Fwd: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from LegalDocML - OASIS technical committee

Dear all,
please find in attachment the minutes of the last TC meeting 4th
March.
The next TC meeting of LegalDocML is planned for tomorrow 9th March
18.30 CET.
The agenda is focused on documentation: D1, D2, D3.
Best regards,
Monica

--------

Messaggio Inoltrato

--------

Oggetto:
Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from LegalDocML - OASIS
technical committee
Data:
Fri, 4 Mar 2016 20:09:49 +0100
Mittente:

Rispondi-a:

A:

Fabio Vitali:hello
Alejandro Silvera:Hi
Grant Vergottini:Sorry I'm late. Just saw the invite.
Fabio Vitali:we're waiting for Veronique
Monica Palmirani:hello
Monica Palmirani:we can start
Fabio Vitali:have you had the chance to read through the new version of the Naming Convention?
Monica Palmirani:It is missing veronique
Grant Vergottini:Fabio, for an <rref>, should I use the @from as a URL to the initial provision and the @upTo as the end eId?
Grant Vergottini:I only glanced through the naming convention
Fabio Vitali:@Grant: yes, of course, I renamed href to from, and we should update the documentation as well
Grant Vergottini:ok, thanks
Grant Vergottini:I glanced through the updated naming convetion (not thorougly), but didn't find any objections
Monica Palmirani: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legaldocml/event.php?event_id=42530
Monica Palmirani:In my version I have detected some typos but I would appreciate if you can check the pink parts.
Monica Palmirani:I have detected some typos in the simplified annotation according with the new syntax  of URI
Grant Vergottini:pink parts?
Fabio Vitali:pink parts?
Monica Palmirani:pink yes
Monica Palmirani:purple if you prefer
Grant Vergottini:I only see red parts
Fabio Vitali:I see a note on  page 33 and one on page 42, is it all?
parisse:hello
parisse:I don't heart anything
Fabio Vitali:noone is talking, veronique
Monica  Palmirani:doc@vers.!component~fragment
Fabio Vitali:ciao! anyway
Alejandro Silvera:hi
Monica  Palmirani:bill@v1.!main/~art_2
Monica Palmirani:originally it was bill@v1!main/~art_2  without dot before !
Monica Palmirani:also this  Y!main~art_2  is not correct isn't it FABIO?
Monica Palmirani:Y.!main~art_2
Monica Palmirani:this is correct
parisse:what is Y ?
Fabio Vitali:I did not go this far. I probably should have
parisse:before the !
Monica Palmirani:act Y
Fabio Vitali:It is considerably different from what I wrote
parisse:I dont have time to read the doc until the end.
Fabio Vitali:Monica, if you are talking I don't hear it
Monica Palmirani:I am talking
Monica Palmirani:yes
Alejandro Silvera:yes
Grant Vergottini:I can
Monica Palmirani:For instance, using the following simplified naming convention:  doc@vers.!component~fragment , we can describe the four situations as follows
Monica Palmirani:page 48
Monica Palmirani:my question: is it correct?
Fabio Vitali:Why on earth did we introduce a simplified convention?
Monica Palmirani:I don't know
Monica Palmirani:for me is a mistake
Fabio Vitali:It makes no rhetorical sense to use yet another syntax just as an example
Monica Palmirani:for this reason I am asking
Fabio Vitali:use the convention, the FULL convention
Monica Palmirani:yes Fabio I agree
Fabio Vitali:Ok. I'll read the rest and update it
Fabio Vitali:Groan
Monica Palmirani:but in the document it still have and so I am asking
Fabio Vitali:Sorry, I should have had done this. I stopped at the end of the part of URI, instead of going on to the part about ids
Fabio Vitali:My mistake
Monica Palmirani:it is strange indeed to see this simplifications
Monica Palmirani:ok
Monica Palmirani:thanks I am ended form my side
Monica Palmirani:any other comments?
Monica Palmirani:to the FABIO document?
Grant Vergottini:I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly. I will try and find some time this weekend.
Fabio Vitali:Ok. I'll see to it that I finish the part about ids by tomorrow, or Sunday at the latest. I will NOT touch sections before 5,
Fabio Vitali:so you are free to read and comment on them in the meantime
Grant Vergottini:Ok
Monica Palmirani:please use this version Fabio
parisse:which version ?
Fabio Vitali:yes
Monica Palmirani:23
Monica Palmirani:also this example need to be checked:  sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1
parisse:ok, the one sending today ?
Monica Palmirani:I have added . before !
Monica Palmirani:according with the new syntax of /
Monica Palmirani:before it was: sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21!schedule_1
parisse:also the example of European, to use the inter-institutional convention for doc type
Fabio Vitali:why  a single dot?
Fabio Vitali:Single dots are NOT allowed
Monica Palmirani:the specification is to replace / with dot
Fabio Vitali:?
Monica Palmirani:now the rule written in the document is that
Fabio Vitali:??? where?
Monica Palmirani:The domain-less IRI of the Work, _expression_, Manifestation, as specified in this document,  or the full IRI of the Item, with all slash substituted with dots.
Monica Palmirani:4.10.1.10 TLCReference
Fabio Vitali:Oh. That's the identifying part of the TLCReference
parisse:eu/bill/PROP_DIR/COUNCIL/2005/31
Monica Palmirani:yes
Fabio Vitali:(whew)

