OASIS LegalDocumentML (LegalDocML) TC

Thank you for this example. It is a good case. I see that while you marked this up as an <an:intro>, the term in Italian for this construct is an "alinea". This is the exact same construct that I have so far found to also be called a "chapeau" (U.S. House, Canada, and Hong Kong), and "umbrella" (Canada), "introductory text" (U.S. House), or amusingly, "top bread" (Hong Kong). I believe, following Fabio's discussion, that your markup is correct and as intended.   So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this?   (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??)   -Grant 2013/5/16 < giuseppe.briotti@senato.it > Well, A tipical Article structure in Italian Senate is as follow: This article is composed by 3 Comma (the red ones), usually numbered (in the past, also unnumbered Commas are allowed). The last Comma has an introduction called Alinea (yellow) that introduce a single Lettera (in green). The Lettera itself can be composed by an Alinea and following numbered sections called Numero. Despite our "naming tradition", we marked this article as per Akoma in the following way: <an:article id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4" >                             <an:num> Articolo 3. </an:num>                             <an:heading id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b1" >                                 <an:i> (Disposizioni per far fronte all’emergenza                                    ambientale <an:eol/> nella Regione Campania) </an:i>                             </an:heading>                             <an:paragraph id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b2" >                                 <an:num> 1. </an:num>                                 <an:content id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b2b1" >                                     <an:p> In deroga al divieto di proroga o rinnovo di cui                                        all’articolo 3, comma 2, del decreto-legge 15 maggio 2012,                                        n. 59, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 12 luglio                                        2012, n. 100, atteso il permanere di gravi condizioni di                                        emergenza ambientale e ritenuta la straordinaria necessità e                                        urgenza di evitare il verificarsi di soluzioni di continuità                                        nelle gestioni degli impianti di collettamento e depurazione                                        di Acerra, Marcianise, Napoli Nord, Foce Regi Lagni, Cuma e                                        impianto di grigliatura e derivazione di Succivo, nella                                        Regione Campania, fino al 31 marzo 2014, salvo ultimazione                                        anticipata da parte della Regione Campania delle procedure                                        per la selezione del soggetto affidatario dell’adeguamento e                                        gestione degli impianti, continuano a produrre effetti le                                        disposizioni, di cui all’ordinanza del Presidente del                                        Consiglio dei Ministri n. 4022 del 9 maggio 2012, pubblicata                                        nella <an:i> Gazzetta Ufficiale </an:i> n. 147 del 1° giugno                                        2012 e successive modificazioni. Fino allo stesso termine                                        continuano a produrre effetti i provvedimenti                                        rispettivamente presupposti, conseguenti e connessi                                        all’ordinanza 4022/2012. </an:p>                                 </an:content>                             </an:paragraph>                             <an:paragraph id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b3" >                                 <an:num> 2. </an:num>                                 <an:content id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b3b1" >                                     <an:p> Agli oneri derivanti dall’attuazione del presente articolo                                        si provvede con le risorse già previste per la copertura                                        finanziaria della richiamata ordinanza del Presidente del                                        Consiglio dei Ministri. </an:p>                                 </an:content>                             </an:paragraph>                             <an:paragraph id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4" >                                 <an:num> 3. </an:num>                                 <an:list id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4a" >                                     <an:intro id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4b1" >                                         <an:p> All’articolo l, comma 2, del decreto-legge 26 novembre                                            2010, n. 196, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge                                            24 gennaio 2011, n. 1, sono apportate le seguenti                                            modificazioni: </an:p>                                     </an:intro>                                     <an:point id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4b2" >                                         <an:num>                                             <an:i> a) </an:i>                                         </an:num>                                         <an:content id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4b2b1" >                                             <an:p> al primo periodo la parola: “ventiquattro” è                                                sostituita dalla seguente: “trentasei”; </an:p>                                         </an:content>                                     </an:point>                                 </an:list>                             </an:paragraph>                         </an:article> -- ing. Giuseppe Briotti Servizio dell'Informatica Senato della Repubblica First, you forget all you know about "databases". (Lotus Notes Tutorial) La bontà di un programmatore Java si riconosce da come gestisce le eccezioni. (B. Eckel) Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Occam) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738

