanism to
reliably associate the debate to that specific individual (as opposed to any
other individual who might have the same name). This is done through ontologies
that allow enriching documents, not just with metadata, but also with
information that refers to clear, unambiguous and verifiable concepts.
The recording of information in this way also helps document
the workflow and process used to create the document.
Akoma Ntoso makes an explicit and complete separation
between the role of authors (who take the responsibility for the content in
terms of sentences, words, and punctuation - e.g. sponsor of an act ) and that
of editors (who physically write the text on the mandate of the author - e.g.
attorney - and decide and organize the final layout and publication of the
document).
In the field of legal publishing, the concept of an author
may be somewhat abstract (e.g., a legislator offering an amendment), whose
content is the result of a formal action (e.g., a final vote of approval),
while editors may intervene at all stages of the publication process.
In this regard, distinguishing between the content and an
editorial addition is in many cases subtle and may be difficult to establish. A
rule of thumb is to try to determine the state of the document at the moment it
left the hands of the author and was taken in by the editors. For instance,
even publication in an Official Gazette does not clearly establish the
“official” content of a document. Some published data (such as the number of
the gazette itself) was not decided upon by the official authors and as such
should be considered metadata and not content.
Editors have two main tasks in the production process of
Akoma Ntoso documents:
·
To identify and label (i.e., mark up) the pieces of the original
content according to their role and structure;
·
To provide additional information about the document itself that
is not contained in the official text as created by the original author.
The main purpose of the Akoma Ntoso is to develop a number
of connected standards, vocabulary and guidelines for deliberative bodies,
parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents, and specifically to:
·
Define a common document format;
·
Define a common model for document interchange;
·
Define a common data schema;
·
Define a common metadata schema and ontology;
·
Define a common model for citation and cross-referencing.
Deliberative bodies function through the medium of
documents. Debate in legislative chambers and court proceedings are recorded as
documents. Legislation is passed through the voting process via a combination
of documents, the proposed legislation itself, proposed amendments, committee
working papers, and so on.
Given that most of the processes are document-centric, the
key enabler of streamlined information technology in these bodies is the use of
open document formats for the principal types of documents. Such open document
formats allow easy exchange and aggregation of information – in addition to
reducing the time required to provide the information via different electronic
published media.
The IT industry has coalesced around a standard technology
for Open Document Formats known as XML (eXtensible Markup Language). Akoma
Ntoso makes use of XML to define the structure and syntax of its open document
standards. It includes a set of XML-based parliamentary, legislative and judiciary
open document formats to cover:
·
Parliamentary debates;
·
Committee briefs;
·
Journals;
·
Legislation and regulation — covering the life-cycle of a piece
of legislation;
·
Judgments.
This specification defines a common MODEL for data
interchange and open access to the deliberative bodies’ documentation, such as
parliamentary, legislative, and judiciary texts.
Regardless of the processes that generate and use
parliamentary, legislative, and judiciary documents; regardless of the cultural
and historical factors that give shape and substance to these documents; and
regardless of the human languages in which these documents are written, there
are undeniable similarities that are shared by documents of the same type, of different
types, for different purposes, of different countries.
One of the main objectives of Akoma Ntoso is to be able to
capture and describe these similarities so as to unify and streamline, wherever
possible and as far as possible, the formats and software tools related to
parliamentary, legislative, and judiciary documentation, and to describe
processes in a similar way. This lends itself to reducing the need for local
investments in tools and systems, to helping open access, and to enhancing
cooperation and integration of governmental bodies both within the individual
countries and between them.
Akoma Ntoso defines a model for open access focused on the
following issues:
·
Generation of documents: it should be possible to use the same
tools for creating the documents, regardless of their type, country, language,
and generation process.
·
Presentation of documents: it should be possible to use the same
tools to display on screen and print on paper all documents, regardless of
their type, country, language, and generation process.
·
Accessibility of documents: it should be possible to reference
and access documents across types, languages, countries, etc., converting the
network of explicit references among texts into a web of hypertext links that
allow the reader to navigate easily and immediately across them.
·
Description of documents: it should be possible to describe all
documents, regardless of their types, languages, countries, etc., so as to make
it possible to create repositories, search engines, analysis tools, comparison
tools, etc.
At the same time, the Akoma Ntoso model considers the
differences that exist in individual document types, that are derived from
using different human languages, and that are implicit in the legislative
culture of each country. Therefore the common open access model is designed to
be flexible, to support exceptions, and to allow extensions far enough to
provide support for all individual characteristics that can be found in a
complete document set covering different cultures and countries.
This specification defines a common parliamentary,
legislative and judiciary document-centric schema.
Parliaments and courts work with a number of distinct types
of documents such as legislation, debate records, parliamentary questions,
judiciary proceedings, judgements, etc.
Akoma Ntoso explicitly supports each major type of document
with specific provisions for individual characteristics. The definition takes
the form of human and machine-readable document models, according to the
specification tools made available by XML schema, the specification language
used by XML.
All document types share the same basic structures, provide
support for metadata, addressing and references, differentiate common
structure, and may accommodate national peculiarities.
All documents can be produced by the same set of tools
(although specialized tools may provide more detailed and specific help in
specific situations), need the same tools to be displayed or printed (although
specialized tools can provide more sophisticated and individual presentations),
can reference each other in an unambiguous and machine-processable way, and can
be described by a common set of metadata that assists in indexing, analysing
and storing all documents in long-term perspective.
This specification defines a common parliamentary,
legislative and judiciary METADATA schema and ontology.
Metadata is structured information about a resource.
Metadata records information about a document that is not actually part of its
content, but is necessary to examine in order to deal with the document itself
(for instance, information about its publication, lifecycle, etc.). Metadata
also enables a document to be found by indicating what the document is about
and how it can be accessed. Furthermore, metadata facilitates the discovery and
use of online resources by providing information that aids and increases the
ease with which information can be located by search engines that index
metadata. Metadata values are labelled and collected according to a common
ontology, i.e. an organized description of the metadata categories that
describe the resources. A shared ontology is fundamental to providing a way for
managing, organizing and comparing metadata.
The parliamentary, legislative and judiciary ontology is
concerned particularly with records management and document management, and
covers the core set of data elements needed for the effective management and
retrieval of official parliamentary, legislative, and judiciary information.
The aim of the parliamentary, legislative and judiciary ontology is to provide
a universal schema for all the information about a document that is available
to its owner, does not belong to the document itself, and might be needed for
management or searching. The Akoma Ntoso ontology provides direct translation
of some of its values into the corresponding properties of the Dublin Core
metadata schema (an international standard for the description of electronic
documents available online), and uses values and terms drawn from the legal
thesarus to improve searchability by legal professionals.
Nonetheless, the ontology is designed to be extensible so
that parliaments and courts with different, or more specific, metadata needs
may add extra elements and qualifiers to meet their own requirements.
This specification defines a mechanism for citation and
cross referencing of data between documents.
The Akoma Ntoso naming convention and the corresponding
Akoma Ntoso reference mechanism are intended to enable a persistent,
location-independent, mechanism for resource identification and active
referencing. The adoption of a schema based on the naming convention allows the
full automation of access to documents in a fully distributed hypertext.
The naming convention can provide for:
·
the direct access to the document being referred to, regardless
of type, jurisdiction, country, or emanating body.
·
the specification of the existence, at a certain time, of more
than one copy of the same document being referred to;
·
the possibility that references to resources not yet published on
the web are present.
Official documents, bills, laws, acts, and Judgment s
contain numerous references to other official documents -Judgments, bills,
laws, and acts. The whole parliamentary, legislative and judiciary corpus of
documents can be seen as a network, in which each document is a node linking,
and linked by, several other nodes through natural language expressions. The
adoption of a common naming convention and a reference mechanism to connect a
distributed document corpus, like the one embodied by the parliaments and
courts, will greatly enhance the accessibility and richness of cross
references. It will enable comprehensive cross referencing and hyper-linking,
so vital to any parliamentary, legislative and judiciary corpus, from:
·
debate record into legislation
·
section of legislation to section of legislation in the same act
·
section of legislation to section of legislation in another act
of the same Parliament or of an institution like the Pan African Parliament or
European Parliament;
·
from judgments to other judgments and acts.
Defining an XML language goes through four different
specifications:
·
The namespace, i.e., the official and unambiguous
identifier and name of the language (in Akoma Ntoso, that is http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13).
·
The vocabulary, i.e., the set of reserved words that will
be used for the language. In XML the vocabulary is used to specify the name of
elements and attributes of the language. Currently, Akoma Ntoso defines 137
names for elements and 61 names for attributes and it uses the lower camel case
naming convention for both elements (e.g. mainBody, amendmentList) and for
attributes (e.g. showAs, refersTo).
·
The grammar, i.e., the rules that are used to build a
correct (or, in XML, valid) instance of a document in the XML language being
defined. The grammar is composed of rules that dictate what content is legal to
appear within any element (which is called the content model), both in terms of
other elements and characteristics of the text itself.
·
The semantics, i.e., the mapping between the vocabulary
and rules being used in a valid document, and the actual meaning inferable from
its markup. The semantic of an XML markup is absolutely dependent on the kind
of use the markup document is subject to (often called the downstream
application). For ensuring multiple different uses, both by humans and computer
applications, declarative semantics is preferred, where by declarative we refer
to the description of the element as declaring the content as it is in terms of
structure, role or purpose, rather than as it should be handled by any specific
downstream application.
This 4-part distinction is explicit in Akoma Ntoso, and is
used to ensure long life and widespread usefulness to all documents expressed in
this language.
URIs, or Universal Resource Identifiers, are standard
mechanisms for referring to documents, languages and concepts on the World Wide
Web. A good URI/IRI has either an identification purpose (i.e., it provides a
way to universally refer to that resource in a manner that does not change with
time, computer systems or software versions) or a location purpose (i.e., it
provides a way for a software or a human to unambiguously and rapidly access
the resources wherever it is stored), or, on some situations, both.
Akoma Ntoso gives a lot of importance to URIs, and provides
systematically specific URIs for all documents, concepts of the ontology, and
even for the markup language itself. All such URIs are described in the Akoma
Ntoso naming convention.
The Akoma Ntoso standard defines a number of referenceable
concepts that are used in many situations in the lifecycle of legal documents.
The purpose of this section is to provide a standard referencing mechanism to
these concepts through the use of URI/IRI references associated to classes and
instances of an ad hoc ontology. The referencing mechanism discussed in this
document is meant to be generic and evolving with the evolution of the
underlying ontology.
The most important concepts of the Akoma Ntoso ontology are
related to documents that have legal status. All discourse and all description
of legal sources can be characterized as referring to one of the four levels of
a document as introduced by IFLA FRBR (International Federation of Library
Associations (IFLA) - Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf):
·
WORK: the abstract concept of the legal resource (e.g., act 3 of
2005).
·
EXPRESSION: any version of the WORK whose content is specified
and different from others for any reason: language, versions, etc. (e.g., act 3
of 2005 as in the version following the amendments entered into force on July
3rd, 2006).
·
MANIFESTATION - any electronic or physical format of the
EXPRESSION: MS Word, Open Office, XML, TIFF, PDF, etc (e.g., PDF representation
of act 3 of 2005 as in the version following the amendments entered into force
on July 3rd, 2006).
·
ITEM: the physical copy of any manifestation in the form of a
file stored somewhere in some computer on the net or disconnected (e.g., the
file called act32005.pdf on my computer containing a PDF representation of act
3, 2005).
In computer science, an ontology is an organized collection
of facts and assertions about a specific domain. Ontologies identify a number
of classes of relevant concepts and their properties and the relations between
these classes. In a properly organized ontology, through classes and properties
it is possible to derive (technically, infer) new properties relating instances
of the classes even if there are not explicitly present in the description of
the instances themselves.
Within the World Wide Web the discipline of ontologies is
gaining visibility and widespread adoption, thanks to the initiative called the
Semantic Web by the W3C. Within this initiative, several languages have been
defined, including RDF, RDF Schema and OWL. Such languages allow specific
ontologies to be defined, mixed and interchanged for a wide number of different
purposes.
Akoma Ntoso allows a large number of different ontologies to
be created in the document it describes, and relies on a specific ontology for
many purposes. Rather than defining the ontology of the legal matter being
discussed in the legal documents (which could be overly wide and all-encompassing,
since the legal matter may be by itself rather wide and all-encompassing), the
Akoma Ntoso ontology is about legal documents, which is a narrower and fairly
better defined domain. The Akoma Ntoso ontology is therefore centered on the concept
of document, which is considered in a very precise way through the
specification of the FRBR conceptualization of documents (about which see the
next section). Besides the FRBR classes for document, the Akoma Ntoso ontology
also lists a number of supporting classes (such as Person, Organization, Place
or Event, that are used to provide further meaning to the main classes of the
ontology.
Patterns are the abstraction and distillation of past
experiences in designing and resolving design problems. They are general and
widely applicable guidelines for approaching and justifying design issues that
often occur in XML-based projects.
In Akoma Ntoso, patterns are used to create categories of
content models (and thus correspond to only those content models that have been
found to be actually useful) and, more generally, in schema design (and thus
correspond to guidelines on how to make the schema more modular, flexible, and
understandable to by users). Both approaches are well known and well established
in the literature, although by different experts in different ways.
Categories of content models is the term used within Akoma
Ntoso to refer to families of elements that share the same conceptual
organization of the internals. The Akoma Ntoso schema uses six categories of
content models. This means that all content models and complex types used in
the schema follow precisely the form of the relevant category, and all elements
can be simply described and treated according to their category rather than
individually.
These categories are:
The markers: markers are content-less elements that
are placed here and there in the document and are meaningful for their
position, their names and their attributes. Markers are also known as empty
elements or milestones. There are two main families of markers in the Akoma
Ntoso schema: placeholders in the text content (e.g., note references) that can
appear in any position that also has text, and metadata elements that only
appear in some subsection of the <meta> section. In Akoma Ntoso, all
metadata elements are markers, so that metadata values are not part of the text
content of a document, but rather become attribute values.
The inlines: an inline element is an element placed
within a mixed model element to identify a text fragment as relevant for some
reason. There are both semantically relevant inlines and presentation oriented
inlines. There is but one content model using inlines (and markers), which
means that all mixed model elements (i.e., those that allow both text and
elements) also allow a repeatable selection of all inline elements. For a
discussion of why this is only a trade-off decision, and not the ideal
solution, see the discussion at the end of this section.
The blocks: a block is a container of text or inlines
and placeholders that is organized vertically on the display (i.e., has
paragraph breaks). Most blocks in Akoma Ntoso are based on the HTML language.
There is only one content model that uses blocks, and it allows a repeatable
selection of all available blocks. This means that wherever any block is
allowed, all blocks are allowed, as well: e.g., wherever a paragraph is
allowed, a table or a list is also allowed.
The subFlow: a subFlow element is an element placed
within a mixed model element to identify a completely separate context that,
for any reason, appears within the flow of the text, but does not belong to it
or does not follow its rules. subFlow elements are containers appearing in the
middle of sentences but containing full structures (with no direct containment
of text or inline elements).
The containers: containers are sequences of specific
elements, some of which can be optional. Containers are all different from each
other (since the actual list of contained elements vary), and so there is no
single container content model, but rather a number of content models that
share the same conceptual category. The shared characteristic of containers, is
that no text is allowed directly inside them, but only a collection of other
elements. Text therefore can only be placed within a block within the
container.
The hierarchy: a hierarchy is a set of sections
nested to an arbitrary depth, usually provided with title and numbering. Each
level of the nesting can contain either more nested sections or a container. No
text is allowed directly inside the hierarchy, but only within a block element
that is contained within a container element (not considering, of course,
titles and numbering). Akoma Ntoso uses only one hierarchy, with predefined
names and no constraints on their order or systematic layering.
There are two exceptions to the systematic use of patterns:
·
The <li> element allows both inlines and other nested lists
(<ul><ol><li>). The pattern would require elements to contain
only text, and nested lists to be direct child of the main list. Since this
goes against universal HTML practice, we have decided against full pattern
adherence and in favor of HTML tradition.
·
There are some inline elements that only make sense in the
preface and/or preamble of the document: for instance are
<docTitle>,<docNumber> , for numbered documents such as acts or
bills, or , for judgments. They are, in fact, part of the one inline content
model and thus are available everywhere in the document. There is no simple way
to define blocks within <preamble> and <preface> to allow these
elements and blocks elsewhere to reject them, so it has been decided that it is
better to allow them everywhere rather than uselessly complicating the schema.
