210 likes | 317 Views
Comparing XML standards. Alexander Boer Leibniz Center for Law University of Amsterdam. Overview. 4 sources of the European Commission Some of the sources are modifications on another one. Comparing different XML languages: Danish, Dutch, Italian, Austrian, Swiss
E N D
Comparing XML standards Alexander BoerLeibniz Center for Law University of Amsterdam
Overview • 4 sources of the European Commission • Some of the sources are modifications on another one. • Comparing different XML languages: Danish, Dutch, Italian, Austrian, Swiss • No 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: • naming • linking • validation 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 documents • metadata about documents • document logical structure (formal profile) • Some other special purpose (e.g. paper publishing)
Is it optimized for: • paper publishing • electronic p2p exchange • electronic client-server • editing
Is it oriented: • Producing organizations • Consuming organizations Profile of user: • Specialist non-routine decision maker • Routine administrative decision maker • Uninformed citizen • Publisher • Author
Precedence to: • Efficiency • Transparency • Simplicity • Coverage • Extensibility • Languages
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 results • Linking to justifying text • Storing modifications instead of consolidations • Structured Editing (enforcing validity)
Metadata • Annotations describing competence of author • Version management • Temporal regime management • Classification of purpose of source • procedural 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 Schema • RDF (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
Semantic Layer Data Store Knowledge Store MetaLex MetaLex XML L1 L2 <….> -------------- -------------- </…> P1 P1 A1 A1 Word PDF Identity/concept Reference Manifestation Typed reference
Existing tools • Word plugin • Validation and storage in RDF • Automatic generation of amending acts based on editing MetaLex sources • Automatic resolution of references in and to (MetaLex) legal sources
Results from Furore Workshop experiments Student without previous exposure to XML created • 4 XML documents • 4 RDF sources, and • 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