Hello, Alinea is not the only structure that has different meaning depending on the tradition.  Section could be a structure to group multiple article while for other traditions, I think, it is a substructure of the basic normative unit or the normative unit.  Akoma ntoso provides hierarchy without requires a specific order. Regarding the <p>, for the enacting terms, personnally I don't need to have more than one <p> inside an<intro>, <content> or <wrap>.  I only use the <intro> and <wrap> for the <list> element.  And I never use <content> inside a <list> ... <p> is a block element (mixed content) allowed for every structure (recital, citation, content, intro, wrap, ...). So I don't know what is redundant : the <p> element or  the <content>.  (<recital> and <citation> don't have <content> element inside) Kind regards Véronique De : grant.vergottini@gmail.com [grant.vergottini@gmail.com] de la part de Grant Vergottini [grant.vergottini@xcential.com] Envoyé : jeudi 16 mai 2013 18:41 À : giuseppe.briotti@senato.it Cc : PARISSE, Véronique; legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org Objet : Re: [legaldocml] RE:[legaldocml] RE:[legaldocml] Two similar tags: alinea and intro Thank you for this example. It is a good case. I see that while you marked this up as an <an:intro>, the term in Italian for this construct is an "alinea". This is the exact same construct that I have so far found to also be called a "chapeau" (U.S. House, Canada, and Hong Kong), and "umbrella" (Canada), "introductory text" (U.S. House), or amusingly, "top bread" (Hong Kong). I believe, following Fabio's discussion, that your markup is correct and as intended.   So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this?   (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??)   -Grant 2013/5/16 < giuseppe.briotti@senato.it > Well, A tipical Article structure in Italian Senate is as follow: This article is composed by 3 Comma (the red ones), usually numbered (in the past, also unnumbered Commas are allowed). The last Comma has an introduction called Alinea (yellow) that introduce a single Lettera (in green). The Lettera itself can be composed by an Alinea and following numbered sections called Numero. Despite our "naming tradition", we marked this article as per Akoma in the following way: <an:article id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4" >                             <an:num> Articolo 3. </an:num>                             <an:heading id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b1" >                                 <an:i> (Disposizioni per far fronte all’emergenza                                    ambientale <an:eol/> nella Regione Campania) </an:i>                             </an:heading>                             <an:paragraph id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b2" >                                 <an:num> 1. </an:num>                                 <an:content id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b2b1" >                                     <an:p> In deroga al divieto di proroga o rinnovo di cui                                        all’articolo 3, comma 2, del decreto-legge 15 maggio 2012,                                        n. 59, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 12 luglio                                        2012, n. 100, atteso il permanere di gravi condizioni di                                        emergenza ambientale e ritenuta la straordinaria necessità e                                        urgenza di evitare il verificarsi di soluzioni di continuità                                        nelle gestioni degli impianti di collettamento e depurazione                                        di Acerra, Marcianise, Napoli Nord, Foce Regi Lagni, Cuma e                                        impianto di grigliatura e derivazione di Succivo, nella                                        Regione Campania, fino al 31 marzo 2014, salvo ultimazione                                        anticipata da parte della Regione Campania delle procedure                                        per la selezione del soggetto affidatario dell’adeguamento e                                        gestione degli impianti, continuano a produrre effetti le                                        disposizioni, di cui all’ordinanza del Presidente del                                        Consiglio dei Ministri n. 4022 del 9 maggio 2012, pubblicata                                        nella <an:i> Gazzetta Ufficiale </an:i> n. 147 del 1° giugno                                        2012 e successive modificazioni. Fino allo stesso termine                                        continuano a produrre effetti i provvedimenti                                        rispettivamente presupposti, conseguenti e connessi                                        all’ordinanza 4022/2012. </an:p>                                 </an:content>                             </an:paragraph>                             <an:paragraph id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b3" >                                 <an:num> 2. </an:num>                                 <an:content id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b3b1" >                                     <an:p> Agli oneri derivanti dall’attuazione