Design patterns are distillation of common wisdom in
organizing the parts and the constraints of a schema. Some of them are listed
in http://www.xmlpatterns.com/. Whenever there has been a design choice to be
made that was not immediately obvious and naturally acceptable, a relevant
pattern has been sought and properly used. In fact, http://www.xmlpatterns.com/
also contain immediately obvious and naturally acceptable patterns that have
been used in Akoma Ntoso, but only the not-so-obvious and not-so-natural ones
have been explicitly mentioned and referred to. You can find the relevant
references in comments within the schema itself, and in the documentation.
Akoma Ntoso provides explicit support for many different
document structures within the context of parliamentary and judiciary
activities: legislative documents (e.g. bills, acts, etc.), amendment documents
(e.g. amendment), parliamentary documents (e.g. debates, hansard, report, etc.),
judiciary documents (e.g. judgments), collection documents (e.g. Official
Gazette, etc.), general document (e.g. annexes, memorandum, etc.).
Depending on the way the information is organized within the
documents corresponds to various typologies of documents.
|
Akoma
Ntoso
Document
Types
|
Category
/
Legal Document
|
Definition
|
|
bill/act
|
Akoma
Ntoso type :
hierarchicalStructure
Legal
Document:
bill/act/ordinance/decree/subsidiary
legislation, etc.
|
These
are deliberative documents produced by parliamentary activities or from other
empowered bodies (e.g. Committee). They are usually drawn up according to a
hierarchical structure in which the text is subdivided into sections or
chapters. These are subdivided into clauses or articles, sub-paragraphs, etc.
|
|
debate
|
Akoma
Ntoso type:
debateStructure
Legal
Document:
debate
record/Hansards
|
These
are texts resulting from the transcription of the parliamentary works. The
structure reflects the different section of the debates and alternation of
questions and answers that takes place during the parliamentary works
|
|
debateReport
|
Akoma
Ntoso type:
debateStructure
Legal
Document:
committee
minutes
|
These
are texts that are minutes or reports usually of the committee used to
describe official meeting sessions. .
|
|
judgment
|
Akoma
Ntoso type judgmentStructure
Legal
Document:
judgments//case-law/precedents
|
These
are documents in which a court of law makes a formal decision or specific
determination following a lawsuit. The structure reflects typical narrative
of sentences.
|
|
doc
|
Akoma
Ntoso type:
openStructure
Legal
Document:
any
other type of document/Executive SummaryMemorandum/etc annexes/table
|
These
are texts that are legally valid but do not have any particular structure.
These include any parliamentary procedure document that has no particular
textual structure and is not a collection of other documents. An example
could be also the Report of the Amendments of a Bill, the Memorandum of a
Bill, Order of Business, Legal Notice, etc.
|
|
documentCollection
|
Akoma Ntoso type collectionStructure
Legal Document:
|
Used
to represent documents which are collections of other independent documents.
A typical example is the electronic folder related to a bill. This folder is
composed by several independent documents (committee reports, initiative,
bill, memorandum, etc.) and by different expressions over time such as
versions of the same bill. Another example is the U.S. Code: it is a
documentCollection composed by various Titles of positive and non-positive law.
In
European institutions, the committee report, for example, can be considered
as a document collection, as it includes documents like Resolutions,
Explanatory Memorandum or Opinions from other committees.
|
|
amendmentList
|
Akoma
Ntoso type collectionStructure
|
Used
to represent a special document that includes all the amendments, collected
and submitted to the official deliberative body for the discussion.
|
|
officialGazette
|
Akoma
Ntoso type collectionStructure
|
Used
to represent an issue of an official publication body such as Official Gazette,
Journal, Bulletin or Federal Register.
|
|
amendment
|
Akoma Ntoso type amendmentStructure
Legal Document:
Amendment document
|
Used
to describe specific amendment documents. It is a special document or a
component of an amendment list, presented by the member(s) of parliament to
the committee or to the assembly for discussion and vote.
|
|
statement
|
Akoma
Ntoso type
openStructure
Legal
Document:
resolution
|
Used
to represent those legal documents that not have a prescriptive power, but
they are fundamental for the life of an official institution. An example is
the resolution issued by the Congress that celebrates some special event, or
a declaration.
Other
examples are the resolution or decision from European Parliament.
|
|
portion
|
Akoma Ntoso type
portionStructure
Legal Document:
chapter
of a document
|
Used
to represent a portion of any document at manifestation level.
|
Akoma Ntoso is designed for use in all applications that use
legal documents. This includes applications both inside and outside the
deliberating bodies that make the law. Akoma Ntoso includes, without being
limited to, support for:
·
the initial drafting of bills;
·
the legislative lifecycle including amendments, publication in
the official gazette, and the recording of debates;
·
the comparison between different version of the bill;
·
the enactment and consolidation of those bills to produce the
law;
·
the codification, recasting, coordination of the acts when some
changes are issued;
·
the publication of the law and comparison between two different
versions of the same law; and
·
applications that involve the research and tracking of laws and
legislation.
Akoma Ntoso also gives to the applications a representation
of case-law, precedents, and judgments including those produced by the
Constitutional Court that can affect the law.
Legal documents are
important to many different people and organizations. These range from the
people who originally request or propose new laws, the person tasked with
drafting the legislation, the legislators who sponsor and debate the
legislation, the people who want to alter that legislation, the person who
signs the legislation into law, and the people affected by the resulting law.
Akoma Ntoso provides support for this diverse group of actors involved in the
legislative process.
There are numerous processes that involve legal documents.
Some processes within governments or institutions involve the production and
issuance of legal documents. Other processes, by other government agencies or
external entities interested in following or conforming to the law, involve the
tracking and consumption of legal documents. Akoma Ntoso is designed to support
all the processes that involve legal documents, whether it be the initial
drafting of legislation, the process that results in the enactment of laws, or
the follow-on processes to track and comply with those laws.
Every country and every jurisdiction has unique
requirements. This is a simple consequence of separate development of legal
traditions around the world over time. However, upon further examination, it is
quickly apparent that all the varying traditions found around the world stem
from a relatively small set of legal traditions originating back in history.
Akoma Ntoso has been designed, through careful examination of the world's legal
practices, to take advantage of the common heritage found in all our legal
systems while also providing enough flexibility to adapt to all the variations.
It is important that a legal data model support not only the
future needs of legal information systems but also the past. 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.
Dematerialized legal documents modeled and represented in
XML preserve their legal validity over time, maintaining a clear separation
between original content (as formalized in the enactment stage) and the
reworking of that text during the reporting process. This allows us to include
a digital signature in the XML document, thus freezing authenticated documents,
even digital ones, so that it can be represented in the future without
subsequent modifications.
It should be possible
to understand the markup of a legislative document without having to first
study and understand the associated schema or having to possess any knowledge
of any special theory behind the design. 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.
A good legal XML schema must encapsulate knowledge in one
self-contained document without fragmentation in the logical schema of a
database or document processing application. This preserves a document’s
neutrality with respect to applications, platforms, and technological developments.
It also keeps intact the expressive power of the legal knowledge contained in
the document so that the document can move freely throughout the network.
The first important point is the explicit and complete
separation between the role of authors (deciding and writing the actual content
in terms of sentences, words, and punctuation) and of editors (deciding and
organizing the final layout and publication of the document). We often say that
the author has created the content and the editors have created the metadata.
Another way to put it is that the author is the creator of the FRBR Expression,
and the editors are the creators of the FRBR Manifestation.
In the field of legal publishing, the author often is an
abstract concept (e.g., the legislator), whose content is the result of a
formal action (e.g., a final vote of approval for a highly discussed text),
while editors may may be involved at all stages of the publication process. In
this regard, the identification of what constitutes the content and what is an
editorial addition is in many cases subtle and difficult to establish. A rule
of thumb is to try to determine the state of the document at the moment it left
the hands of the author and was taken in by the editors. For instance, even the
publication of the document on the official gazette does not determine clearly
the “official” content. Some published data (such as, for instance, the number
of the gazette itself) were not in the hand of the official authors and as such
should be considered metadata and not content.
This basic distinction generates, on the other hand, a few
secondary reflections that need to be discussed briefly.
Many types of legal documents have a “more important” form
of publication than others. We will call this the authoritative (or official)
form. More often than not, this is a version of the document printed on paper
and published within official channels (e.g., the official gazette) after a
number of well-known and highly controlled editorial steps. All conversions
into electronic formats, by their very nature, have an authoritative status
that is of lesser authoritativeness than the official form. Any doubt arising about
the correctness of its content should therefore be redeemed by comparing the
content of the electronic format with that of the authoritative form, which
remains the guarantee of the authorial intention.
Markup is the act of adding annotation and labels to the
fragments of a document in order to allow computer-based processes to be
carried out (from publication to print to storage to technical analysis, etc.).
The markup process is the process of actually adding these
annotations and labels to the original text according to a specific syntax that
is dictated by the computer environment (in the case of Akoma Ntoso, this means
adding XML tags around the text fragments that have been identified and
classified).
Of course this means adding to the original content, and in
this sense, according to the definitions above, it has to be considered an
editorial process and not an authorial process.
Akoma Ntoso defines a series of rules for giving a name (technically,
a URI) to all the electronic versions of the legislative documents -the Akoma
Ntoso naming convention. For these electronic versions to work correctly within
the applications that make use of the Akoma Ntoso standards, it is necessary
that the URIs are correctly determined. Since these URIs, although in many ways
derived from them, do not look absolutely like the “official” or the “most
used” names for these documents, they are defined by the creators of the XML
representation, and as such are editorial in nature. Nonetheless, it is of the
uttermost importance that they are created correctly and precisely according to
the Akoma Ntoso naming convention.
Editors (i.e., the creators of the FRBR Manifestation) have
two main tasks in the production process of Akoma Ntoso documents: on the one
hand to identify and label (i.e., mark up) the fragments of the original
content according to their role and structure, and on the other, to provide
additional information about the document itself that is not contained in the
official text as created by the original author.
Collectively, this additional information is called
metadata. Since these are metadata elements, and since they are added at markup
time, their specification is an editorial process, and not an authorial
process, and come under the responsibility of the creator of the markup.
Another pillar of Akoma Ntoso is that it is both descriptive
and prescriptive. By descriptive we mean a standard that accurately describes
with tags the document’s various organizational functions (articles, chapters,
sections, headers, etc.), allowing an expert to read the document under the
guidance of the vocabulary used to enclose the text into sections.
A standard is descriptive when it uses a vocabulary of tags
representing the domain where it should be applied. The tags are selected by
domain experts, not by computer technicians, so that the tags enable the markup
to convey the true semantic meaning they contain.
A standard is prescriptive when it defines the tags’
coercive behavioral rules, thus determining not only the vocabulary but also
how it should be applied. In legal drafting, we usually deal with codes of
rules that define behaviors and conventions for the correct formation of laws:
in a prescriptive XML standard, these rules can be translated into technical
delimitations included in the standard itself to facilitate compliance with the
rules of legal drafting. For example, an XML document consisting of articles
could be set-up in such a way that articles will always have a unique number;
i.e. paragraphs are sequentially numbered and the structure is hierarchical.
Otherwise, the XML document will not be standard-compliant; hence it will not
be valid.
For example, a legislative official can open an XML document
marked in Akoma Ntoso and, without knowing anything about XML, guess the
function of each of the document’s parts that are referred to with tag names
which matter to the expert and not to the computer technician. On the other
hand, other standards have chosen to use technical terminology and vocabulary
where the item is not enclosed within tags such as <article>,
but are enclosed within more neutral terms such as <paragraph>
or <block>.
Secondly, Akoma Ntoso uses its own schema to provide a set
of rules for good regulations requiring a minimum set of quality links (e.g.,
numbering the articles). Thanks to this feature, tools can verify the correct
composition of legislative text.
Akoma Ntoso maintains four levels - clearly and strongly
separated for the representation and description of legal documents:
·
Content: what exactly was written in the document (e.g. the
text);
·
Structure: how the content is organized (e.g. articles, chapters,
etc.);
·
Semantics: the conceptual framework of knowledge needed to
understand the document (e.g. for understanding what is the <def> you
need to know what is a definition in the juridical domain and to combine the
term to an ontological class);
·
Presentation: the typographical choices to present a document on
screen or on paper (e.g. right aligned, bold, italic).
Contrary to other XML-schemas, Akoma Ntoso separates the
levels for maintaining the independence of the content from the semantic and
from the presentation. In this way it is possible to semantically annotate the
same content fragment several times without forcing the user to mark-up the
document again. The same principle applies to the presentation: using the class
attribute it is possible to define the semantic approach to the presentation,
but the values of those parameters are defined externally to the XML file. This
permits changing the layout several times without intervening on the physical
XML document. Using XSLT and CSS it is possible to assign a proper presentation
to a defined class. For example if we have <title class="bigger right
italic bold"> it is possible to define the main characteristics of
presentation of the content <title>, but the specific values of these
parameters are defined in a CSS (e.g. bigger means size 14, right means on
right aligned, and so). When a media needs to have a different presentation
only the CSS is properly adapted to the new needs.
A critical characteristic of a successful XML model is its
ability to evolve over time. This “evolvability” has been a key concern in the
creation of the Akoma Ntoso model. Thus, although the language is built to
change over time, the language can be customized at will for local needs and
purposes, and still be made compatible with the overall Akoma Ntoso
infrastructure and the general language.
Furthermore, the language is built to withstand changes even
regarding the number of actual functions provided: features such as the number
and type of metadata values, or the automatic generation of amended text, or
the activation of special analysis tools on the text that may require the
language to evolve in time. In these cases, it can be guaranteed that existing
documents already marked up according to initial versions of Akoma Ntoso will
be either immediately compatible with the new schemas, or easily convertible to
it via a single XSLT stylesheet that is provided.
As we have seen, the seven document types differ mainly in
the way the “main content” of the document is structured. In the table below we
describe the main characteristics of the structure of the “main content” part
of the different document types.
|
Document type
|
Akoma Ntoso
main element
|
Description
|
|
bill/act
|
<body>
|
The body is used for bills and acts and presents an
explicit hierarchy of parts each part of which can be identified with a
meaningful name (such as section, tome, etc.) and possibly provided with
numbers and various types of headings.
Akoma Ntoso provides a large number of names for these
parts (title, book, tome, part, chapter, section, paragraph, article, clause,
division, list, subtitle, subpart, subchapter, subsection, subparagraph,
subclause, sublist, point, indent, alinea). Some legislative traditions may
use names which may not match the part names specified above – for such use
cases a generic container called an'hcontainer' (i.e. hierarchical container)
is provided which can be identified with a name and supports the same
hierarchical structures provided by the named parts.
|
|
debate record
|
<debateBody>
|
The debateBody contain a hierarchy of subdivisions at the
bottom of which can be specified blocks of text or individual utterances of
individuals participating in the debate, as well as comments from the
drafters.
Subdivisions are explicitly listed (administrationOfOath,
declarationOfVote, communication, petitions, papers, noticesOfMotion,
questions, address, proceduralMotions, pointOfOrder, adjournment, rollCall,
prayers, oralStatements, writtenStatements, personalStatements,
ministerialStatements, resolutions, nationalInterest), plus a generic element
debateSection for all unnamed subdivisions and all those subdivision whose
appropriate name is not listed here.
Within debateSection, individual text structures can be
marked up with one of eight containers, speechGroup, speech, question,
answer, scene, narrative, summary, and other.
It is worth noting that those containers that refer to actual
utterances (i.e. speech, question, answer) have a peculiar structure which
imposes the identification of a speaker through the from element (which is
displayed on the print version of the document) plus references to
individuals and roles expressed through the by, as, and to attributes,
specifying, respectively, the id of the individual uttering the speech, the
role (if any) the individual is assuming when uttering the speech, and the addressee
(if any) of the speech.
For this reason these elements are enriched with special
attributes:
by: who is the speaker; as: the role of the speaker; to:
who is the addresser of the speech.
<question
by="#Smith" to="#deputyPresident"
as="#member">
|
|
judgment
|
<judgmentBody>
|
The judgementBody contains four sections (introduction,
background, motivation, and decision - the standard does not mandate an
order), that need to be present one or more times as needed. These sections
may contain basically any kind of substructure (containers, blocks,
hierarchical elements, etc.).
|
|
document,
debateReport, statement
|
<mainBody>
|
The mainContent element of an open structure is a generic
collector of all preceding structural elements in any order and number.