Monica Palmirani:/akn/sl/act/2004-02-13/2/eng@2004-07-12/!schedule_1
Monica Palmirani:it is transformed in:  sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1
Fabio Vitali:good
Monica Palmirani:(missing akn)

Monica Palmirani:do we need also akn.sl....
Monica Palmirani:in the beginning
parisse:what ? we change the slash to . ?  why ?
Monica Palmirani:Fabio what do you think?  akn.sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1
Fabio Vitali:As long as we are clear: this is the identifying part of a ontology uri where you are using the TLC Reference element
Monica Palmirani:yes
Fabio Vitali:and the full URI is the following
parisse:?
Fabio Vitali:[ http http://www.authority.org]/akn/ontology/_expression_/akn.sl.act.2004-02-13.2.eng@2004-07-21.!schedule_1
parisse:which ontology ?
parisse:it is not in the standard
Fabio Vitali:Yes. Section 4.10. We do NOT have the ontology. We only specify how an ontology should refer to elements of the document, if they exist
Fabio Vitali:Thta's the whole point of TLC elements and of section 4.10 of the Naming Convention
Fabio Vitali:they are anchoring points for external ontologies
parisse:Ok I need to read it
Fabio Vitali:ok
Grant Vergottini:I do too
Monica Palmirani:ok
Grant Vergottini:I think we need a reading assignment and then another meeting
Monica Palmirani:So the modifications done are ok from my side. Only in this part of id for external ontology
parisse:@grant totally agree
Monica Palmirani:Ok please read it within next Monday ok?
Monica Palmirani:so we can plan another TC for the next 9th March
Grant Vergottini:Yes, I will read it this weekend
parisse:I am on holiday, so I think that I will have some times :-)
Monica Palmirani:9th March is ok for the next?
parisse:I will do my best I will be at Roma :-)
Monica Palmirani:Can I modify also the D1 according to the Fabio proposal
/!component~portion ?
Grant Vergottini:yes
Grant Vergottini:I will be in Oregon, but should be able to do the meeting
Fabio Vitali:ok March 9th for me.
parisse:what is this proposal ?
Monica Palmirani:secondly can Fabio produce new XSD?
Fabio Vitali:I will not be available the week 21-25 March.
parisse:I have also ~portion ?
Monica Palmirani:1. MARCH 9th approved next TC meeting
Monica Palmirani:2. updated D1
Fabio Vitali:We only have modifications in the documentation, no need for a new schema
Monica Palmirani:3. new XSD for generating D2
Monica Palmirani:we need a new XSD but same WD16
Fabio Vitali:I am NOT chancing Namespace, ok?
parisse:We still have  have also ~portion ?
Monica Palmirani:and also XML.XSD need modifications
Fabio Vitali:shanging
parisse: have also ~portion ?
Grant Vergottini:Please please please don't change the namespace
Monica Palmirani:nooo modification of the namespace
Fabio Vitali:c h a n g i n g
parisse:~art_3 is still valid ?
Fabio Vitali:Veronique: only in a document whose base has a portion or component part
Fabio Vitali:otherwise, not
parisse:what does it means ?
Monica Palmirani:<portion> or <component> correct?
parisse: what does it means ? It is reference to the same component part
Fabio Vitali:Veronique
Fabio Vitali:My mail was very clear, and your answer to it seemed to imply that you understood.
parisse:why is the meaning of !main ?  As the  main  document includes the attachments ?
parisse:!main is equivalent to all the document , no ?
Fabio Vitali:~art_5 is only appropriate if the BASE of the document has a component or fragment part, i.e. has already a !something or ~something in it
Fabio Vitali:No. Main is equivalent to the main component of the document,
Fabio Vitali:this is equivalent to the whole document only for documents who are only composed of the main part