del presente articolo                                        si provvede con le risorse già previste per la copertura                                        finanziaria della richiamata ordinanza del Presidente del                                        Consiglio dei Ministri. </an:p>                                 </an:content>                             </an:paragraph>                             <an:paragraph id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4" >                                 <an:num> 3. </an:num>                                 <an:list id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4a" >                                     <an:intro id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4b1" >                                         <an:p> All’articolo l, comma 2, del decreto-legge 26 novembre                                            2010, n. 196, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge                                            24 gennaio 2011, n. 1, sono apportate le seguenti                                            modificazioni: </an:p>                                     </an:intro>                                     <an:point id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4b2" >                                         <an:num>                                             <an:i> a) </an:i>                                         </an:num>                                         <an:content id= "w1aaab6b8b1b4b4b2b1" >                                             <an:p> al primo periodo la parola: “ventiquattro” è                                                sostituita dalla seguente: “trentasei”; </an:p>                                         </an:content>                                     </an:point>                                 </an:list>                             </an:paragraph>                         </an:article> -- ing. Giuseppe Briotti Servizio dell'Informatica Senato della Repubblica First, you forget all you know about "databases". (Lotus Notes Tutorial) La bontà di un programmatore Java si riconosce da come gestisce le eccezioni. (B. Eckel) Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Occam) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738

Dear Grant, > So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this? There is only one guideline applying for elements belonging to the legislative hierarchy (i.e., the hcontainer pattern): whenever describing a legislative structure, you should use the name that is the closest to what your local tradition uses for it. Therefore, if (FOR THE SAME STRUCTURE) civil law countries use the term "article" (articolo, articulo, artigo, article, artikel, etc.) whereas common law countries use "section", you SHOULD USE "article" when marking a civil law document, and "section" when marking a common law document. This implies, for instance, that "section" means a different kind of structure when describing a civil law document than a common law country, because they use the term differently. This is a design feature and not a design bug of Akoma Ntoso. > (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??) Patterns, patterns, patterns. Combined with the fact that legislators all over the world like to use common terms for specialized purposes. So, a paragraph in legislation is NOT "a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line" (Webster Dictionary). Rather, in the US, "the Code is divided into 51 titles. All titles have sections as their basic coherent units, and sections are numbered sequentially across the entire title. Sections are often divided into (from largest to smallest) subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, items, and subitems." (Wikipedia) The term is the same, the concepts absolutely not. Therefore, in Akoma Ntoso, we have two separate elements for paragraphs a la Webster (<p>) and paragraph a la US Code (<paragraph>). They are different not only in meaning and use, but also and more importantly in the patterns they use: <paragraph> is an h-container, while <p> is a block. As a hcontainer, <paragraph> has content model of one or more heading elements (such as <header>, <num>, etc.) and EITHER sub-hierarchy elements, OR an element <content> that contains one or more block elements (e.g., <p> or <block>). Please note that this does NOT happen directly within the hierarchical element, but within the <content> element, which is the switch between the hcontainer and the block pattern. Therefore the nesting of p and paragraph is never direct. Hope this is clearer. Ciao Fabio -- Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone: +39 051 2094872 Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/

So, let's get to a specific case:   <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <content>       <p>This is the first paragraph</p>       <p>This is the second paragraph</p>    </content> </paragraph>   So here we have a legislative Paragraph made up of two normal paragraphs. Right? Except that this is an extremely rare occurrence in all the jurisdictions I have worked - and when it does occur it is an anomaly. I can count the number of times I have seen multiple unnumbered normal paragraphs within a level with the fingers on one hand - and I don't need all the fingers. The reason is that in legislation there is a need to number each and every paragraph (and I'm talking normal paragraph, not legislative Paragraph).  So far, in every case I have run across where there are multiple apparent paragraphs, the additional paragraph has been a proviso - and it always begins "Provided that..." or something to that effect.   So I'm going to invent a tag and assume it lives alongside an artificial <p>element: (I don't that this model is the right way to go, but I want this example to be symmetric with my example above)   <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <content>       <p>This is the text of the paragraph</p>       <proviso>Provided that...