This kind of open structure is meant for collecting and
marking up those document types whose structure is too varied, or too
different from the norm, or not well standardized, or too full of exceptions
to be worth describing explicitly.
|
|
collections
|
<collectionBody>
|
The collectionContent is used for including multiple
documents that maintain their autonomy, but can be managed as a unique
container. It is thus possible to compose an issue of the Official Gazette as
a conjunction of several acts. The same for the Amendment List document
composed by a set of separate amendment documents.
This structure permits two different approaches:
1 to include directly
in the collectionBody element the other documents (bill, doc, debate, act,
etc.);
2 to include in the
collectionBody element references to the documents using the element
<documentRef>. The documentRef include the attribute href that
specifies the URI/IRI of the document. It is possible to describe the cited
document in the same file inside of the element <component> or to link
an external file using the URI/IRI convention.
<documentRef eId="dRef_1"
href="#bill" showAs="bill"/>
It is possible to have some description or introductory
sentences between each document. For this purpose we have the <interstitial>
element.
|
|
amendment
|
<amendmentBody>
|
This element includes the body of the amendment that is
composed by several important parts: amendmentHeading, amendmentContent,
amendmentReference, and amendmentJustification.
|
|
portion
|
<portionBody>
|
This element permits including a portion of any other
document.
|
The document structures of Akoma Ntoso (bill/act, debate,
debateReport, judgment , amendment, statement, and document) have the same
external organization: a place for metadata elements, a cover page, a place for
the introductory matters (e.g. preface/ preamble or header for Judgments), the
main content part of the document (which is different in the four structures),
a place for conclusive remarks, and lastly, a place for listing the attachments
if any. The table below describes briefly the “text sequence” and their parts:
|
Text sequence
|
Akoma Ntoso
<elements>
|
Description
|
|
cover page
|
<coverPage>
|
Information intrinsic to the document such
as: name of the publisher, serial number, issuing authority, number of
committee, number of legislature, number of the session, etc.
|
|
information on the document
|
<metadata>
|
Information on the document that qualifies
and classifies the text as a whole or each fragment. An example is the
keywords for assigning the topic to the document (e.g. privacy, commercial
law, etc.)
|
|
introductory text
|
<preface> / <header>
|
Information related to the title of the
document, the proponent authority, the identification numbers, the date of
approval. In other word, the essential information for citing the document.
It also contain, sometime, long title,
table of contents.
|
|
justificatory text
|
<preamble> that
can includes <formula>
<recitals> and <citations>
|
The introductory part of a document
stating its purpose, aims, and justification.
Introduction, motivations, purposes, legal
basis of a document, in formula, recitals and citations. Formula describes
the enacting sentences that, in many legal traditions, are regular and fixed
linguistic expressions.
Recitals block includes motivations and
justifications of the legal document.
Citations block includes references to
other legal documents that are fundamental for the current text : legal
basis, preparatory acts as well as the legislative procedure.
|
|
main content
|
<body>: for bill/act
<debateBody>: for
debate record
<judgmentBody>: for
judgments
<mainBody>: for
open structure and for the debate report
<amendmentBody>: for
the amendment
<collectionBody>: for
the collection documents
<portionBody>: for
the portion of document
|
The main part of the document, the part
that is prescriptive or states a declaration (enacting terms). The text is
characterized by a structural complexity that can vary depending on the
document’s typology and purpose.
|
|
conclusions
|
<conclusions>
|
Part in which we may find closing formulas
date and signature.
|
|
authorial notes
|
<authorialNote>
|
Part dedicated to include the authorial
notes added by the author of the document.
|
|
attachments
|
<attachments>
|
Documents can also include attachments with
the precise functionality of completing and integrating the information of
the main text.
Attachments can be an annex (informative or
technical data which, for practical reasons, does not appear in the body).
Attachments can also be another act or
international agreement that is approved by this act. Those documents are not
annexed but attached to the act that approves them.
|
All elements in this schema fall under one of five content
models: hierarchical container, container, block, inline and marker. Besides
named elements, the schema also provides for a generic element for each of them
that can be used for markup and that fits the content models but can be
specified by a precise name that is not used in this schema. The 'name'
attribute must be used for naming the element. The attribute name is required
and gives a name to the element.
|
hcontainer
|
The hcontainer element is a generic element for a
hierarchical container. It can be placed in a hierarchy instead of any of the
other hierarchical containers. The attribute name is required and gives a
name to the element.
|
|
container
|
The container element is a generic element for a
container. It includes elements belonging to the block pattern.
|
|
block
|
The block element is a generic element for a container. It
can be placed in a container instead of any of the other blocks. The
attribute name is required and gives a name to the element.
|
|
tblock
|
The tblock element (titled block) is used
to specify a container for blocks introduced by heading elements, similarly
to a hierarchical structure
|
|
inline
|
The inline element is a generic element for an inline. It
can be placed inside a block instead of any of the other inlines. The
attribute name is required and gives a name to the element
|
|
marker
|
The marker element is a generic element for a marker. It
can be placed in a block instead of any of the other markers. The attribute
name is required and gives a name to the element.
|
Akoma Ntoso uses some elements from HTML with similar
meaning. For this reason they are reused inside of Akoma Ntoso avoiding
inventing new vocabulary. Sometime the semantic are identical (e.g. span) and
otherwise it is different (e.g. div).
|
Name of the element
|
Group in Akoma Ntoso
|
Description
|
|
div
|
HTMLcontainers
|
The element div is an HTML element, but is NOT used in
Akoma Ntoso as in HTML. Instead of being used as a generic block, Akoma Ntoso
uses div as a generic container (as in common practice).
The div is used any time you need to define a container
not included in the regular vocabulary.
<div eId="div_1"
class="alignedRight"><p>Address: av.
Smith</p><p>Name: mr. Brown</p></div>
|
|
p
|
HTMLblock
|
The element p is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for the generic paragraph of text (a block)
|
|
ul/ol
|
HTMLblock
|
The elements ul/ol are HTML element for defining
unnumbered or numbered list.
|
|
li
|
HTMLblock
|
The element li is an HTML item of ul or ol.
|
|
table
|
HTMLblock
|
The element table is HTML element for defining a table.
|
|
th/tr/td/caption
|
HTMLblock
|
The elements th/tr/td/caption are HTML elements of the
table.
|
|
span
|
HTMLinline
|
The element span is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for the generic inline.
|
|
b
|
HTMLinline
|
The element b is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for indicating bold style.
|
|
i
|
HTMLinline
|
The element i is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for indicating italic style.
|
|
a
|
HTMLinline
|
The element a is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for indicating a link to hypertext resources.
|
|
u
|
HTMLinline
|
The element u is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for indicating underline style.
|
|
sub
|
HTMLinline
|
The element sub is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for indicating text as subscripts.
|
|
sup
|
HTMLinline
|
The element sup is an HTML element and is used in Akoma
Ntoso as in HTML, for indicating text as superscripts.
|
|
abbr
|
HTMLinline
|
Sometime the act is named with an abbreviation. Akoma
Ntoso manages abbreviation using HTML element abbr (e.g. FOIA for the
"Freedom of Information Act").
|
|
br
|
HTMLmarker
|
It is the line break used in the HTML definition.
|
|
img
|
HTMLmarker
|
It is used as pointer for declaring the position where to
embed an image in the XML manifestation.
|
Other elements inline are shared by all the type of
documents:
|
date
|
The date element permits
marking up any date in the text and associating a particular meaning using
the refersTo attribute.
<date
date="2013-04-04" refersTo="#signatureDate">four April
2013</date>
or to specify the time and
zone
<date
date="2013-04-04T12:00:00"
refersTo="#signatureDate">four April 2013</date>
The
attribute date is used to give a normalized value for a date according to the
XSD syntax YYYY-MM-DD or a normalized value for a dateTime according to the
XSD syntax YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss(zzzz)
|
|
time
|
The time element is an inline element to identify a time
expressed in the text and to propose a normalized representation in the time
attribute
|
|
person
|
The person element is an inline element to identify a
person expressed in the text and connect he/she to the ontological class
|
|
organization
|
The organization element is an inline element to identify
an organization expressed in the text and connect it to the ontological class
|
|
concept
|
The concept element is an inline element to identify a
concept expressed in the text and connect it to the ontological class
|
|
object
|
The object element is an inline element to identify an
object expressed in the text and to connect it to the ontological class
|
|
event
|
The event element is an inline element to identify an
event (e.g. Thanksgiving Day, Royal Assent) expressed in the text and to
connect it to the ontological class
|
|
location
|
The location element is an inline element to identify a
location (e.g. Montevideo, Senate Palace) expressed in the text and connect
it to the ontological class
|
|
process
|
The process element is an inline element to identify a
process (e.g. voting of the bill) expressed in the text and to connect it to
the ontological class
|
|
role
|
The role element is an inline element to identify a role
(e.g. member of assembly, secretary, president, judge, solicitor, etc.)
expressed in the text and connect it to the ontological class
|
|
term
|
The term element is an inline element to identify a term
(e.g. privacy, IPR, etc.) expressed in the text and to connect it to the
ontological class
|
|
quantity
|
The quantity element quantity is an inline element to
identify a quantity (e.g. 20 attendees, IPR, etc.) expressed in the text and
to connect it to the ontological class
|
|
def
|
The def element is an inline element to identify a
definition (e.g. “stalking” is defined as.....) expressed in the text and to
connect it to the ontological class
|
|
entity
|
The entity element is an inline element to identify a
entity expressed in the text and to connect it to the ontological class
|
By definition, all metadata is editorial in nature, it is
not content, but statements about the content, and as such it is, in its
entirety, the responsibility of the editor who marks up the document to provide
them. So metadata are editorial additions, they are information and
values that are not in the original content of the document and that are
added to improve comprehension and classification of the document and are
essential to make a document “machine readable” since they are meant to
provide, together with the markup the understanding and legal knowledge of the
documents that “machine” can then use to “read/understand” the document.
Metadata are a way to provide an interpretation of a set of
information embedded into the document (objective interpretation) - e.g.
date of publication - or as an intellectual elaboration of the text (subjective
interpretation) - e.g. incomplete references. Even if, as a user, you will
never see any of the tags or the actual metadata section, it is important to
understand its articulation and what scope it serves so that its role can
better be appreciated.
At the metadata level Akoma Ntoso provides the
necessary mechanisms for annotating the text with enriched data collected in;
·
a separate block (metadata section) or
·
in place in the text (inline elements).
The Akoma Ntoso metadata section provides a separate place
for enriching a document with metadata, a place that is clearly identified as
such and is dated and authored differently than the content of the text itself.
The metadata elements of Akoma Ntoso are organized in a
block called <meta> and inside we find few main sections:
|
identification:
|
containing
all relevant facts about document, dates and authors.
This
block also includes translation information when the document is derived by
other languages and properties such as the prescriptiveness of the document
and the authoritativeness.
|
|
publication:
|
publication
metadata
|
|
classification:
|
keyword
classification
|
|
lifecycle:
|
list
of the events that modify the document.
|
|
workflow:
|
list
of the procedural steps necessary for delivery of the document or that have
some role in the legislative process.
|
|
analysis:
|
list
of the qualification of the provisions and assertions on the text.
|
|
temporalData
|
list
of temporal parameters as a set of events (e.g. time intervals of enter into
force and time of efficacy).
|
|
references:
|
list
of the external resources connected with the document as well as of all
individuals, organizations, and concepts that are relevant to understanding
the content and the history of the document.
|
|
notes:
|
annotations
inserted by the editor or by the author to explain and detail the text
content of the document
|
|
proprietary:
|
local
and proprietary metadata
|
|
presentation
|
specifications
of metadata useful for assisting with the document rendering.
|
Akoma Ntoso, unlike everyday language, describes documents
according to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)
model, a standard nomenclature by IFLA (International Federation of
Bibliographic Associations). FRBR is a conceptual entity-relationship model
that relates user tasks of retrieval and access in online library catalogues
and bibliographic databases from a user’s perspective. It represents a more
holistic approach to retrieval and access as the relationships between the
entities provide links to navigate through the hierarchy of relationships.
Since the most important concepts in Akoma Ntoso are
connected to documents, the main part of this section is devoted to detailing
the URIs of document-related concepts, and in particular Works, Expressions,
and Manifestations. Items are, by definition, outside of the scope of this
standard, and are only briefly described. The final part of the section provides
a URI-based naming mechanism for non-document entities (as well as for document
entities when they are handled in a similar way to non-document entities).
All documents at all levels can be composed of sub-elements,
that when combined form the whole document. These are called components and
abstractly represent the notion that several independent subdocuments form the
whole document as it appears to the reader (i.e., a main body possibly followed
by a number of attachments such as schedules and tables):
WorkComponents (e.g., main, schedule, table, etc) - the
WorkComponents are abstract entities that can be referenced to refer to
different ExpressionComponents in time.
ExpressionComponent (e.g., main, schedule, table, etc.) -
the ExpressionComponents represent the visible division of the document as
generated by the content author (Parliament, etc.)
ManifestationComponent (e.g., xml files, PDF files, TIFF
images, etc.) - the ManifestationComponents represent the division of the
document as generated by the manifestation author (e.g., the XML editor).
ItemComponent - the actual files corresponding to the
ManifestationComponents.
Other concepts dealt by the Akoma Ntoso ontology also derive
from the IFLA FRBR ontology, and include but are not limited to individuals
(Person), organizations (Corporate Body), actions and occurrences (Event),
locations (Place), ideas (Concept) and physical objects (Object). The full list
of such concepts is provided in section 8.8.
The scope of the naming convention is to identify in a
unique way all Akoma Ntoso concepts and resources on the network and in general
all collections thereof. Some principles and characteristics should be
respected in the naming convention:
·
MEANINGFULNESS: the name is a meaningful and logical description
of the resource and not of its physical path
·
PERMANENCE: the name must be permanent and stable over time
·
INVARIANCE: the name must derive from invariant properties of the
resource so as to provide some degree of certainty in obtaining the same name
for the same resource regardless of process, tool and person.
·
FRBR concepts are used differently when taking about documents in
a variety of situations. In each cases it is important to use the URI/IRI for
the correct FRBR level of document. We describe here a few particularly
frequent situations:
1. Legislative references will most
probably refer to WORKs: acts referring to other acts do so regardless of the
actual version, and references must be to something independent of all possible
expressions, e.g., to the work.
2. The list of attachments and
schedules belong to a specific EXPRESSION., so references to
ExpressionComponents is specific of the expression level.
3. Yet the specific Manifestation
that is the Akoma Ntoso XML format uses an XML-based syntax to refer to
ExpressionComponents, and associate them to the corresponding
ManifestationComponents containing the appropriate content. Therefore within
XML files the URI/IRI of the Manifestation must be used to refer to all
components, including the main document, all attachments and all schedules.
4. Multimedia fragments within an
XML manifestation (e.g., a drawing, a schema, a map, etc.) do not exist as
independent ExpressionComponents, as they are only a part of some
ExpressionComponents (even when they are the only part). In fact they are only
ManifestationComponents, and as such are referred to in object and img elements
with the appropriate ManifestationComponents URI. Even if the same multimedia
content appears in different parts of the content of a Manifestation, each
instance of that content must correspond to a different ManifestationComponent,
and must be considered independently of the other.
5. It is an Item-level decision,
once ascertained that the content is exactly identical, to provide space-saving
policies by storing only one copy of the multimedia content. This Item-level
decision has no impact on references and names, which are still individually
different from each other.
6. Non-document concepts are
referred to within the metadata and content of Akoma Ntoso documents.
References are always performed in two steps: the first step ties the reference
point in the document to an item in the Reference section using internal (and
not standardized) IDs; the second step ties the item in the reference section
to the actual concept through the URI/IRI of the concept as specified in this
document.
The FRBR model offers an excellent framework to deal with
legal texts. In legal domain, we’ve a lot of derivations due to the constant
amendments of normative acts.
FRBR identifies four different abstractions about documents
that are carefully and clearly differentiated and that relate to each other:
|
|
Bibliographical
context
|
Legal
Context
|
|
work
|
“Work”
is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation at the conceptual level.
Qualifying
characteristics: identity
e.g.
Hamlet = work
Regardless
of versions, variants, revisions, data formats and location. Even if a “Work”
is translated in different languages that have no words in common with the
original, it is still the same document, the same “work”.
|
“Work”
refers to the original “content” of the legal document.
For
examples, the abstract concept of the legal resource;
e.g.
act 3 of 2005)
|
|
expression
|
“Expression”
is the specific intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it
is ‘realized.
Qualifying
characteristics: content
e.g.
Hamlet original version book = expression or Hamlet original
version video = expression
All
different editions of the same version of the document, all the different
data format in which the content of a document can be expressed, all are
unified by the fact that they express the same actual content.
|
“Expression”
refers to “form” of the legal document.