parisse:I don't remember of this but ok the base will be always ended by !main
parisse:Could you add examples with this ?
Fabio Vitali:there are examples in the document
parisse:ok fine :-)  I really need to read it :-)
parisse:who are only composed of the main part : what means the  main part  ? from which xml element ?
parisse:what are
Monica Palmirani:[ http://www.authority.org ]/akn/eu/act/2003-11-13/87/!main~art_3 The  portion containing article 3 of the Work of the European Directive 2003/87/EC
parisse:what means !main ? from which xml element ?
Monica Palmirani:it is different from [ http://www.authority.org ]/akn/eu/act/2003-11-13/87/!main#art_3 The  whole document of the Work of the European Directive 2003/87/EC with scrolling to art_3
Monica Palmirani:veronique this is very clear in the email of Fabio and my email later
Fabio Vitali:A composite document is composed of many independent XML documents, organized in a hierarchical structure.
parisse:because the attachments are inside the !main
parisse:so I really don't understand this !main
Monica Palmirani:if you have schedule_1 it is a separate logic component
parisse:they are grouped at the attachments  part of the main document
Monica Palmirani:it doesn't matter if you have in the same XML
parisse:the attachments is inside !main
Monica Palmirani:no
parisse:what is !main so in term of xml ?
Fabio Vitali:There is NO connection between XML and the naming Convention, except for the ids used in the Portion parts, and even there, it is not a strict connection
Fabio Vitali:It is a logical structure, not a concrete one
parisse:what is the correspondent xml of the  logical structure  ?  I really dont understand what is the meaning of  main
parisse:I understand  body ,  preamble ,  attachment  but not  main
Monica Palmirani:The main is the main document. Schedule is an annex and in the FRBRWork you have to say:
Monica Palmirani:					 <componentInfo>						 	<componentData href=
showAs= Schedule 1  name= Schedule 1 /> </componentInfo>
Fabio Vitali:Monica do not use XML examples
Monica Palmirani:Veronique doesn't know this fragment of XML
parisse:The annexes are logically part of the act
Fabio Vitali:Veronique: a complex document is composed of many sub-documents. Since this is often a hierarchy, there is an upper-level document containing all the others. This is the 'main' document
parisse:yes, for documentCollection, amendmentList
Fabio Vitali:An annex is a subdocument of the main document. For this reason it is referred to as !main/annex_1
Fabio Vitali:Since all documents are subparts of the main, the main part CAN be omitted, but it is still there
Fabio Vitali:No. documentCollections and amendmentLists are XML representations, i.e., Manifestations. Components exists also for Works and Expressions
parisse:I think that you use a logical model for the reference that does not correspond to the logical model used for the ako representation
Fabio Vitali:Why?
parisse:that is why I don't understand
parisse:because in ako, attachments are the last part of the main document
Fabio Vitali:No they re not.
Monica Palmirani:no no veronique
Monica Palmirani:attachment is a component of the main
Fabio Vitali:This is just ONE way to put them
parisse:yes you have <conclusions> then <attahcments>
Fabio Vitali:You CAN place the attachment at the end of the document, or specify them via documentRef from a different place
Monica Palmirani:Veronique this was defined several months ago. It is part of the original core of AKN.
parisse:where is the content of the attachment is technical choice.  But they are defines in the attachments part of the  main  document
parisse:so if you take the  main  manifestation, it is with the attachments element