</proviso>    </content> </paragraph>   The amending language I have seen reads something like:   Amendment 1: In Paragraph A, after the first "the", insert...   Amendment 2: In the proviso of Paragraph A, after..., insert...   I have included, as an attachment, a sample from Hong Kong. This fragment has two provisos. The first proviso shows most clearly as a second apparent paragraph for subsection (1) - but it's known as the proviso.   If you look at the second proviso, you see that it itself becomes a hierarchical structure, and the words "Provided that-" become introductory text (or intro, chapeau, umbrella, top bread, etc.) The hierarchical structure of the proviso is separate from the normal hierarchy. So, for example, they would refer to "Paragraph (a) of the proviso of Subsection (4)" and this is not the same as "Paragraph (a) of Subsection (4)". For this reason, I am inclined to think the structure should be:   <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <content>       This is the text of the paragraph    </content>    <proviso>       <intro>Provided that-</intro>       <paragraph>          <num>a</num>          <content>...</content>       </paragraph>       ...    </proviso> </paragraph>   And finally, both the US House and Hong Kong seem to have the same basic notion of a proviso - so it's not a Hong Kong invention. It's origins are probably in the UK.   -Grant            On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fabio Vitali < fabio@cs.unibo.it > wrote: Dear Grant, > So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this? There is only one guideline applying for elements belonging to the legislative hierarchy (i.e., the hcontainer pattern): whenever describing a legislative structure, you should use the name that is the closest to what your local tradition uses for it. Therefore, if (FOR THE SAME STRUCTURE) civil law countries use the term "article" (articolo, articulo, artigo, article, artikel, etc.) whereas common law countries use "section", you SHOULD USE "article" when marking a civil law document, and "section" when marking a common law document. This implies, for instance, that "section" means a different kind of structure when describing a civil law document than a common law country, because they use the term differently. This is a design feature and not a design bug of Akoma Ntoso. > (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??) Patterns, patterns, patterns. Combined with the fact that legislators all over the world like to use common terms for specialized purposes. So, a paragraph in legislation is NOT "a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line" (Webster Dictionary). Rather, in the US, "the Code is divided into 51 titles. All titles have sections as their basic coherent units, and sections are numbered sequentially across the entire title. Sections are often divided into (from largest to smallest) subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, items, and subitems." (Wikipedia) The term is the same, the concepts absolutely not. Therefore, in Akoma Ntoso, we have two separate elements for paragraphs a la Webster (<p>) and paragraph a la US Code (<paragraph>). They are different not only in meaning and use, but also and more importantly in the patterns they use: <paragraph> is an h-container, while <p> is a block. As a hcontainer, <paragraph> has content model of one or more heading elements (such as <header>, <num>, etc.) and EITHER sub-hierarchy elements, OR an element <content> that contains one or more block elements (e.g., <p> or <block>). Please note that this does NOT happen directly within the hierarchical element, but within the <content> element, which is the switch between the hcontainer and the block pattern. Therefore the nesting of p and paragraph is never direct. Hope this is clearer. Ciao Fabio -- Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone:   +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/ -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738 Attachment: Cap132_s82.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document

De : grant.vergottini@gmail.com [grant.vergottini@gmail.com] de la part de Grant Vergottini [grant.vergottini@xcential.com] Envoyé : vendredi 17 mai 2013 0:33 À : Fabio Vitali Cc : giuseppe.briotti@senato.it; PARISSE, Véronique; legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org Objet : Re: [legaldocml] RE:[legaldocml] RE:[legaldocml] Two similar tags: alinea and intro So, let's get to a specific case:   <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <content>       <p>This is the first paragraph</p>       <p>This is the second paragraph</p>    </content> </paragraph>   In this case, it could be marked as (because it is so-called in amendment) <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <subparagraph>       <content>        <p>This is the first paragraph</p>       </content   </subparagraph>    <subparagraph>       <content>       <p>This is the second paragraph</p>       </content   </subparagraph> </paragraph> Example X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 1.            The Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, is hereby concluded on behalf of the Union. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. <article id="_2012200034"> <num><i>Article premier</i></num> <heading id="_2012200035"> <i>Conclusion</i> </heading> <paragraph id="_2012200036"> <num>1.