For
examples, any version of the “work” whose content is specified and different
from others for any reason: language, versions, etc.;
e.g.
act 3 of 2005 as in the version following the amendments entered into force
on July 3rd, 2006
|
|
manifestation
|
“Manifestation”
is the physical embodiment of an “expression” of a “work”. It is a specific
form that the document assumes once it takes a concrete representation.
Qualifying
characteristics: data format
e.g.
Hamlet original version book – hardback version
or
Hamlet original version video DVD version
For
physical documents, it could be a specific edition as published in a specific
choice of paper, binding, typographical characteristics, etc. For electronic
documents, it is the choice of a specific data format, process method, and so
on.
|
“Manifestation”
refers to the realization of the
publishing
work either on paper or in any electronic format.
For
examples, any electronic or physical format of the “expression” MS Word, Open
Office, XML, TIFF, PDF, etc.;
e.g.
PDF version of act 3 of 2005 as in the version following the amendments
entered into force on July 3rd, 2006.
|
|
item
|
“Item”
is one physical copy of a document in a concrete form of a “manifestation” of
an “expression” of a “work”.
Qualifying
characteristics: location
e.g.
Hamlet original version book – hardback version of the Shakespeare Library,
London
It
could be an individual volume in a bookshelf, or a specific file in a
specific directory of a specific computer.
Qualifying
Characteristic: positions or address
|
“Item”
refers to a univocally identified exemplar of a certain manifestation.
For
examples, the physical copy of any manifestation in the form of a file stored
somewhere in some computer on the net or disconnected;
e.g.
the file called act32005.pdf on my computer containing a PDF representation
of act 3, 2005
|
Akoma Ntoso makes careful use of the FRBR hierarchy of
document definitions: a legal document (such as an act), which may assume
different content after being revised and amended throughout its useful life,
is nonetheless a single work - which gets multiple expressions whenever some
specific content is generated (for instance, through an amendment). Each of
these expressions has the chance of then being expressed in some electronic
form (as a PDF document, or an HTML document, or, in our case, as a specific
XML document using vocabulary and grammar from the Akoma Ntoso markup language)
thereby generating at least one manifestation. Each physical file where the
manifestation is located is therefore an item.
Besides the FRBR levels, an identifier must conform to the
URI/IRI syntax and the Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention. While defining a URI/IRI
it is important to define
1. the country,
2. the type of the
document,
3. the date of the
document and, where applicable, also the version,
4. the main language,
and also
5. the different parts
like annexes, exhibits, table, etc.
In fact, all documents at all levels of the FRBR
classification be composed of sub-elements, that when combined form the whole
document. These are called components, they abstractly represent the notion
that several independent subdocuments form the whole document as it appears to
the reader (i.e., a main body possibly followed by a number of attachments such
as schedules and tables).
It is important, during the URI/IRI identification, to
analyse the structure of the parts of a document in order to separate the
logical organization coming from the author (parliament, judge) from the
physical organization of the content usually decided by some technical
criteria. In other words the work URI/IRI should reflect the original logical
structure as organized by the author for preserving over time the original
forms and hierarchy of the annexes or of the other material composing the full
document. The physical organization can follow different criteria connected to
the application purposes or technical choices. So we can find in the URI/IRI of
the Work three components but in the Manifestation we can find a unique URI/IRI
component for managing document in any easier way.
The Akoma Ntoso language allows names for documents that are
free of restrictions and can be used everywhere (except in the markup of
references) instead of the corresponding URIs. These names (called aliases in
the Akoma Ntoso language) can be specified to record “well-known” natural
language names for the document, as well as shortened names or even acronyms
commonly used to refer to a document, see in the example below.
|
identification
|
<identification
source="#oasis">
|
|
Work
Act
n. 10 of 22 November 2011.
It
is created on the same date by the parliament (author)
The
Work is composed by two parts: main document and one annex
|
<FRBRWork>
<FRBRthis
value="/akn/un/act/2011-11-22/10/main"/>
<FRBRuri
value="/akn/un/act/2011-11-22/10"/>
<FRBRalias name=”long name”
value=”Business Development Act no.10 of 22 November 2011”/>
<FRBRdate date="2011-11-22"
name="Generation"/>
<FRBRauthor
href="#parliament" as="#author"/>
<componentInfo>
<componentData eId="wmain" href="#emain"
name="main"
showAs="Main document"/>
<componentData eId="wannex" href="#eannex"
name="annex"
showAs="Provisions as to the conduct of business of the
board"/>
</componentInfo>
<FRBRcountry
value="us"/>
<FRBRnumber
value="395-2010"/>
<FRBRname
value="bill"/>
<FRBRprescriptive
value="true"/>
<FRBRauthoritative
value="true"/>
</FRBRWork>
|
|
Expression
Version
in force at 19 December 2003.
The
date of creation by a legal expert. 15 January 2012
The
author is the parliament. This means version officially approved.
|
<FRBRExpression>
<FRBRthis
value="/akn/un/act/2011-11-22/10/eng@2003-12-19/main"/>
<FRBRuri
value="/akn/un/act/2011-11-22/10/eng@2003-12-19"/>
<FRBRdate date="2012-01-15"
name="Generation"/>
<FRBRauthor
href="#palmirani" as="#editor"/>
<componentInfo>
<componentData eId="emain" href="#mmain"
name="main"
showAs="Main document"/>
<componentData eId="eannex" href="#mannex"
name="schedule"
showAs="Provisions as to the conduct of business of the
board"/>
</componentInfo>
<FRBRauthoritative
value="true"/>
<FRBRlanguage
language="eng"/>
</FRBRExpression>
|
|
Manifestation
The
date of creation is when the editor marks up the document: 2012-01-30.
|
<FRBRManifestation>
<FRBRthis value="/akn/un/act/2011-11-22/10/eng@2003-12-19/main.xml"/>
<FRBRuri
value="/akn/un/act/2011-11-22/10/eng@2003-12-19.akn"/>
<FRBRdate date="2012-01-30"
name="Generation"/>
<FRBRauthor
href="#palmirani" as="#editor"/>
<FRBRauthor href="#vitali"
as="#editor"/>
<componentInfo>
<componentData eId="mmain"
href="main.xml" name="main"
showAs="Main document"/>
<componentData eId="mannex"
href="annex.xml"
name="annex" showAs="Provisions as to the conduct of
business of the board"/>
</componentInfo>
<FRBRformat value="xml"/>
</FRBRManifestation>
|
|
|
|
The expression also includes metadata for capturing the
linguistic aspects. In particular FRBRlanguage and FRBRtranslation permit to creating a relationship among
expressions that are the outcome of a translation process. The following
example shows that the current document is a translation made by the Paliament
(by) from Swahili (fromLanguage), to English (FRBRlanguage), passing through
French (pivot).
<FRBRlanguage
language="eng"/>
<FRBRtranslation
href="/ke/act/1997-08-22/3/swa@" fromLanguage="swa"
by="#parliament" pivot="fra"/>
|
The element preservation is the FRBR metadata property
containing an arbitrary list of elements detailing the preservation actions
taken for the document is the respective level of the FRBR hierarchy. It is
fundamental for permitting to understand at each level (work, expression,
manifestation). The example below shows the US Government Printing Office
package in MODS representation embedded inside of the Akoma Ntoso
FRBRManifestation block.
|
<preservation>
<mods
ID="P0b002ee183eb812a" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<name
type="corporate">
<namePart>United
States Government Printing Office</namePart>
</name>
<name
type="corporate">
<namePart>United
States</namePart>
<namePart>Congress</namePart>
<description>Government
Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre
authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>H.
RES. 3 (EH) - Engrossed in House</title>
</titleInfo>
<physicalDescription>
<note
type="source content type">deposited</note>
<digitalOrigin>born
digital</digitalOrigin>
<extent>1
p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
</mods>
</preservation>
|
The publication is a part of the meta block and captures the
metadata concerning the publication process. The name of the source (Official
Journal), the date (in normal format), the label for the presentation (showAs),
the number of the source of publication (number). The publication is mandatory for
the act type but not for the bill type of document.
|
publication
|
<publication name="Official Journal"
date="1980-01-01" showAs="Official Journal of UN"
number="234"/>
|
The classification section is dedicated to assigning
keywords to the document or fragment of the document, on the base of the topic
treated in the legal content. The content of the keyword is stored in the
attribute value, the dictionary attribute stores the name of the vocabulary
used. It is possible to use a different vocabulary and to use href for
connecting the keyword to the fragment of the document (e.g., art_15).
|
classification
|
<classification
source="#oasis">
<keyword value="humanRight" showAs="Human Right"
dictionary="EuroVOC"/>
<keyword value="familyLaw" showAs="Family Law"
dictionary="EuroVOC" href="#art_15"/>
</classification>
|
The lifecycle lists all the events that are involved within
the chain of modifications of the document. These events modify the expression.
|
lifecycle
|
<lifecycle
source="#oasis">
<eventRef
eId="eventRef_1" date="1997-08-29" source="#ro_1"
type="generation"/>
<eventRef
eId="eventRef_2" date="2003-12-19" source="#rp_1"
type="amendment"/>
</lifecycle>
|
The workflow blocks lists the events that are involved with the
legislative or judiciary or parliament process. A workflow step does not
necessarily change the expression. However, when a new expression occurs, we
record all the workflow steps connected to it. The following example lists
three workflow steps: firstReading, secondReading, thirdReading. In this case,
the firstReading did not modify the expression. The secondReading and the
thirdReading are connected to their correspondent expression by href
(ke/bill/1345/eng@1979-06-13/main – bill URI). We notice that the proprietary
tags include local specifications that support the workflow management system
import/export of the data.
|
workflow
|
<workflow source="#editor">
<step date="2005-01-01"
as="#legislator" href="/uk/bill/1345/eng@2004-12-15/main"
eId="step_1" outcome="#firstReading"
actor="#parliament">
<myTags:proprietary
xmlns:myTags="http://myTags.xsd" source="#editor">
<myWorkFlowTags />
</myTags:proprietary>
</step>
<step date="2005-04-01"
as="#legislator" href="/uk/bill/1345/eng@2005-04-01/main"
eId="step_2" outcome="#secondReading"
actor="#parliament" />
</workflow>
|
The block Analysis includes all the
juridical metadata coming from a specific interpretation of the legal source. The
Analysis block describes information concerning modifications, restrictions of
the normative effects e.g. by jurisdiction limitation, judgment result,
qualification of the judgment’s citations, parliamentary voting, mapping
history concerning the original wId and the current eId.
|
activeModifications:
|
Block
of metadata for managing the modifications made by the current document to
another document.
|
|
passiveModifications:
|
Block of metadata for managing the modifications arrived
to the current document.
|
|
restrictions:
|
Block of metadata for managing the limitation of the
normative effect, in particular this block permits defining the jurisdiction
restrictions.
|
|
judicial:
|
Block
of metadata for managing the judiciary metadata such as the qualification of
the case-law references and the result of the decision.
|
|
parliamentary:
|
Block
of metadata for managing the parliamentary metadata such as the quorum
information, the voting results, and the recall data.
|
|
mappings:
|
Block
of metadata for managing the changes of ids when a renumbering occurs and also
whenever this expression is not the master expression of the document (e.g.
linguistic variants with different numbering of the partitions imposed by the
translation process).
|
|
otherAnalysis
|
Any
other proprietary metadata.
|
In all of the
document types it is possible to model the modificatory
provisions. Especially in the amendment (official document for proposing
modifications to a bill), bill, act, debate (e.g. oral amendment) and doc (e.g.
veto of the executive) the modificatory provision is a legal normative
statement that disposes modifications to another legal document. In the legal
text we model the textual elements (e.g. quotedText, quotedStructure, ref,
etc.) and in the meta block activeModification we provide the semantic information
like: source of modification, destination of the modification, position where
to apply the modification in the destination, action of the modification,
temporal parameters, conditions or limitation of the modification, other
peculiar parameters for managing special modifications (e.g. renumbering).
The following table provides some examples
of textual modifications: repeal, substitution, insertion, split, join,
renumbering.
<textualMod>: it provides the type of
modification to apply. The attribute @incomplete permits specifying the incompleteness of the information for applying in an automatic manner the modification action (e.g. lack of precision
concerning the destination). The attribute @exclusion (values true or false) is
a boolean data that indicates applying the modification
in a negative manner (e.g. repeal all the articles
excluding the present list).
<source>: it provides the idRef to
the fragment or portion of the legal text where the modification is expressed;
<destination>: it provides the IRI
where the modification should be applied. @pos in the destination element
permits specifying some information concerning the
precise location where to apply the modification: after, before, end, start,
inside, unspecified.
<old>: it provides the idRef of the
quotedText or quotedStructure where to find the old text that should be
modified;
<new>: it provides the idRef of the
quotedText or quotedStructure where to find the new text involved in the
modifications;
<previous>:
it provides the eId of the partition affected by renumbering as located in the
structure in the previous version/expression.
|
repeal
|
<textualMod
type="repeal" eId="textualMod_1"
incomplete="true" exclusion="true">
<source href="~mod_1"/>
<destination
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18/main~art_16"/>
<old
href="~mod_1__qtext_1"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: in the bill n. 1055, at 2008-02-25 it is repealed the word
“male” (referenced to the text pointed out by the element old) except in art.
16 (the exception is expressed in the @exclusion=”true” and so also the
@incomplete=”true”).
NB. Use '~' or '#' in the reference, depending on whether you want to make a reference
to a fragment, or a query to a portion. This remark applies also
for the following examples.
|
|
substitution
|
<textualMod
type="substitution" eId="activeModifications__textualMod_2">
<source
href="~mod_1"/>
<destination
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18~art_16"/>
<old
href="~mod_1__qstr_1"/>
<new href="~mod_1__qstr_2"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: in the bill n. 1055, at 2008-02-25, art. 16, the old text
specified in mod_1_qstr_1 is substituted by the text defined in the
mod_1__qstr_2.
|
|
insertion
|
<textualMod
type="insertion" eId="activeModifications__textualMod_3">
<source
href="#mod_1"/>
<destination
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18/main#art_16"
pos="before"/>
<old
href="#mod_1__qtext_1"/>
<new
href="#mod_1__qtext_2"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: <<Insert the new text contained in #mod_1__qtext_2 in
the art. 16 before the text contained in #mod_1__qtext_1.>>
<textualMod
type="insertion" eId="activeModifications__textualMod_3">
<source
href="#mod_1"/>
<destination
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18/main#art_16"
pos="before"/>
<new
href="#mod_1__qstr_1"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: insert a new structure (mod_1__qstr_1) before the art. 16.
|
|
join
|
<textualMod
type="join" eId="activeModifications__textualMod_4">
<source href="~mod_1"/>
<destination
href="/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18~art_16__para_1"/>
<destination
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18~art_16__para_2"/>
<new
href="~mod_1__qstr_2"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: take the paragraph 1 and the paragraph 2 of the art. 16 and
join in the unique element as defined in “new” element or using other
elements permitted in the textualMod pattern. For example “new” can contain
the number of the new joined partition.
|
|
split
|
<textualMod
type="split" eId="activeModifications__textualMod_5">
<source
href="#mod_1"/>
<destination href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18/art_16__para_1"/>
<new
href="#mod_1__qstr_2"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: take the paragraph 1 and of the art. 16 and slit it following
the structure defined in “new” element or using other elements permitted in
the textualMod pattern. For example “new” can contain the number of the new
splitted partition
|
|
renumbering
|
<textualMod
type="renumbering" eId="activeModifications__textualMod_6">
<source href="~mod_1"/>
<destination
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18~art_23"/>
<previous
href=“/akn/uy/bill/camera/2008-02-25/carpeta1055-2008/esp@2009-08-18~art_16"
eId="activeModifications__textualMod_6_previous"/>
</textualMod>
The previous XML
fragment means: renumber the art. 16 in art. 23 using attribute and elements
permitted in the textualMod pattern.
|
|
|
</activeModifications>
|
The passiveModifications block records the
modifications received from other legal documents or the changes applied to the
current version of the document. The passiveModifications provides relevant
information to permit the reverse engineering of the changes applied.
|
passiveModifications
|
|
|
repeal
|
<textualMod
eId="passiveModifications__textualMod_1"
type="repeal" period="~tmpg_1">
<source
href="/akn/uy/amendment/senate/2009-09-25/34/"/>
<destination
href="~art_10__para_1__list_1__point_1"/>
<old>
<uy:text>por
el incumplimiento injustificado de las contrapartidas a que refiere el artículo
8º.</uy:text>
</old>
</textualMod>
In
this passive modification the Uruguay Parliament added a proprietary element
(uy:text) for storing the old text that is repealed in the current version of
the document.