Fabio Vitali:They are defined as subdocuments of the main document. They are placed in the attachment elements within the main body in the XML representation of legal documents. The naming convention does NOT assume that you are using an XML representation
parisse:yes, I see that the model is different
parisse:because in the xml there is no element corresponding to what is called !main in the naming convention
Fabio Vitali:And there is no element called schedule 1
Fabio Vitali:and there is no element called annex 1
Fabio Vitali:These are NOT element names, but cinceptual names
Fabio Vitali:conceptual
parisse:schedule 1 correspond to a <doc> that is the first <attachment> of the main document in ako
Monica Palmirani:Main is the legal basic act/bill/doc that makes possible to have all the other attachemnts, annexes, schedules. Without the  main  the other parts are nothing legally speaking. It is a conceptual legal structure.
Monica Palmirani:ako means akn?
parisse:yes
parisse:sorry
Fabio Vitali:You are mixing levels. The naming convention does NOT imply or require we to use XML.
Monica Palmirani:It is fundamental for me to have the concept of  main  legally speaking
parisse:but the schedule_1 can also have attachments.  Do you consider that they are part of schedule_1
Fabio Vitali:There must be a way to refer to documents that are NOT XML
parisse:yes of course, I can apply this without xml.  xml is a concrete syntax.  But I dont see a good mapping with this concrete syntax.  That is my problem
Fabio Vitali:why not?
Grant Vergottini:I need to go. I have another meeting in a few minutes. I will be better prepared for the next meeting on the 9th
parisse:because !main has not corresponding element in xml.  schedule_1, for example, correspond to the doc that is the first attachment
Fabio Vitali:Do NOT consider schedule 1 as some kind on element name or id of some element.. It could be nowhere to be found
Fabio Vitali:You could have a completely disaggregated structure of components each of which would have its independent structure, id, and so on. In this case, the term  schedule 1  could be nowhere
Fabio Vitali:using the id is ONLY for portions
Fabio Vitali:as in <akomaNtoso>...<portion>...</portion></akomaNtoso>
parisse:Thanks to your explanation.
But why do we have naming convention inside akoma ntoso then ?
Fabio Vitali:Akoma Ntoso is three things: an XML vocabulary, a Naminc Convention, and a way to make ontological references to parts of legal documents. They are more or less independent from each other
Monica Palmirani:These are the three pillars of AKN
parisse:Maybe it mneed to be explained and, taking this into account, we can move the eId, wId outside the naming convention
parisse:because it is a concrete syntax
Monica Palmirani:this was one requirement from Patrick of OASIS but this means to reopen a new public review!!!!!
Monica Palmirani:it could be a disaster
parisse:ok, now I understand.  Forget my suggestion ;-)
Fabio Vitali:I will add a few sentences at the beginning of section 5 to the effect that this applies ONLY to XML representations
parisse:I think that I will have a better reading, thanks :-)
Fabio Vitali:I thought i did already, but I don't see it anymore, so I'll add it again
Fabio Vitali:Must be going now
parisse:very sorry, but I need to go now
Fabio Vitali:See you next wednesday
parisse:fine :-)
parisse:I will make my best for this :-)
Monica Palmirani:ok Fabio please send the new xsd no modification of the namespace so I can regenerate the D2
Monica Palmirani:thanks
Monica Palmirani:ciao
parisse:Ah Monica, I verify, I am payed for Ravenna :-)
parisse:au revoir
Monica Palmirani:great !
Monica Palmirani:bonsoir
parisse:bonsoir .