</num>    <subparagraph id="_2012200037">        <content id="_2012200038"> <p> The Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, is hereby concluded on behalf of the Union. </p>        </content>     </subparagraph>     <subparagraph id="_2012200039">         <content id="_2012200040"> <p> The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. </p>             </content>     </subparagraph> </paragraph> </article>         So, in the amendment, the reference to one <p> is article 1 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 (or 2)   Kind regards Véronique On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fabio Vitali < fabio@cs.unibo.it > wrote: Dear Grant, > So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this? There is only one guideline applying for elements belonging to the legislative hierarchy (i.e., the hcontainer pattern): whenever describing a legislative structure, you should use the name that is the closest to what your local tradition uses for it. Therefore, if (FOR THE SAME STRUCTURE) civil law countries use the term "article" (articolo, articulo, artigo, article, artikel, etc.) whereas common law countries use "section", you SHOULD USE "article" when marking a civil law document, and "section" when marking a common law document. This implies, for instance, that "section" means a different kind of structure when describing a civil law document than a common law country, because they use the term differently. This is a design feature and not a design bug of Akoma Ntoso. > (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??) Patterns, patterns, patterns. Combined with the fact that legislators all over the world like to use common terms for specialized purposes. So, a paragraph in legislation is NOT "a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line" (Webster Dictionary). Rather, in the US, "the Code is divided into 51 titles. All titles have sections as their basic coherent units, and sections are numbered sequentially across the entire title. Sections are often divided into (from largest to smallest) subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, items, and subitems." (Wikipedia) The term is the same, the concepts absolutely not. Therefore, in Akoma Ntoso, we have two separate elements for paragraphs a la Webster (<p>) and paragraph a la US Code (<paragraph>). They are different not only in meaning and use, but also and more importantly in the patterns they use: <paragraph> is an h-container, while <p> is a block. As a hcontainer, <paragraph> has content model of one or more heading elements (such as <header>, <num>, etc.) and EITHER sub-hierarchy elements, OR an element <content> that contains one or more block elements (e.g., <p> or <block>). Please note that this does NOT happen directly within the hierarchical element, but within the <content> element, which is the switch between the hcontainer and the block pattern. Therefore the nesting of p and paragraph is never direct. Hope this is clearer. Ciao Fabio -- Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone:   +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/ -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738

Sorry, more clear without the header of the Grant's mail and with colors. So, let's get to a specific case:   <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <content>       <p>This is the first paragraph</p>       <p>This is the second paragraph</p>    </content> </paragraph>   In this case, it could be marked as (because it is so-called in amendment) <paragraph>    <num>A</num>    <subparagraph>       <content>        <p>This is the first paragraph</p>       </content   </subparagraph>    <subparagraph>       <content>       <p>This is the second paragraph</p>       </content   </subparagraph> </paragraph> Example 1.            The Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, is hereby concluded on behalf of the Union. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. <article id="_2012200034"> <num><i>Article premier</i></num> <heading id="_2012200035"> <i>Conclusion</i> </heading> <paragraph id="_2012200036"> <num>1.</num>    <subparagraph id="_2012200037">        <content id="_2012200038"> <p> The Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, is hereby concluded on behalf of the Union. </p>        </content>     </subparagraph>     <subparagraph id="_2012200039">         <content id="_2012200040"> <p> The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. </p>             </content>     </subparagraph> </paragraph> </article>         So, in the amendment, the reference to one <p> is article 1 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 (or 2)   Kind regards Véronique On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fabio Vitali < fabio@cs.unibo.it > wrote: Dear Grant, > So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this? There is only one guideline applying for elements belonging to the legislative hierarchy (i.e., the hcontainer pattern): whenever describing a legislative structure, you should use the name that is the closest to what your local tradition uses for it. Therefore, if (FOR THE SAME STRUCTURE) civil law countries use the term "article" (articolo, articulo, artigo, article, artikel, etc.) whereas common law countries use "section", you SHOULD USE "article" when marking a civil law document, and "section" when marking a common law document. This implies, for instance, that "section" means a different kind of structure when describing a civil law document than a common law country, because they use the term differently. This is a design feature and not a design bug of Akoma Ntoso. > (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??) Patterns, patterns, patterns. Combined with the fact that legislators all over the world like to use common terms for specialized purposes. So, a paragraph in legislation is NOT "a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line" (Webster Dictionary). Rather, in the US, "the Code is divided into 51 titles. All titles have sections as their basic coherent units, and sections are numbered sequentially across the entire title. Sections are often divided into (from largest to smallest) subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, items, and