NB. Use '~' or '#' in the reference, depending on whether you want to make a reference
to a fragment, or a query to a portion. This remark applies also
for the following examples.
|
|
substitution
|
<textualMod
eId="passiveModifications__textualMod_2"
type="substitution" period="#cmp_1__tmpg_4">
<source
href="/akn/uy/amendment/senate/2009-09-25/34/"/>
<destination
href="#cmp_1__docType_1"/>
<old>
<uy:text>TEXTO APROBADO </uy:text>
</old>
<new
href="#cmp_1__docType_1__ins_1"/>
</textualMod>
This passive
modification models the substitution of the old text in the new text, with
particular regard to the modification in the <preface> of the type of
document.
|
|
insertion
|
<textualMod
eId="passiveModifications__textualMod_3"
type="insertion" period="#tmpg_4">
<source
href="/akn/uy/amendment/senate/2009-09-25/34"/>
<destination
href="#art_7__para_3"/>
</textualMod>
Insertion of the
paragraph 3 in the new versioned document.
|
|
join
|
<textualMod
eId="passiveModifications__textualMod_4"
type="join" period="#tmpg_4">
<source
href="/akn/uy/amendment/senate/2009-09-25/34"/>
<destination
href="#art_6__para_1"/>
<old
href="/uy/bill/ejecutivo/carpeta/2005-04-04/137-2005/esp@2005-05-02T24:00:00-03:00/bill#art_6__para_2"/>
<old
href="/uy/bill/ejecutivo/carpeta/2005-04-04/137-2005/esp@2005-05-02T24:00:00-03:00/bill#art_6_para_3"/>
<new
href="#art_6__del_1"/>
</textualMod>
This fragment
models the join effect on the current document.
The destination
is the current point in the text where the join was applied.
The two old
elements provide two original partitions that are joined.
The new indicates
the point where was deleted the disjunction between the two partitions. We
use <del/> for indicating where was applied the conjunction.
|
|
split
|
<textualMod
eId="passiveModifications__textualMod_5"
type="split" period="#tmpg_3">
<source
href="/akn/uy/amendment/senate/2009-09-25/34"/>
<destination href="#art_6__ins_1"/>
<destination
href="#art_6_ins_3"/>
<old
href="#art_6__para_1"/>
<new
href="#art_6_ins_2"/>
</textualMod>
This fragment
models the result of a split modification.
Two destinations
are pointed out to the results of the split, in this case two element
<ins> that delimitates the result of the divisions.
The old
represents the partition involved by the subdivision. The new indicates where
the split is done (art_6__ins_2).
|
|
renumbering
|
<textualMod
eId="passiveModifications__textualMod_6"
type="renumbering" period="#tmpg_3">
<source
href="/akn/uy/amendment/senate/2009-09-25/34"/>
<destination
href="#art7__para_2"/>
<previous
href=“/akn/uy/bill/ejecutivo/2005-04-04/carpeta137-2005/esp@2005-05-02/bill#art7__para_3"
showAs="previous" eId="previous_1"/>
</textualMod>
This markup shows
the effect of the renumbering on the destination document. The source says
where the renumbering come from; destination says the partition affected by
the renumbering in the current document; previous describes the previous
partition expression ID.
|
<restrictions> block contains <restriction>
elements that describe jurisdiction specifications and other types of
restrictions of normative effectively. Each restriction element associates a
TLCConcept identified by a @refersTo attribute to a fragment of the document
identified by an href attribute. In the following example we have @href attribute
hosting multiple references: art. 12, art. 32, art. 56 for avoiding the
redundancy. At the moment only one type of restriction is possible, namely
jurisdiction. Other types of restrictions may be specified in future by adding
values to the new type restrictionType. This can be used to specify
jurisdiction restrictions (frequent, e.g., in UK legislation) to individual
fragments of the legislation.
|
restrictions
|
<restrictions
source="#palmirani">
<restriction
type="jurisdiction" eId="restriction_1" refersTo="#jurisdictionEnglandWales"
href="#art_12 #art_32 #art_56"/>
</restrictions>
An alternative
representation is the following:
<restrictions
source="#palmirani">
<restriction
type="juridiction" eId="restriction_1"
refersTo="#jurisdictionEnglandWales" href="#art_12/>
<restriction
type="juridiction" eId="restriction_2"
refersTo="#jurisdictionEnglandWales" href="#art_32"/>
<restriction
type="juridiction" eId="restriction_3"
refersTo="#jurisdictionEnglandWales" href="#art_56"/>
</restrictions>
And in the <references>
block we have also this specification:
<references>
<TLCLocation eId="england.wales" showAs="England and
Wales" />
</references>
|
In a judgment document type it is possible
to qualify the citation made by the judge supporting his/her thesis and final
decision. In the following example, the reference ref_1 supports the judge
thesis and it is accessible in the href /it/judgment/2000/123.
The result element expresses the final
outcome of the case-law, using the attribute type (in our case approve). The
complete list of result is:
·
deny
·
dismiss
·
uphold
·
revert
·
replaceOrder
·
remit
·
decide
·
approve.
The list of the qualifications for
classifying the citations are:
·
<supports> : The element supports is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source supported by the argument
being described
·
<isAnalogTo>: The element isAnalogTo is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source analog to the argument
being described
·
<applies>: The element applies is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source applied by the argument
being described
·
<extends>: The element extends is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source extended by the argument
being described.
·
<restricts>: The element restricts is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source restricted by the argument
being described
·
<derogates>: The element derogates is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source derogated by the argument
being described
·
<contrasts>: The element contrasts is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source contrasted by the argument
being described.
·
<overrules>: The element overrules is a
metadata element specifying a reference to a source overruled by the argument
being described
·
<dissentsFrom> The element dissentsFrom is
a metadata element specifying a reference to a source dissented from the
argument being described
·
<putsInQuestion> The element
putsInQuestions is a metadata element specifying a reference to a source
questioned by the argument being described.
·
<distinguishes> The element distinguishes
is a metadata element specifying a reference to a source being distinguished by
the argument being described.
|
judicial
|
<judicial>
<result
type="approve"/>
<supports>
<source
href="#ref_1"/>
<destination
href="/it/judgment/2000/123"/>
</supports>
</judicial>
|
In an analysis it is possible to track the
metadata connected to the parliamentary events recorded in the debate such as
the call of quorum, recount of quorum, voting recount, voting.
The following fragment presents a simple
example where it is possible to connect the analysis annotation with the text
using href attribute and the semantic meaning of the annotation with refersTo
attribute.
For example the voting is recorded in a
fragment of text in the debate called <summary>. Inside of the summary we have marked up <quantity> and
inside of the <voting> metadata we connect the quantities with the
respective legal meaning inside of the voting event: 72 votes are “ayes” and 34
votes are “noes” using the refersTo attribute connected with a TLConcept.
Before the voting event the <quorum> was checked. Because we have
different graduation of quorum, refersTo expresses the type of quorum defined
in the TLConcept (e.g. majority).
|
parliamentary
|
<parliamentary>
<quorumVerification>
<quorum
eId="quorum_1" refersTo="#majority"
value="80"/>
<count
eId="count_1" refersTo="#present" href="#quantity_1"
value="76"/>
</quorumVerification>
<voting
eId="voting_1" href="#summary_1" refersTo="#voting"
outcome="#approved">
<quorum
eId="voting_1__quorum_1" refersTo="#majority"
value="80"/>
<count
eId="voting_1__count_2" refersTo="#ayes" href="#quantity_2"
value="72"/>
<count
eId="voting_1__count_3" refersTo="#noes" href="#quantity_3"
value="34"/>
</voting>
<recount
eId="recount_1" href="# dbsect_2" refersTo="#recount"
outcome="#approved">
<count
eId="recount_1__count_1" refersTo="#ayes" href="#quantity_3"
value="76"/>
</recount>
</parliamentary>
--- in the text ---
<debateSection
eId=”dbsect_2>
<summary eId="summary_1">(Question
carried by <quantity eId="quantity_2" normalized="72"
refersTo="#ayes">72</quantity> to <quantity
normalized="56" eId ="quantity_3"
refersTo="#noes"> 56</quantity> votes)</summary>
</debateSection>
|
The mappings block records the history of
the modifications of the original id over time. <mappings> supplies a
place where to record the fact that changes in ids do not happen only when a
renumbering occurs, but also whenever this expression is not the master
expression of the document, i.e., whenever eIds and wIds diverge. The attribute
@original stores the first wId, @current stores the eId. The attributes @start
and @end link the temporal data.
|
mappings
|
<mappings
source="#palmirani">
<mapping
eId="mapping_1" original="art_1"
current="art_4" start="#t1" end="#t3"/>
<mapping
eId="mapping_2" original="art_1"
current="art_7" start="#t4" end="#t7"/>
</mappings>
|
5.7.2 TemporalData
The temporalData describes all the events
grouped together in order to model intervals. In the following example we find
the <temporalGroup> that models the interval of enter into force and the
interval of efficacy. The @refersTo attribute connects the temporal parameters
with the TLConcept defined in the references block.
|
temporalData
|
<temporalData
source="#oasis">
<temporalGroup
eId="temporalGroup_1">
<timeInterval
refersTo="#inforce" start=" eRef_1" end="
eRef_2"/>
<timeInterval refersTo="#efficacy" start=" Ref_1"
end=" Ref_2"/>
</temporalGroup>
<temporalGroup eId=" temporalGroup_2">
<timeInterval
refersTo="#inforce" start="Ref_2"/>
<timeInterval refersTo="#efficacy" start=" Ref_2"/>
</temporalGroup>
</temporalData>
|
The note is a block where we record
non-authorial notes. For the authorial notes we use authorialNote tag which is
an inline element. The authorial notes are provided by the author of the
document. An example of authorial note is the side note (approved by the
Assembly) or any note of the Parliament. Any other editorial annotation is
included in the tag note.
|
notes
|
<notes
source="#palmirani">
<note
eId="note_1">
<p> Some
footnotes from editors. Non authorial note.</p>
</note>
</notes>
|
The reference block models all the references with other
documents or with ontology classes (Top Level Classes – TLC). The active
references are the normative modifications from the current document to
external documents, while the passive references are the external documents
that point out the current document because they modify the current document.
<original>: it is the original expression of the Work;
<activeRef>: it is any external document that is
modified by the current document;
<passiveRef>: it is any external document that affects
the current document;
<attachmentOf>: it is the reference to the main
document where the current document is the attachment
<hasAttachment>: it is the reference to any attachment
of the current document;
<jurisprudence>: it is any reference to relevant
case-law;
<TLCxxx>: it is any reference to an ontological class.
|
references
|
<references
source="#palmirani">
<original
eId="original_1" href="/akn/cl/bill/2005-03-14/315-352/esp@/main"
showAs="Original "/>
<activeRef
eId ="activeRef_1" href="/akn/cl/act/2010/cp/main#art12"
showAs="Código Penal"/>
<passiveRef
eId ="passiveRef_1" href="/akn/cl/act/2010/cp/main#art19"
showAs="Código Penal"/>
<attachmentOf
eId="attachmentOf_1" href="="/akn/cl/bill/2005-03-14/315-352/esp@/.akn"
showAs="Complete Collection of Gazette 2005 March"/>
<hasAttachment
eId=" hasAttachment_1" href="="/akn/cl/bill/2005-03-14/315-352/esp@/annex_A"
showAs="Annex A"/>
<jurisprudence
eId="jurisprudence_1" href="/akn/cl/judgment/2005-01-10/2124"
showAs="case-law"/>
<TLCOrganization
eId ="executivo" href="/ontology/organizations/akn/executivo"
showAs="Executivo"/>
<TLCRole
eId ="pdlr"
href="/ontology/roles/akn/presidenteRepublica"
showAs="Presidente de la República"/>
<TLCRole
eId ="author" href="/ontology/roles/akn/author"
showAs="Author of Document"/>
<TLCRole
eId ="editor" href="/ontology/roles/akn/editor"
showAs="Editor of Document"/>
<TLCPerson
eId="lagos"
href="/ontology/persons/akn/ricardoLagosEscobar"
showAs="RICARDO LAGOS ESCOBAR"/>
<TLCLocation
i eId="TCL" href="/ontology/location/akn/santiago"
showAs="Santiago"/>
<TLCReference
eId=" TLCReference_1" href="/akn/cl/doc/2004/commentOfCivilCode/"
showAs="Comment of the Civil Code of Chile"
name="book"/>
</references>
|
The proprietary block permits adding any other
local additional tags which are useful for managing legacy systems.
|
proprietary
|
<proprietary
source="#oasis">
<my:tag>
any tag useful for the local document management</my:tag>
</proprietary>
|
5.7.5.2 Presentation
The presentation block permits defining tags
and specifications that facilitate the visual rendering of the document (e.g.
specifications on the paper format, or the numbering of the lines, etc.).
|
presentation
|
Example from UK
<presentation
source="#palmirani">
<my:oddPageHeading>
<my:left
class="normal"> Legislation Publication
Ordinance</my:left>
<my:right
class="normal"> CAP. 614 </my:right>
</my:oddPageHeading>
<my:oddPageFooter>
<my:left
class="normal"> Authorized Loose-left and Printed and Published
</my:left>
<my:right
class="normal"> Issue 47</my:right>
</my:oddPageFooter>
</presentation>
Example from Federal
Chancellor of Switzerland:
<proprietary
source="#palmirani">
<ch:evenPageHeading>
<ch:left
class="two-third">Iniziativa popolare «Basta con la costruzione
sfrenata di abitazioni secondarie!» DF</ch:left>
<ch:right
class="one-third">RU 2012</ch:right>
</ch:evenPageHeading>
</proprietary>
|
One of the main problem in the rendering of XML file is to
preserve the format over time and to provide enough information for processing
the document in similar manner. In the following example we specify the URL
where to get the CSS and also the hash code of the CSS for being sure that the
CSS is not modified over time.
|
presentation
|
<presentation
source="#palmirani">
<uy:myCssForRendering>http://europe.eu/akomantoso30.css</uy:myCssForPreservation>
<uy:myCssHash>d7402662a7a744c0b3689dc863e91761</uy:myCssHash>
</presentation>
|
A table can be included in any type of document. A table
element uses the same element children of the HTML table model. It includes
also the attribute: border, width, cellpadding, cellspacing, title. Caption
element is possible and the content model of the tr element permits including
hierarchical elements such as article, section, part, list. This permits
modeling particular tables, like the following example, where the amendments
are included directly in the table.
The corresponding XML code is following:
|
<table eId="table_1"
cellpadding="10" border="1" cellspacing="0"
width="100" title="LAWS AMENDED OR REPEALED" >
<caption>LAWS AMENDED OR REPEALED</caption>
<tr>
<th>
<p>No. and year of law</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>Short title</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>Extent of amendment or repeal</p>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Act No. 153 of 1993</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Independent Broadcasting Act,
1993</p>
</td>
<td>
<blockList eId="table_1__list_1">
<item eId="table_1__list_1 __item_1">
<num>1.</num>
<blockList eId="table_1__list_1 __item_1 __list_1">
<listIntroduction
eId="table_1__list_1 __item_1 __list_1__intro">The
amendment of section 1 by the substitution
for the definitions of ‘‘Authority’’, ‘‘chairperson’’,
‘‘Council’’ and ‘‘councillor’’ of the following definitions, respectively:
</listIntroduction>
<item eId="table_1__list_1 __item_1
__list_1 __item_a">
<num>(a)</num>
<p>‘‘ ‘Authority’ means the
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa established by section 3
of the Independent Communications Authority of
South Africa Act, 2000;’’;
</p>
</item>
<item eId="table_1__list_1 __item_1
__list_1 __item_b">
<num>(b)</num>
<p>‘‘ ‘chairperson’ means the
chairperson appointed under section 5(2) of the Independent Communications
Authority of South Africa Act, 2000;’’;
</p>
</item>
<item eId="table_1__list_1 __item_1
__list_1 __item_c">
<num>(c)</num>
<p>‘‘ ‘Council’ means the
Council contemplated in section 3(2) of the Independent Communications
Authority of South Africa Act, 2000;’’;
</p>
</item>
</blockList>
</item>
<item eId="table_1__list_1 __item_2">
<num>2.</num>
<p>The amendment of section 2 by the
insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (g):
‘‘(gA) promote the empowerment and advancement of women in
the broadcasting services;’’.
