R. Winkels

Comparing XML standardsAlexander Boer

Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of Amsterdam

Overview

4 sources of the European CommissionSome of the sources are modifications on another one.Comparing different XML languages: Danish, Dutch, Italian, Austrian, SwissNo Danish contribution today

Why compare?

Which one is the best standard?Translation to other standards

possible?Learning best practices from other

standards

Does it use existing standards for:naminglinkingvalidation

Etc…

Is it supported by special purpose tools

is it useful in general purpose XML applications?

does it have features that prohibit or encumber its use for/in ...?

does it needlessly address non-legal issues it shouldn’t address?

Is it for:relating documentsmetadata about documentsdocument logical structure (formal profile)Some other special purpose (e.g. paper publishing)

Is it optimized for:1. paper publishing2. electronic p2p exchange3. electronic client-server4. editing

Is it oriented:1. Producing organizations2. Consuming organizationsProfile of user:1. Specialist non-routine decision maker2. Routine administrative decision maker3. Uninformed citizen4. Publisher5. Author

Precedence to:EfficiencyTransparencySimplicityCoverageExtensibilityLanguages

How many sources are in domain of standard?

How many different types of users (of the XML)?

Who asked for the standard?

Uses for structure

Layout???Selecting right snippets of text for search resultsLinking to justifying textStoring modifications instead of consolidationsStructured Editing (enforcing validity)

Metadata

Annotations describing competence of authorVersion managementTemporal regime managementClassification of purpose of sourceprocedural information (where does it fit in legal system that uses it)

METALex is…

An open interchange standard for legal sources

A minimal provision for tagging regulations Extensible for any conceivable purpose Jurisdiction-independent Language-independent Compliant with the newest W3C standards

and proposals Partly developed within E-POWER project

(IST 2000-28125)

XML vs. RDF

Equivalent XML and XML/RDF SchemaRDF (Resource Description Framework) Concept/Object-oriented Identity & meaning not linked to

serialization Bridging standard format for databases

en CASE tools Elegant solution for self-reference in

legal sources

XML vocabularies

XML vs. RDF

Semantic Layer

Data Store Knowledge Store

L1MetaLexMetaLex

PDFWord

XML

P1 P1

A1A1

L2

<….>

--------------

--------------

</…>

Identity/concept

Manifestation

Reference

Typed reference

Existing tools

Word pluginValidation and storage in RDFAutomatic generation of amending acts based on editing MetaLex sourcesAutomatic resolution of references in and to (MetaLex) legal sources

Results from Furore Workshop experiments

Student without previous exposure to XML created

1.4 XML documents 2.4 RDF sources, and 3.RDF temporal model relating

sources

Results from Furore Workshop experiments

Problems with usability: Namespace, base, URI (identity), URL

(import) No suitable editor

(Protégé/SemanticWorks bugs) for RDF

Results from Furore Workshop experiments

Problems with interpreting sources: What date in the document

corresponds with what date in event model = unawareness of EU publication and modification procedures

Are the footnotes annotations or just fancy (..) in the primary legal text