subitems." (Wikipedia) The term is the same, the concepts absolutely not. Therefore, in Akoma Ntoso, we have two separate elements for paragraphs a la Webster (<p>) and paragraph a la US Code (<paragraph>). They are different not only in meaning and use, but also and more importantly in the patterns they use: <paragraph> is an h-container, while <p> is a block. As a hcontainer, <paragraph> has content model of one or more heading elements (such as <header>, <num>, etc.) and EITHER sub-hierarchy elements, OR an element <content> that contains one or more block elements (e.g., <p> or <block>). Please note that this does NOT happen directly within the hierarchical element, but within the <content> element, which is the switch between the hcontainer and the block pattern. Therefore the nesting of p and paragraph is never direct. Hope this is clearer. Ciao Fabio -- Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone:   +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/ -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738

Dear Grant, in substantial agreement with Veronique, let me add that if you have a headed substructure (with numbers and/or headings and so on) you should use an hcontainer, and if you have a structure-less block of text, you should use p. As for the number of individual blocks found within a paragraph or any other hcontainer, I agree with you that multiple blocks are rare occurrences, but, at least in our tradition, not so rare as to be ignorable. Furthermore, in the civil law tradition, paragraph is a higher level structure (i.e., it sits above the article), so it is a rare occurrence indeed to have them contain text, while it is often the case for them to contain lower level structures, mostly subparagraphs and articles. Thus there is no reason that I see for handling the <paragraph> element differently than the other hcontainers: it is a hierarchical structure that can contain EITHER other hcontainers OR plain text content. In a manner similar to all other hcontainers, the text is contained in a pattern-switching element called <content> that contains block elements (usually only one, but allowing more than one is easy and deals with these rare exceptions). I strongly believe there should be no exceptions to the strong distinction between hcontainers and blocks, to the prohibition of hcontainers to contain directly text, and to the existence of a pattern-switching element <content> that contains block element(s) that contain text. We can, if you want, discuss whether element content (for paragraphs only or also for other hcontainers) should be forced to contain only ONE block or can be allowed to contain more than one in case one of these rare exceptions are found. Ciao Fabio -- Il giorno 17/mag/2013, alle ore 00.33, Grant Vergottini ha scritto: > So, let's get to a specific case: > > <paragraph> > <num>A</num> > <content> > <p>This is the first paragraph</p> > <p>This is the second paragraph</p> > </content> > </paragraph> > > So here we have a legislative Paragraph made up of two normal paragraphs. Right? Except that this is an extremely rare occurrence in all the jurisdictions I have worked - and when it does occur it is an anomaly. I can count the number of times I have seen multiple unnumbered normal paragraphs within a level with the fingers on one hand - and I don't need all the fingers. The reason is that in legislation there is a need to number each and every paragraph (and I'm talking normal paragraph, not legislative Paragraph). So far, in every case I have run across where there are multiple apparent paragraphs, the additional paragraph has been a proviso - and it always begins "Provided that..." or something to that effect. > > So I'm going to invent a tag and assume it lives alongside an artificial <p>element: (I don't that this model is the right way to go, but I want this example to be symmetric with my example above) > > <paragraph> > <num>A</num> > <content> > <p>This is the text of the paragraph</p> > <proviso>Provided that...</proviso> > </content> > </paragraph> > > The amending language I have seen reads something like: > > Amendment 1: In Paragraph A, after the first "the", insert... > > Amendment 2: In the proviso of Paragraph A, after..., insert... > > I have included, as an attachment, a sample from Hong Kong. This fragment has two provisos. The first proviso shows most clearly as a second apparent paragraph for subsection (1) - but it's known as the proviso. > > If you look at the second proviso, you see that it itself becomes a hierarchical structure, and the words "Provided that-" become introductory text (or intro, chapeau, umbrella, top bread, etc.) The hierarchical structure of the proviso is separate from the normal hierarchy. So, for example, they would refer to "Paragraph (a) of the proviso of Subsection (4)" and this is not the same as "Paragraph (a) of Subsection (4)". For this reason, I am inclined to think the structure should be: > > <paragraph> > <num>A</num> > <content> > This is the text of the paragraph > </content> > <proviso> > <intro>Provided that-</intro> > <paragraph> > <num>a</num> > <content>...