</p>
</item>
<item eId="table_1__list_1 __item_3">
<num>3.</num>
<p>The repeal of section 3.</p>
</item>
</blockList>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
|
Another use for the table is the application form, where
some parts are dedicated to filling parts of the form. Sometime these
application forms are schedules of law, regulations, or bills, like the
following example.
It is possible with Akoma Ntoso to capture the blank part
which permits an easy transformation of the template in an online web
application form.
|
<table eId="table_1">
<tr>
<td><p>At</p></td>
<td><p><fillin>............................</fillin></p></td>
<td><p>on this</p></td>
<td><p><fillin>............................</fillin></p></td>
<td><p>day of</p></td>
<td><p><fillin>............................</fillin></p></td>
<td><p>19</p></td>
<td><p><fillin>............................</fillin></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p>G.H.,Magistrate.</p></td>
</tr>
</table>
|
It is also possible to model very complex tables that
includes images or irregular cells. We use colspan attribute with the same
meaning of HTML.
|
<paragraph
eId="sec_2-5-7__para_4">
<content
eId="sec_2-5-7__para_4__content">
<table
eId="table_1" border="1">
<caption
eId="table_1__caption">Thermoplastic rooflights and light
fittings with diffusers</caption>
<tr>
<th>
<p>
</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>
Protected
zone or fire-fighting shaft
</p>
</th>
<th
colspan="2">
<p>Unprotected
zone or protected enclosure</p>
</th>
<th
colspan="2">
<p>Room</p>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>
<p>
Classification
of lower surface
</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>
Any
thermoplastic
</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>TP(a)
rigid</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>TP(a)
flexible and TP(b)</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>TP(a)
rigid</p>
</th>
<th>
<p>TP(a)
flexible and TP(b)</p>
</th>
</tr>
</table>
</content>
</paragraph>
|
Or including forms and images:
|
<preface>
<p
class="heading">
<docTitle>Form XV
Public Service Vehicle Licence original REPUBLIC OF KENYA THE TRAFFIC
ACT</docTitle>
</p>
</preface>
<mainBody>
<container
eId="container_1" class="table"
name="table">
<p>(Section 97
(1))</p>
<table
eId="container_1 table_1">
<tr>
<td>
<p>
<img
src="signalxv.jpg"/>
</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>
<fillIn>Cheque No.............................</fillIn>
<fillIn>Cash ................................</fillIn>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>STATION
.........................................................................</p>
<p>ISSUING OFFICER .....................................................</p>
</td>
</tr>
|
Three models can be used to represent a list
1. a list as a hierarchical container
• the list is marked
using the <list> element;
• the list introduction
is marked using <intro> and the list conclusion is marked using the
<wrapUp> element.
Each item of the list is a hierarchical container (for
example, point or indent)
Example :
|
<list
eId="...__list_1" >
<intro
eId="...__list_1__intro" wId="2013-619260-2">
<p>The Decisions referred to in Article 13(1) shall not impede the
free
movement in the Union and the production, manufacture,
making available on the market including importation to the
Union,
transport, and exportation from the Union of new
psychoactive substances:</p>
</intro>
<point
eId="...__list_1__point_a" wId="2013-619261">
<num>(a)</num>
<content eId="...__list_1__point_a__content" wId="2013-619261-1">
<p>for scientific research and development purposes;</p>
</content>
</point>
<point
eId="...__list_1__point_b" wId="2013-619262">
<num>(b)</num>
<content eId="...__list_1__point_b__content" wId="2013-619262-1">
<p>for uses authorised under Union legislation;</p>
</content>
</point>
</list>
|
2. a list as a block
• the list is marked
using the <blockList>
• the list introduction
is marked using the <listIntroduction> element and the list conclusion is
marked using the <listWrapUp> element.
Each item of the list is marked using the <item>
element.
Example:
|
<blockList
eId="...__list_1">
<listIntroduction eId="...__list_1__intro">The
Commission conducted an impact assessment of policy
alternatives, taking into account the consultation of interested
parties
and the results of external studies. The impact
assessment concluded that the following solution would be
preferred:</listIntroduction>
<item
eId="...__list_1__item_1">
<num>–</num>
<p>a more graduated and better targeted set of restriction
measures on new psychoactive substances, which should not
hinder the industrial use of substances.</p>
</item>
<item
eId="...__list_1__item_2">
<num>–</num>
<p>restriction measures should be introduced earlier and
substances suspected to pose immediate public health risks
should be subjected to temporary restrictions.</p>
</item>
</blockList>
|
3. a list as an HTML element
• the list is marked using the <ol> element
for ordered list or <ul> for unordered list
• Each item of the list is marked using the
<li> element.
Example:
|
<ul
eId="...__ul_1">
<li
eId="...__ul_1__li_1">
<p>a more graduated and better targeted set of restriction
measures on new psychoactive substances, which should not
hinder the industrial use of substances.</p>
</li>
<li eId="...__ul_1__li_2">
<p>restriction measures should be introduced earlier and
substances suspected to pose immediate public health risks
should be subjected to temporary restrictions.</p>
</li>
</ul>
|
Two models can be used to represent a set of provisions
1. as a hierarchical container
This is the model for the set of sections in the body of an
act or a bill.
Example:
|
<chapter eId=",,,__chp_I">
<num>CHAPTER I</num>
<heading eId=",,,__chp_I__heading">Subject
matter - Scope -
Definitions</heading>
<article
eId=",,,__art_1">
<num>Article 1</num>
<heading eId=",,,__art_1__heading">Subject matter and
scope</heading>
<paragraph eId=",,,__art_1__para_1">
<num>1.</num>
<content eId=",,,__art_1__para_1__content">
<p>This Regulation establishes rules for restrictions to the
free movement of new psychoactive substances in the internal
market.
For that purpose it sets up a mechanism for
information exchange on, risk assessment and submission to
market restriction measures of new psychoactive substances
at Union level.</p>
</content>
</paragraph>
...
</article>
...
</chapter>
|
2. as a block
This is used for documents without a well defined
structures.
Example:
|
<tblock
eId="...__tblock_3">
<num>3.</num>
<heading
eId="...__tblock_3__heading">LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL</heading>
<tblock
eId="...__tblock_3.1">
<num>3.1.</num>
<heading eId="...__tblock_3.1__heading">The legal
base</heading>
<p>The proposal aims at ensuring that trade in new psychoactive
substances having industrial and commercial uses is not hindered and
that
the functioning of this market is improved, while the health
and
safety of individuals are protected from harmful substances,
which
cause concern at the EU level.</p>
</tblock>
</tblock>
|
Akoma Ntoso manages seven main families of
structure, grouped for function, organization, or role in the legal domain:
·
Collection Structure
·
Hierarchical Structure
·
Debate Structure
·
Amendment Structure
·
Judgment Structure
·
Open Structure
·
Portion Structure
A particular attention is devoted to the
table that could be included in any type of document.
Composite documents are containers of other
documents that have their own identity, lifecycle, workflow, and other
metadata. An example is the Official Journal or Official Gazette volume where
many bills, acts, minutes, reports are collected. Each document is autonomous
with its FRBR identification package, metadata, modifications, and temporal
information. Nevertheless, the volume of the Journal is an independent work
that is composed of other works.
A collection structure is any folder (such
as one that contains a bill) that is usually composed of several documents
(cover, motivations, commission report, amendments, first draft of a bill,
amended bill, etc.).
In this way, it is possible to represent a
document composed of different autonomous parts (work or expressions). The
following example shows a documentCollection, with the bill (proyecto de ley)
and the explanatory part (motivos).
We have several documents that belongs to the collection structure. Certain types of
documents, such as amendmentLists and officialGazettes, are usually made of
several distinct and autonomous documents.
|
Name
|
Definition
|
Structure
|
|
DOCUMENT COLLECTION
|
The type documentCollection is a generic document type for
representing any kind of collection container.
|
Complex structure composed by different works or by
different expressions (e.g. different versions of the same bill: one
presented in the Chamber of Deputies and another presented in the Senate)
A document collection can also be used, for example, to
represent an EP committee's report on a bill, containing a Resolution (possibly
with an amendments list annexed), a Explanatory memorandum Opinions of other
committees..
|
|
AMENDMENT LIST
|
An amendment list is a document listing a series of
amendments.
|
Complex structure including amendments and parts of the
text by which an amendments is introduced.
|
|
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
|
An Official Gazette or Official Bulletin
|
Official publishing source of law composed of an
assortment of legal documents (laws, decrees, orders, legal notices, etc.).
|
The different documents included in the documentCollection
can be represented in three different ways:
1. The documents are embedded in the collectionBody of the
documentCollection:
|
<?xml
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<akomaNtoso
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13
../schemas/akomantoso30.xsd"
xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13">
<documentCollection name="billPackage">
<meta>
...
</meta>
<coverPage>
...
</coverPage>
<collectionBody>
<component eId="cmp_1">
<bill
name="bill">
<meta>,,, </meta>
<preface>
<longTitle eId="cmp_1__longTitle">
The
title of the bill
</longTitle>
</preface>
<body>
,,,
</body>
</bill>
</component>
<component eId="cmp_2">
<interstitial eId="cmp_2__interstitial">
<p>Any text is in the collection but belongs to no individual
document</p>
</interstitial>
</component>
<component eId="cmp_3">
<doc
name="memorandum">
<meta> ...the metadata of the second document... </meta>
<preface> ...the preface of the second document... </preface>
<mainBody> ...the body of the second document... </mainBody>
</doc>
</component>
</collectionBody>
</documentCollection>
</akomaNtoso>
|
2. The documents are modelled in the components part of the
documentCollection:
|
<?xml
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<akomaNtoso
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13
./akomantoso30.xsd" xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13">
<documentCollection
name="billPackage">
<meta>
....
</meta>
<coverPage>
</coverPage>
<collectionBody>
<component eId="cmp_1">
<documentRef eId="cmp_1__dref_1" href="#bill"
showAs="BILL"/>
</component>
<component eId="cmp_2">
<interstitial eId="cmp_2__interstitial">
<p>Any text is in the collection but belongs to no indi-vidual
document</p>
</interstitial>
</component>
<component eId="cmp_3">
<documentRef eId="cmp_3__dref_1"
href="#memorandum" showAs="MEMORANDUM"/>
</component>
</collectionBody>
</documentCollection>
<components>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_1">
<bill name="bill">
<meta>,,, </meta>
<preface>
<longTitle eId="cmpnts__cmp_1__longTitle">
The
title of the bill
</longTitle>
</preface>
<body>
,,,
</body>
</bill>
</component>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_2">
<doc
name="memorandum">
<meta> ...the metadata of the second document... </meta>
<preface> ...the preface of the second document... </preface>
<mainBody> ...the body of the second document... </mainBody>
</doc>
</component>
</components>
</akomaNtoso>
|
3. The documentCollection includes only the
<documentRef> specification to external documents that are modeled and
represented in separated XML files.
|
<?xml
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<akomaNtoso
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13
./akomantoso30.xsd"
xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13">
<documentCollection
name="billPackage">
<meta>
....
</meta>
<coverPage>
</coverPage>
<collectionBody>
<component eId="cmp_1">
<documentRef eId="cmp_1__dref_1"
href=“/akn/uy/bill/2013-02-10/450/bill" showAs="BILL"/>
</component>
<component eId="cmp_2">
<interstitial eId="cmp_2__interstitial">
<p>Any text is in the collection but belongs to no individual
document</p>
</interstitial>
</component>
<component eId="cmp_3">
<documentRef eId="cmp_3__dref_1" href="/akn/doc/2013-02-10/450/memorandum"
showAs="MEMORANDUM"/>
</component>
</collectionBody>
</documentCollection>
</akomaNtoso>
|
It is also possible to have a component in the same position
as the attachment, at the end of the main document. This permits recursive
definition inside of the documentCollection.
The following case shows the usage of this construct.
|
<?xml
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<akomaNtoso
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13
./akomantoso30.xsd "
xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13"
xmlns:uy="http://uruguay/propetary.xsd">
<documentCollection
name="billPackage">
<meta>
FRBR
block information
</meta>
<preface>
Preface
of the documentCollection
</preface>
<preamble>
Preamble
of the documentCollection
</preamble>
<collectionBody>
<component
eId="cmp_1">
<documentRef eId="dref_1" href="#cmpnts_cmp_1"
showAs="INFORME EN MAYORÍA Y PROYECTO DE LEY - FRENTE AMPLIO"/>
</component>
<component
eId="cmp_2">
<documentRef
eId="dref_2" href="#cmpnts__cmp_2" showAs="INFORME
EN MINORÍA Y PROYECTO DE RESOLUCIÓN - PARTIDO NACIONAL"/>
</component>
</collectionBody>
</documentCollection>
<components>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_1">
<documentCollection
name="informeDeMayoria" contains="originalVersion">
<meta>
....
</meta>
<collectionBody>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_1__cmp_1">
<documentRef
eId="cmpnts_cmp1_dref_1"
href="#cmpnts_cmp_1__cmpnts__cmp_1" showAs="Informe"/>
</component>
<component
eId=" cmpnts__cmp_1__cmp_2">
<documentRef
eId=" cmpnts_cmp1_dref_2"
href="#cmpnts_cmp_1__cmpnts__cmp_2" showAs="Bill"/>
</component>
</collectionBody>
<components>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_1__cmpnts__cmp_1">
<doc
name="reporteInformeEnMayoria">
...
</doc>
</component>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_1__cmpnts__cmp_2">
<bill
name="bill">
...
</bill>
</component>
</components>
</documentCollection>
</component>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_2">
<documentCollection
name="informeMinoriaNacional"
contains="originalVersion">
<meta>
...
</meta>
<collectionBody>
<component
eId=" cmpnts__cmp_2__cmp_1">
<documentRef
eId=" cmpnts_cmp2_dref_1" href="#cmpnts_cmp_2__cmpnts__cmp_1"
showAs="Informe"/>
</component>
<component
eId=" cmpnts__cmp_2__cmp_2">
<documentRef
eId="cmpnts_cmp2_dref_2"
href="#cmpnts_cmp_2__cmpnts__cmp_2"
showAs="Resolucion"/>
</component>
</collectionBody>
<components>
<component
eId="cmpnts__cmp_2__cmpnts__cmp_1">
<doc
name="reportInformeMinoriaNational">
...
</doc>
</component>
<component
eId=" cmpnts__cmp_2__cmpnts__cmp_2">
<statement name="PROYECTO DE RESOLUCIÓN">
...
</statement>
</component>
</components>
</documentCollection>
</component>
</components>
</akomaNtoso>
|
6.2
Hierarchical Structure
Any document with a hierarchical structure belongs to this
family of documents.
For hierarchical structure we mean a structure organized
with higher levels that group basic units, basic units (article, section, etc.)
and lower levels inside of the basic unit.
The Akoma Ntoso standard is neutral with respect to the
legal drafting techniques of the different legal traditions, providing most of
the hierarchical elements for modeling the body structure: book, tome, part,
subpart, title, subtitle, chapter, subchapter, section, subsection, clause,
subclause, paragraph, subparagraph, division, point, indent, alinea, list,
sublist.
For these reasons, the main requirements of structuring
legal text are covered.