</content> > </paragraph> > ... > </proviso> > </paragraph> > > And finally, both the US House and Hong Kong seem to have the same basic notion of a proviso - so it's not a Hong Kong invention. It's origins are probably in the UK. > > -Grant > > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fabio Vitali <fabio@cs.unibo.it> wrote: > Dear Grant, > > > So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this? > > There is only one guideline applying for elements belonging to the legislative hierarchy (i.e., the hcontainer pattern): whenever describing a legislative structure, you should use the name that is the closest to what your local tradition uses for it. Therefore, if (FOR THE SAME STRUCTURE) civil law countries use the term "article" (articolo, articulo, artigo, article, artikel, etc.) whereas common law countries use "section", you SHOULD USE "article" when marking a civil law document, and "section" when marking a common law document. This implies, for instance, that "section" means a different kind of structure when describing a civil law document than a common law country, because they use the term differently. This is a design feature and not a design bug of Akoma Ntoso. > > > (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??) > > Patterns, patterns, patterns. Combined with the fact that legislators all over the world like to use common terms for specialized purposes. So, a paragraph in legislation is NOT "a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line" (Webster Dictionary). Rather, in the US, "the Code is divided into 51 titles. All titles have sections as their basic coherent units, and sections are numbered sequentially across the entire title. Sections are often divided into (from largest to smallest) subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, items, and subitems." (Wikipedia) > > The term is the same, the concepts absolutely not. Therefore, in Akoma Ntoso, we have two separate elements for paragraphs a la Webster (<p>) and paragraph a la US Code (<paragraph>). They are different not only in meaning and use, but also and more importantly in the patterns they use: <paragraph> is an h-container, while <p> is a block. > > As a hcontainer, <paragraph> has content model of one or more heading elements (such as <header>, <num>, etc.) and EITHER sub-hierarchy elements, OR an element <content> that contains one or more block elements (e.g., <p> or <block>). Please note that this does NOT happen directly within the hierarchical element, but within the <content> element, which is the switch between the hcontainer and the block pattern. Therefore the nesting of p and paragraph is never direct. > > Hope this is clearer. > > Ciao > > Fabio > > > -- > > Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, > Dept. of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' > Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, > phone: +39 051 2094872 Man got to tell himself he understand. > e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" > http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/ > > > > > > > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > Grant Vergottini > Xcential Group, LLC. > email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com > phone: 858.361.6738 > <Cap132_s82.pdf> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone: +39 051 2094872 Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/

Dear Fabio,   Last week when I was in DC I asked about unnumbered paragraphs. Their term for them is "undesignated paragraph" and they bristled at the prospect of legitimizing them in anyway. They do exist in legislation and in the US Code, but are strongly regarded as a bad practice to be discouraged. They wanted us to be able to handle the occurrences that exist, but to not make it easy to create new ones.   As for the distinction between hContainer and block, I am in total agreement with you. I have always modeled these two things as separate and distinct constructs - although with different terminology. I'm having a problem with a <p> being inside a <paragraph> when, in US tradition, that looks redundant. <paragraph>/<content>/<p> seems heavy handed. Especially when everybody here keeps wanting even <content> to go - which I strongly resist as it would blur the hContainer/block distinction.   -Grant On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Fabio Vitali < fabio@cs.unibo.it > wrote: Dear Grant, in substantial agreement with Veronique, let me add that if you have a headed substructure (with numbers and/or headings and so on) you should use an hcontainer, and if you have a structure-less block of text, you should use p. As for the number of individual blocks found within a paragraph or any other hcontainer, I agree with you that multiple blocks are rare occurrences, but, at least in our tradition, not so rare as to be ignorable. Furthermore, in the civil law tradition, paragraph is a higher level structure (i.e., it sits above the article), so it is a rare occurrence indeed to have them contain text, while it is often the case for them to contain lower level structures, mostly subparagraphs and articles. Thus there is no reason that I see for handling the <paragraph> element differently than the other hcontainers: it is a hierarchical structure that can contain EITHER other hcontainers OR plain text content. In a manner similar to all other hcontainers, the text is contained in a pattern-switching element called <content> that contains block elements (usually only one, but allowing more than one is easy and deals with these rare exceptions). I strongly believe there should be no exceptions to the strong distinction between hcontainers and blocks, to the prohibition of hcontainers to contain directly text, and to the existence of a pattern-switching element <content> that contains block element(s) that contain text. We can, if you want, discuss whether element content (for paragraphs only or also for other hcontainers) should be forced to contain only ONE block or can be allowed to contain more than one in case one of these rare exceptions are found. Ciao Fabio -- Il giorno 17/mag/2013, alle ore 00.33, Grant Vergottini ha scritto: > So, let's get to a specific case: > > <paragraph> >    <num>A</num> >    <content> >       <p>This is the first paragraph</p> >       <p>This is the second paragraph</p> >    </content> > </paragraph> > > So here we have a legislative Paragraph made up of two normal paragraphs. Right? Except that this is an extremely rare occurrence in all the jurisdictions I have worked - and when it does occur it is an anomaly. I can count the number of times I have seen multiple unnumbered normal paragraphs within a level with the fingers on one hand - and I don't need all the fingers. The reason is that in legislation there is a need to number each and every paragraph (and I'm talking normal paragraph, not legislative Paragraph).  