The following table shows an example how to use of
hierarchical elements:
|
|
Anglophone tradition
|
French
tradition
|
Portuguese tradition
|
Italian
tradition
|
Spanish
tradition
|
EU tradition
(here,only English, French, Spanish)
|
AKOMA NOTOSO
|
|
Higher Division
|
|
Tome
|
|
|
Tome
|
|
tome
|
|
Part
|
Partie (codes)
|
Parte (codes)
|
Parte
|
Parte
|
Part/
Partie
parte
|
part
|
|
|
Livre (codes)
|
Livro (codes)
|
Libro
|
Libro
|
|
book
|
|
Title
|
Titre
|
Título
|
Titolo
|
Título
|
Title/
Titre/
Titulo
|
title
|
|
Chapter
|
Chapitre
|
Capítulo
|
Capitolo
|
Capítulo
|
Chapter/
Chapitre
Capitulo
|
chapter
|
|
Subchapter
Article (US)
|
Section (codes)
|
Secção
|
Sezione
|
Sección
o Párrafo
|
Section/
section/
Sección
|
section
|
|
|
Subsection (code)
|
SubSeçcão
|
Subsezione
|
|
Subsection/
Sous-Section/
Subsección
|
subsection
|
|
Basic Unit
|
Section
Rule
|
Article
|
Artigo
|
Articolo
|
Artículo
|
Article (rule)/
article/
articulo/
|
Article/
section/
rule
|
|
Subdivision
|
Subsection
|
Alinéa
|
Alineas
|
Comma
|
Inciso
|
unnumbered paragraph/
alinéa /
Párrafo
|
subsection
aliena
|
|
Paragraph
|
Paragraphe
|
Paragrafo
|
Paragrafo
|
|
paragraph
paragraphe
Apartado
|
paragraph
|
|
Proviso
|
|
|
|
|
|
proviso
|
|
Subparagraph
|
|
|
|
|
Subparagraph/
sous paragraphe/
Párrafo
|
subparagraph
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
division
|
|
|
|
|
Lettera
|
letra
|
Point/
point/
Letra
|
list
|
|
|
|
|
Numero
|
número
|
Point/
point/
punto
|
list
|
|
Latin number
|
|
|
|
|
Point/
point
Inciso
|
list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indent/
tiret
guion
|
list
|
The list of the hierarchical partitions included in Akoma
Ntoso are the following, listed in alphabetic order:
·
alinea
·
article
·
book
·
chapter
·
clause
·
division
·
indent
·
list
·
paragraph
·
part
·
point
·
proviso
·
rule
·
section
·
subchapter
·
subclause
·
subdivision
·
sublist
·
subparagraph
·
subpart
·
subrule
·
subsection
·
subtitle
·
title
·
tome
·
transitional.
The debate structure is dedicated to parliamentary documents
such as report of committees, transcript record of the parliament or assembly,
Hansard, debates, voting report, roll calling, etc. In particular to these documents
is the unstructured format and the fact that they describe a narrative, similar
to a script or a screenplay. For these reasons the debateStructure includes
particular structures that permits this modeling.
Debate record is similar to a screenplay and so it is mostly
composed by sections according with the main topics or actions admitted in the
rules of procedure in the assembly:
·
administrationOfOath
·
rollCall
·
prayers
·
oralStatements
·
writtenStatements
·
personalStatements
·
ministerialStatements
·
resolutions
·
nationalInterest
·
declarationOfVote
·
communication
·
petitions
·
papers
·
noticesOfMotion
·
questions
·
address
·
proceduralMotions
·
pointOfOrder
·
adjournment
·
debateSection.
Each of these container can include the following elements:
·
speechGroup: group of speeches in the dialogue;
·
speech: speech dialogue;
·
question: question dialogue;
·
answer: answer dialogue;
·
other: other dialogue;
·
scene: description of some action performed inside of the
assembly like applause, shouting, crying, etc.;
·
narrative: narrative part of what happened in the assembly;
·
summary: summary of an event like the result of a voting.
In case it is necessary we have also inline element
<remark> for making up the type of annotation: “sceneDescription” (e.g.
the minority party leaves the room shouting out), “phenomenon” (e.g. raining),
“caption”, “translation” (e.g. [Bab’ uNkwinti, are you going to say it in
Afrikaans?]).
An example of fragment of debate is blow presented.
|
<debate
name="record">
<meta>...</meta>
<coverPage>...</coverPage>
<preface>...</preface>
<debateBody>
<debateSection
eId="dbsect_1" name="Preliminary">
<rollCall
eId="dbsect_1__rollCall_1">...</rollCall>
<prayers
eId="dbsect_1__prayers_1">...</prayers>
</debateSection>
<debateSection
eId="dbsect_2" name="Actas">
<speech
eId="dbsect_2__speech_1"
by="#Ascencio">
<from>El señor ASCENCIO (Presidente).- </from>
<p> El
señor Secretario dará lectura a los pareos.
<remark type="sceneDescription">(Aplausos)</remark>.</p>
.....
</speech>
<narrative eId="dbsect_2__narrative_1" >-Con
posterioridad, la Sala se pronunció sobre el proyecto en los siguientes
términos:</narrative>
<summary
eId="dbsect_2__summary_1" >
<outcome
refersTo="#seAbstiene"> -Se abstuvieron los diputados señores:
<vote
by="#persona">
<person
eId="p3517"
refersTo="#GalileaVidaurreJoseAntonio">Galilea Vidaurre José
Antonio;</person>
</vote>
</outcome>
</summary>
<scene
eId="dbsect_2__scene_1" >-Aplausos.</scene>
</debateSection>
<debateBody>
|
The amendment structure is dedicated to modeling particular
official documents that provide instructions or proposals for modifications to
a bill.
Example : amendment of the European Parliament on a proposal
from the Commission can be marked as following.
|
<amendment
name="amendment">
<meta>
<identification source=""> ... </identification>
<analysis source="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/">
<activeModifications>
<textualMod eId="textualMod_1"
type="substitution">
<source href="~mod_1__qstr_2__rec_3"/>
<destination href="uri:COM
proposal/bill(Expression)]~rec_3"/>
</textualMod>
</activeModifications>
</analysis>
<references source="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/">
<TLCConcept eId="concept-content-current"
href="/concept/content/current"
showAs="original version of amended fragment"/>
<TLCConcept
eId="concept-content-proposed"
href="/concept/content/proposed"
showAs="proposed version of amended fragment"/>
<TLCPerson eId="codict_person-id-96835"
href="eu.europa.europarl.codict:person/id=96835"
showAs="Traian
Ungureanu"/>
<TLCPerson eId="codict_person-id-96832"
href="eu.europa.europarl.codict:person/id=96832"
showAs="Pascale Gruny"/>
</references>
</meta>
<preface>
<container eId="preface__container_1"
name="mainDoc">
<p
xml:space="preserve"><docIntroducer><person
eId="preface__container_1__person_1"
refersTo="~codict_person-id-96835">Traian
Ungureanu</person> and <person eId="preface__container_1__person_2"
refersTo="~codict_person-id-96832">Pascale
Gruny</person></docIntroducer></p>
</container>
</preface>
<amendmentBody>
<amendmentHeading>
<block
name="amendedAct"
xml:space="preserve"><docType>Proposal for a
decision</docType> - amending act</block>
<block name="amendedAct"
xml:space="preserve"><inline
name="AMposition">Recital 3</inline></block>
</amendmentHeading>
<amendmentContent>
<block
name="versionTitle"
refersTo="~concept-content-current">Text proposed by the
Commission</block>
<block
name="versionTitle"
refersTo="~concept-content-proposed">Amendment</block>
<block
name="changeBlock">
<mod
eId="mod_1" refersTo="~textualMod_1">
<quotedStructure
eId="mod_1__qstr_1"
refersTo="~concept-content-current">
<recital eId="mod_1__qstr_1__rec_3">
<num>(3)</num>
<p xml:space="preserve">In line with the Inter-institutional
agreement of <date date="2006-05-17">17 May 2006</date>
between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary
discipline and sound financial management, <change>EUR 100 million
needs to be reallocated from the existing budget to finance</change>
the new European microfinance facility <change>for employment and
social inclusion – Progress</change></p>
</recital>
</quotedStructure>
<quotedStructure eId="mod_1__qstr_2"
refersTo="~concept-content-proposed">
<recital eId="mod_1__qstr_2__rec_3">
<num>(3)</num>
<p xml:space="preserve">In line with the Inter-institutional
agreement of <date date="2006-05-17">17 May 2006</date>
between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary
discipline and sound financial management, <change>in the event that no
additional appropriations are allocated, then</change> the new European
microfinance facility <change>should be financed by reallocating
resources from other budgetary sources.</change></p>
</recital>
</quotedStructure>
</mod>
</block>
</amendmentContent>
<amendmentJustification>
<block
name="justificationHeading">Justification</block>
<p
xml:space="preserve">Due to the present financial situation
there is a clear need to find the best financil solution for the new
instrument. From this poin of view, there should be furtherconsultations to
find the optimal solution in order for the facility to deliver to its
aims.</p>
</amendmentJustification>
</amendmentBody>
</amendment>
|
6.5 Judgment Structure
The Judgment structure is dedicated to case-law, precedents,
and judiciary decisions.
The structure of those documents varies greatly without a
common template, especially the metadata are complex and with a great diversity
in each legal tradition and judicial system.
The main legal part of the judgment <judgmentBody> and
it is divided in <background>, <introduction>, <motivation>,
<decision> containers.
We have also particular inline elements used in the
judiciary system:
·
<docJurisdiction></docJurisdiction> for marking up
the jurisdiction of the case-law;
·
<docketNumber></docketNumber> for marking up number
of the trial;
·
<neutralCitation> for marking up the number assigned by the
number used for hamonized the citations in a given judiciaty system (e.g. [2008]
ZASCA 134);
·
<party refersTo=""></party>
for marking up the party;
·
<lawyer
refersTo=""></lawyer> for marking up the laywer;
·
<judge refersTo=""></judge>
for marking up the judge;
·
<opinion> for marking up the opinion of the each judge;
·
<argument></argument> for marking up the argument
sentences for supporting the judges legal argumentation and reasoning.
Some relevant metadata are included in the <judicial>
metadata block for modeling citations to other legal sources and result of the
judgment.
An example of fragment of judgment is blow presented.
|
<judgment
name="decision">
<meta>
<identification
source="#somebody"></identification>
<publication
date="2008-11-30" name="Law Report" showAs="Law
Report Office Journal" number="555"/>
<classification
source="#somebody"></classification>
<lifecycle
source="#somebody">
<eventRef
date="2008-11-26" eId="eref_1" source="ro1"
type="generation"/>
</lifecycle>
<workflow
source="#somebody">
<step
date="2007-08-23" eId="step_1" outcome="#outcome_1"/>
<step
date="2008-11-05" eId=" step_2" outcome="#outcome_1"/>
</workflow>
<analysis
source="#somebody">
<judicial>
<result
type="deny"/>
<applies
eId="applies_1">
<source href="#ref_11"/>
<destination
href="/za/judgment/SA491/eng@/main.xml"/>
</applies>
<supports
eId="supports_1">
<source
href="#ref_12"/>
<destination
href="/za/judgment/SA490/eng@/main.xml#par12"/>
</supports>
</judicial>
</analysis>
<references
source="#somebody"></references>
</meta>
<header>
<p>
<party
refersTo=""></party>
<lawyer
refersTo=""></lawyer>
<judge
refersTo=""></judge>
</p>
</header>
<judgmentBody>
<background></background>
<introduction></introduction>
<motivation></motivation>
<decision></decision>
</judgmentBody>
<conclusions></conclusions>
</judgment>
</akomaNtoso>
|
A document is text devoid of any specific structure.
Examples include annexes, tables, schedules, informative material, letters, and
memorandums.
|
Name
|
Definition
|
Structure
|
|
DOCUMENT
|
A
document is any valid text for which there is no specific structure or
document type.
|
Texts
having an open structure.
The
main body of the text is the main content.
|
An example of usage of the general document is presented
below. It is an annex that has no particular structure.
|
Appendix
1
OFFICIALS
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
Mr.
January (Secretary of Defence and Director General of the Department)
Mr.
February (Deputy Director General and Chief Director of Policy and Planning)
Lieutenant
General March (SANDF Chief: Corporate Staff)
|
<preface>
<p class="heading">
<docType>APPENDIX 1</docType>
<docTitle>OFFICIALS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
</docTitle>
</p>
</preface>
<mainBody>
<container eId="container_1" name="members"
class="memberslist">
<ol eId="container_1__ol_1">
<li eId="container_1__ol_1__li_1> Mr January (Secretary for
Defence and Director General of the Department)</li>
<li eId="container_1__ol_1__li_2>Mr Feruray (Deputy Director
General and Chief Director Policy and Planning)</li>
<li eId="container_1__ol_1__li_3>Lieutenant General March
</span>(SANDF Chief: Corporate Staff)</li>
</ol>
</container>
|
|
1.
Introduction
The
Portfolio Committee on Defence considered the 2007/2008 Budget of the
Department of Defence on 22–23 March 2007 as part of its oversight function
over the Department of Defence. The report is based on both the budget
hearings held on 22 March 2007 as well as the committee deliberations held on
23 March 2007.
|
<hcontainer
eId="hcontainer_1" name="issue">
<num>1. </num>
<heading>Introduction</heading>
<paragraph
eId="hcontainer_1__para_1">
<content>
<p>The Portfolio Committee on
Defence considered the 2007/2008 Budget of the Department of Defence on 22
-23 March 2007, as part of its oversight function over the Department of
Defence. The report is based on both the budget hearings held on 22 March
2007 as well as the committee deliberations on 23 March 2007.
</p>
</content>
</paragraph>
</hcontainer>
</mainBody>
|
6.7 Portion Structure
The Portion Structure is a particular template which permits
modeling a portion of the normative part of a document. Once modeled, it is
possible to refer to the portion inside of another Akoma Ntoso document using
the <componentRef> element. This is useful for fragmenting a very long
document and for facilitating legal drafting and document management.
A typical example could be the US Code composed by different
titles. In the <act> type document we could define this:
|
<body>
<componentRef
src="uri/title1.xml" />
<componentRef
src="uri/title2.xml" />
<componentRef
src="uri/title3.xml" />
</body>
|
In this case, each title has its own meta data block
(FRBRManifestation only inside of the FRBR block) but it is not necessary to
have a preface, preamble, or annexes, only <portionBody>. Note that the
name of the Manifestation is <FRBRuri
value="/akn/us/usc/title_9/eng@2013-07-26~chp_3/main.akn"/> and in
the FRBRManifestation block it is possible to specify also the portion with
<FRBRportion from="chp_3" />. In case of interval, (e.g. from
chapter 3 to chapter 5) we also use the attribute upTo=”chp_5” to specify the
end of the interval.
|
<?xml
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<akomaNtoso
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13
../../schemas/akomantoso30.xsd http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
../../schemas/XML.xsd"
xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13">
<portion
includedIn="/akn/us/act/title_9">
<meta>
<identification source="#vergottini">
<FRBRWork>
<FRBRthis
value="/akn/us/usc/title_9/main"/>
<FRBRuri value="/akn/us/usc/title_9"/>
<FRBRdate date="1947-07-30" name="Title 9"/>
<FRBRauthor href="#olrc" as="#author"/>
<FRBRcountry value="us"/>
<FRBRsubtype value="title"/>
<FRBRnumber value="title_9"/>
<FRBRname value="title"/>
<FRBRprescriptive value="false"/>
<FRBRauthoritative value="true"/>
</FRBRWork>
<FRBRExpression>
<FRBRthis value="/akn/us/usc/title_9/eng@2013-07-26/main"/>
<FRBRuri value="/akn/us/usc/title_9/eng@2013-07-26"/>
<FRBRdate date="2013-07-26" name="Chapter 3 of Title 9
(July 26, 2013)"/>
<FRBRauthor href="#olrc" as="#editor"/>
<FRBRlanguage language="eng"/>
</FRBRExpression>
<FRBRManifestation>
<FRBRthis
value="/akn/us/usc/title_9/eng@2013-07-26~chp_3/main.xml"/>
<FRBRuri
value="/akn/us/usc/title_9/eng@2013-07-26~chp_3/main.akn"/>
<FRBRdate date="2014-10-07" name="Chapter 3 of Title 9
(July 26, 2013) -- XML Markup"/>
<FRBRauthor href="#vergottini" as="generator"/>
<FRBRportion
from="chp_3" />
</FRBRManifestation>
</identification>
<references source="#vergottini">
<original eId="title_9"
href="/akn/us/usc/title_9" showAs="Title 9"/>
<TLCRole eId="sevretaryOfState"
href="/akn/us/ontology/role/secretaryOfState"
showAs="Secretary of State"/>
<TLCRole eId="drafter"
href="/akn/us/ontology/role/drafter"
showAs="Drafter"/>
<TLCRole eId="editor" href="/akn/us/ontology/role/editor"
showAs="Editor"/>
<TLCRole eId="generator"
href="/akn/us/ontology/role/generator"
showAs="Generator"/>
<TLCOrganization
href="/akn/us/ontology/organization/interAmericanCommercialArbitationCommission"
showAs="Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission"/>
<TLCOrganization eId="house"
href="/akn/us/ontology/organization/house" showAs="U.S. House
of Representatives"/>
<TLCOrganization eId="olrc" href="/akn/us/ontology/organization/olrc"
showAs="Office of the Law Revision Counsel"/>
<TLCPerson eId="vergottini"
href="/akn/us/ontology/person/somebody" showAs="Grant
Vergottini"/>
</references>
</meta>
<portionBody>
<chapter GUID="idd1d2ae15-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="chp_3">
<num>CHAPTER 3—</num>
<heading>INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION</heading>
<intro>
<toc>
<tocItem
href="" level="1">
<span>Sec.</span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_301" level="1">
<span>301.</span>
<span>Enforcement of Convention.</span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_302" level="1">
<span>302.</span>
<span>Incorporation by reference.</span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_303" level="1">
<span>303.</span>
<span>Order to compel arbitration; appointment of arbitrators;
locale.</span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_304" level="1">
<span>304.</span>
<span>Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral decisions and
awards; reciprocity.</span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_305" level="1">
<span>305.</span>
<span> Relationship between the <ref
href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30">Inter-American
Convention</ref> and the <ref
href="/akn/un/act/1958NYConvention/eng@1958-06-10">Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10,
1958</ref>. </span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_306" level="1">
<span>306.</span>
<span>Applicable rules of <organization
refersTo="#interAmericanCommercialArbitationCommission">Inter-American
Commercial Arbitration Commission</organization>.</span>
</tocItem>
<tocItem href="#sec_307" level="1">
<span>307.</span>
<span>Chapter 1; residual application.</span>
</tocItem>
</toc>
</intro>
<section GUID="idd1d2d527-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_301">
<num>§ 301.</num>
<heading> Enforcement of Convention</heading>
<content>
<p> The <ref
href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30">Inter-American
Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of January 30,
1975</ref>, shall be enforced in United States courts in accordance
with this
<ref href="#chp_3">chapter</ref>. </p>
<block name="sourceCredit">(Added <ref href="/akn/us/act/pl_101/369/eng@1990-08-15#sec_1">Pub.