So far, in every case I have run across where there are multiple apparent paragraphs, the additional paragraph has been a proviso - and it always begins "Provided that..." or something to that effect. > > So I'm going to invent a tag and assume it lives alongside an artificial <p>element: (I don't that this model is the right way to go, but I want this example to be symmetric with my example above) > > <paragraph> >    <num>A</num> >    <content> >       <p>This is the text of the paragraph</p> >       <proviso>Provided that...</proviso> >    </content> > </paragraph> > > The amending language I have seen reads something like: > > Amendment 1: In Paragraph A, after the first "the", insert... > > Amendment 2: In the proviso of Paragraph A, after..., insert... > > I have included, as an attachment, a sample from Hong Kong. This fragment has two provisos. The first proviso shows most clearly as a second apparent paragraph for subsection (1) - but it's known as the proviso. > > If you look at the second proviso, you see that it itself becomes a hierarchical structure, and the words "Provided that-" become introductory text (or intro, chapeau, umbrella, top bread, etc.) The hierarchical structure of the proviso is separate from the normal hierarchy. So, for example, they would refer to "Paragraph (a) of the proviso of Subsection (4)" and this is not the same as "Paragraph (a) of Subsection (4)". For this reason, I am inclined to think the structure should be: > > <paragraph> >    <num>A</num> >    <content> >       This is the text of the paragraph >    </content> >    <proviso> >       <intro>Provided that-</intro> >       <paragraph> >          <num>a</num> >          <content>...</content> >       </paragraph> >       ... >    </proviso> > </paragraph> > > And finally, both the US House and Hong Kong seem to have the same basic notion of a proviso - so it's not a Hong Kong invention. It's origins are probably in the UK. > > -Grant > > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fabio Vitali < fabio@cs.unibo.it > wrote: > Dear Grant, > > > So do we have some confusion by having a tag also called <an:alinea> when the "paragraph" meaning from French is intended? How do we clarify this? > > There is only one guideline applying for elements belonging to the legislative hierarchy (i.e., the hcontainer pattern): whenever describing a legislative structure, you should use the name that is the closest to what your local tradition uses for it. Therefore, if (FOR THE SAME STRUCTURE) civil law countries use the term "article" (articolo, articulo, artigo, article, artikel, etc.) whereas common law countries use "section", you SHOULD USE "article" when marking a civil law document, and "section" when marking a common law document. This implies, for instance, that "section" means a different kind of structure when describing a civil law document than a common law country, because they use the term differently. This is a design feature and not a design bug of Akoma Ntoso. > > > (Another interesting construct I see, which I have been arguing with my colleagues here within Xcential about in recent weeks, is the nesting of an <an:p> within an <an:paragraph>. To me it seems redundant and only adds weight to the markup. Fabio??) > > Patterns, patterns, patterns. Combined with the fact that legislators all over the world like to use common terms for specialized purposes. So, a paragraph in legislation is NOT "a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line" (Webster Dictionary). Rather, in the US, "the Code is divided into 51 titles. All titles have sections as their basic coherent units, and sections are numbered sequentially across the entire title. Sections are often divided into (from largest to smallest) subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, items, and subitems." (Wikipedia) > > The term is the same, the concepts absolutely not. Therefore, in Akoma Ntoso, we have two separate elements for paragraphs a la Webster (<p>) and paragraph a la US Code (<paragraph>). They are different not only in meaning and use, but also and more importantly in the patterns they use: <paragraph> is an h-container, while <p> is a block. > > As a hcontainer, <paragraph> has content model of one or more heading elements (such as <header>, <num>, etc.) and EITHER sub-hierarchy elements, OR an element <content> that contains one or more block elements (e.g., <p> or <block>). Please note that this does NOT happen directly within the hierarchical element, but within the <content> element, which is the switch between the hcontainer and the block pattern. Therefore the nesting of p and paragraph is never direct. > > Hope this is clearer. > > Ciao > > Fabio > > > -- > > Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, > Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' > Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, > phone:   +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand. > e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" > http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/ > > > > > > > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > Grant Vergottini > Xcential Group, LLC. > email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com > phone: 858.361.6738 > <Cap132_s82.pdf> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly, Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?' Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land, phone:   +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand. e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle" http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/ -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738