L. 101–369, § 1 , Aug.
15, 1990</ref> , <ref
href="/akn/us/act/stat_104/448">104 Stat. 448</ref> .)
</block>
</content>
</section>
<section GUID="idd1d2d52a-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d" eId="sec_302">
<num>§ 302.</num>
<heading> Incorporation by reference</heading>
<content>
<p><mref>Sections <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_9#sec_202">202</ref>, <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_9#sec_203">203</ref>, <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_9#sec_204">204</ref>, <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_9#sec_205">205</ref>, and <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_9#sec_207">207</ref> of this
title</mref> shall apply to this chapter as if specifically set forth
herein, except that for the purposes of this chapter “the Convention” shall
mean the Inter-American
Convention.</p>
<block name="sourceCredit"> (Added <ref
href="/akn/us/act/pl_101/369/eng@1990-08-15#sec_1">Pub. L.
101–369, § 1 , Aug.
15, 1990</ref> , <ref
href="/akn/us/act/stat_104/448">104 Stat. 448</ref> .)
</block>
</content>
</section>
<section GUID="idd1d2fc3c-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_303">
<num>§ 303.</num>
<heading> Order to compel arbitration; appointment of arbitrators;
locale</heading>
<subsection GUID="idd1d2fc3d-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_303__subsec_a">
<num >(a)</num>
<content>
<p> A court having jurisdiction under this chapter may direct that
arbitration be held in accordance with the agreement at any place therein
provided for, whether that place is within or without the United States. The
court may also appoint
arbitrators in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.</p>
</content>
</subsection>
<subsection GUID="idd1d2fc3e-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_303__subsec_b">
<num >(b)</num>
<content>
<p> In the event the agreement does not make provision for the place of
arbitration or the appointment of arbitrators, the court shall direct that
the arbitration shall be held and the arbitrators be appointed in accordance
with <ref href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30#art_3">Article
3 of the
Inter-American Convention</ref>.</p>
</content>
</subsection>
</section>
<section GUID="idd1d2fc40-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_304">
<num>§ 304.</num>
<heading> Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral decisions and
awards; reciprocity</heading>
<content>
<p>Arbitral decisions or awards made in the territory of a foreign State
shall, on the basis of reciprocity, be recognized and enforced under this
chapter only if that State has ratified or acceded to the
<ref
href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30">Inter-American
Convention</ref>.</p>
<block
name="sourceCredit"> (Added <ref
href="/akn/us/act/pl_101/369/eng@1990-08-15#sec_1">Pub. L.
101–369, § 1 , Aug.
15, 1990</ref> , <ref
href="/akn/us/act/stat_104/449">104 Stat. 449</ref> .)
</block>
</content>
</section>
<section GUID="idd1d32352-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d" eId="sec_305">
<num>§ 305.</num>
<heading>Relationship between the <ref
href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30">Inter-American
Convention</ref> and the <ref
href="/akn/un/act/1958NYConvention/eng@1958-06-10">Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10,
1958</ref>
</heading>
<intro>
<p> When the requirements for application of both the <ref
href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30">Inter-American
Convention</ref> and the <ref
href="/akn/un/act/1958NYConvention/eng@1958-06-10">Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10,
1958</ref>, are met,
determination as to which Convention applies shall, unless otherwise
expressly agreed, be made as follows: </p>
</intro>
<paragraph GUID="idd1d32353-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_305__para_1">
<num>(1)</num>
<content>
<p> If a majority of the parties to the arbitration agreement are
citizens of a State or States that have ratified or acceded to the
Inter-American Convention and are member States of the Organization of
American States, the Inter-American
Convention shall apply.</p>
</content>
</paragraph>
<paragraph GUID="idd1d32354-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_305__para_2">
<num>(2)</num>
<content>
<p> In all other cases the <ref
href="/akn/un/act/1958NYConvention/eng@1958-06-10">Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10,
1958</ref>, shall apply. </p>
</content>
</paragraph>
</section>
<section GUID="idd1d32356-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_306">
<num>§ 306.</num>
<heading> Applicable rules of <organization
refersTo="#interAmericanCommercialArbitationCommission">Inter-American
Commercial Arbitration Commission</organization></heading>
<subsection GUID="idd1d34a67-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_306__subsec_a">
<num >(a)</num>
<content>
<p> For the purposes of this <ref
href="#chp_3">chapter</ref> the rules of procedure of the
<organization
refersTo="#interAmericanCommercialArbitationCommission">Inter-American
Commercial Arbitration Commission</organization> referred to in <ref
href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35#art_3">Article 3 of the
Inter-American Convention</ref> shall, subject to <ref href="#sec_306__subsec_b">subsection
(b) of this section</ref>, be those rules as
promulgated by the <organization
refersTo="#interAmericanCommercialArbitationCommission">Commission</organization>
on <date date="1988-07-01">July 1, 1988</date> .
</p>
</content>
</subsection>
<subsection GUID="idd1d34a68-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_306__subsec_b">
<num >(b)</num>
<content>
<p> In the event the rules of procedure of the <organization
refersTo="#interAmericanCommercialArbitationCommission">Inter-American
Commercial Arbitration Commission</organization> are modified or amended
in accordance with the procedures for amendment of the rules of that
Commission, the <role refersTo="#secretaryOfState">Secretary
of State</role>, by regulation in
accordance with <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_5#sec_553">section 553 of title
5</ref>, consistent with the aims and purposes of this Convention, may
prescribe that such modifications or amendments shall be effective for
purposes of this <ref href="#chp_3">chapter</ref>.
</p>
</content>
</subsection>
</section>
<section GUID="idd1d34a6a-f639-11e2-8470-abc29ba29c4d"
eId="sec_307">
<num>§ 307.</num>
<heading> <ref href="/akn/us/act/title_9#chp_1">Chapter
1</ref>; residual application</heading>
<content>
<p><ref href="/akn/us/act/title_9#chp_1">Chapter
1</ref> applies to actions and proceedings brought under this <ref
href="/akn/us/act/title_9#chp_3">chapter</ref> to the
extent <ref href="/akn/us/act/title_9#chp_1">chapter
1</ref> is not in conflict with this <ref href="/akn/us/act/title_9#chp_3">chapter</ref>
or the <ref href="/akn/oas/act/1975__b_35/eng@1975-01-30">Inter-American
Convention</ref> as ratified by the United States.</p>
<block name="sourceCredit"> (Added <ref
href="/akn/us/act/pl_101/369/eng@1990-08-15#sec_1">Pub. L.
101–369, § 1 , Aug.
15, 1990</ref>, <ref
href="/akn/us/act/stat_104/449">104 Stat. 449</ref> .)
</block>
</content>
</section>
</chapter>
</portionBody>
</portion>
</akomaNtoso>
|
Akoma Ntoso is a rich standard so it is possible to apply it
at different levels of compliance.
Five levels of compliance to the Akoma Ntoso schema have
been defined. The technical XML validation is a pre-requirement for compliance.
To be compliant, you must apply the Akoma Ntoso schema
presented in this document according to the following table:
|
|
Level
1:
|
use
the document structure defined in the Akoma Ntoso specification (e.g.,
preface, preamble, body, conclusion, annexes) for the entire document
|
|
|
Level
2:
|
use
the document structure and naming convention of URI/IRI (FRBR metadata) and
IDs defined in the D3 (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention)
|
|
|
Level
3:
|
use
the structure and naming convention defined in Level 2, plus basic metadata (see
definition below)
|
|
|
Level
4:
|
use
the structure, naming convention and basic metadata defined in Level 3, plus
advanced metadata (see definition below)
|
|
|
Level
5:
|
use
the structure, naming convention, basic and advanced metadata defined in
Level 4, plus enriched semantic elements (e.g. references, location,
quantity, term, person, etc.)
|
To help each institution to find the subset of Akoma Ntoso
XML-schema suitable for its needs and requirements, we have developed a
sub-schema extractor web service. This web service is able to extract only the
part of the XML-schema in which the end-user is interested, and can be accessed
from http://akn.web.cs.unibo.it/aknssg/aknssg.html.
For Basic metadata we mean:
- <identification> part with the FRBR;
- <publication> part where it makes sense;
- normative references.
For Advanced metadata we mean:
- <lifecycle> part;
- <analysis> part;
- <workflow> part;
- <references> part.
The rule of optionality and requiredness of the ids as
specified in the “Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention Version 3.0” is as follows:
a) Attribute GUID may be used for all compliancy
levels, and no constraint on is syntax is imposed.
b) Documents seeking compliancy level 2 or greater
must use attributes eId and wId according to the constraints and rules
expressed in section 8 of these notes.
c) Documents seeking compliancy level 1 may use
attributes eId and wId, and if they do use them, they must use them according
to the constraints and rules expressed in section 8 of these notes.
d) Documents seeking compliancy level 1 and not
complying with the constraints and rules for identifiers expressed in section 8
of these notes must not use attributes eId and wId.
This chapter defines five Akoma Ntoso conformance clauses:
1. A document
conformance to a level 1 MUST follow the document structure defined in the
Akoma Ntoso specification (e.g., preface, preamble, body, conclusion, annexes)
for the entire document;
2. A document
conformance to a level 2 MUST follow the document structure defined in the
Akoma Ntoso specification (e.g., preface, preamble, body, conclusion, annexes)
for the entire document AND naming convention of URI/IRI (FRBR metadata) and
IDs defined in the D3 (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention);
3. A document
conformance to a level 3 MUST follow the document structure defined in the
Akoma Ntoso specification (e.g., preface, preamble, body, conclusion, annexes)
for the entire document; the naming convention of URI/IRI (FRBR metadata) and
IDs defined in the D3 (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention) AND the basic metadata
FRBR, <publication>, normative reference;
4. A document
conformance to a level 4 MUST follow the document structure defined in the
Akoma Ntoso specification (e.g., preface, preamble, body, conclusion, annexes)
for the entire document; the naming convention of URI/IRI (FRBR metadata) and
IDs defined in the D3 (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention); the basic metadata FRBR,
<publication>, normative reference AND the advanced metadata
<lifecycle>, <workflow>, <analysis>, <references>.
5. A document
conformance to a level 5 MUST follow the document structure defined in the
Akoma Ntoso specification (e.g., preface, preamble, body, conclusion, annexes)
for the entire document; the naming convention of URI/IRI (FRBR metadata) and
IDs defined in the D3 (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention); the basic metadata FRBR,
<publication>, normative reference; the advanced metadata
<lifecycle>, <workflow>, <analysis>, <references> AND
inline semantic elements <role>, <person>, <location>, <organization>,
<concept>, <term>, <data>.
The following individuals have participated in the creation
of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged:
Participants:
Aisenberg, Michael, Mitre Corporation
Arocena, María de la Paz, Uruguay Parliament
Barysheva, Nataliya, LexisNexis a Division of
Reed Elsevier
Bbaale, Fred, Uganda Parliament
Beatch, Richard, Bloomberg
Finance L.P.
Bennett, Daniel, Individual Member
Briotti, Giuseppe, Senato della
Repubblica d’Italia
Bruce, Tom, Cornell Law School,
Legal Information Institute
Cabral, James, MTG Management
Consultants, LLC.
Dohaini, Bassel, Lebanese Parliament
Dunning, John, LexisNexis a
Division of Reed Elsevier
Fabiani, Claudio, EU Parliament
Ferguson, Kimberly, Library of
Congress
Ferreira, Daniel, Uruguay
Parliament
Fiagome, Shirley-Ann, Ghana
Parliament
Gheen, Tina, Library of
Congress
Greenwood, Dazza, M.I.T.
Hardjono, Thoma, M.I.T.
Hariharan, Ashok, Africa
i-Parliaments Action Plan (UN/DESA)
Harris, Jim, National Center
for State Courts
Joergensen, John, Cornell Law
School, Legal Information Institute
Junge, Peter, Beijing Sursen
Electronic Technology Co, Ltd.
Khamis, Mr. Maan, LexisNexis a
Division of Reed Elsevier
Marchetti, Carlo, Senato della
Repubblica d’Italia
Mattocks, Carl, Individual
Member
Murungi, Michael, Kenya
National Council for Law Reporting
Otto Eridan, Biblioteca del
Congreso Nacional de Chile
Palmirani, Monica, University of
Bologna
Parisse, Véronique, Aubay S.A.
Petri, Steve, LexisNexis a
Division of Reed Elsevier
Pham, Kim, US Military Health
Services
Ramsahye-Rakha, Saseeta, Mauritius
National Assembly
Sandoval, Alvaro, Biblioteca
del Congreso Nacional de Chile
Shifrin, Laurel, LexisNexis a
Division of Reed Elsevier
Sifaqui, Christian, Biblioteca
del Congreso Nacional de Chile
Sosa, Raquel, Uruguay
Parliament
Sperberg, Roger, LexisNexis a
Division of Reed Elsevier
Tosar Piaggio, Sylvia, Uruguay Parliament
Vergottini, Grant, Xcential
Group, LLC.
Vitali, Fabio, University of
Bologna
Waldt, Dale, LexisNexis a
Division of Reed Elsevier
Weber, Andrew, Library of
Congress
Wemer, Jason, Wells Fargo
Wintermann, John, Bloomberg
Finance L.P.
Zeni, Flavio, Africa i-Parliaments
Action Plan (UN/DESA)
|
Revision
|
Date
|
Editor
|
Changes Made
|
|
[01]
|
[06 February 2013]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[Editing of the first
version]
|
|
[02]
|
[22 March 2013]
|
[Roger Sperberg]
|
[English revision]
|
|
[03]
|
[30 October 2013]
|
[Grant Vergottini]
|
[Inclusion of the sessions
2]
|
|
[04]
|
[20 May 2014]
|
[Veronique Parisse]
|
[Inclusion of the sessions
7]
|
|
[05]
|
[27 August 2014]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[Formatting and inclusion of
sessions 5.7]
|
|
[06]
|
[4 September 2014]
|
[Grant Vergottini]
|
[English revision]
|
|
[07]
|
[5 September 2014]
|
[Veronique Parisse]
|
[Revision of the content and
some additional editing]
|
|
[08]
|
[5 September 2014]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[Inclusion of examples 6.4
and 6.6, some other information concerning the structure of the partitions.]
|
|
[09]
|
[9 September 2014]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[Inclusion of some comments
from the Summer School LEX2014 brain storming.]
|
|
[10]
|
[17 September 2014]
|
[Veronique Parisse]
|
[Minor errors in the syntax
examples]
|
|
[11]
|
[22 December 2014]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[Updating of the number of
the CSD11 into CSD12 and the date]
|
|
[12]
|
[08 January 2015]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[Updating the content
according with the CSD13]
|
|
[13]
|
[12 January 2015]
|
[Grant Vergottini]
|
[English revision paragraph
6.7]
|
|
[14]
|
[13 January 2015]
|
[Veronique Parisse
|
[some typos in the eId and
some inclusion of tilde syntax in the internal and external uri]
|
|
[15]
|
[14 January 2015]
|
[Jeason Wemer]
|
[editorial revision]
|
|
[16]
|
[14 January 2015]
|
[Monica Palmirani]
|
[consolidation of all the
revisions]
|
