html5-img
1 / 21

Comparing XML standards

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

amethyst-farrell
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing XML standards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing XML standards Alexander BoerLeibniz Center for Law University of Amsterdam

  2. 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

  3. Why compare? Which one is the best standard? Translation to other standards possible? Learning best practices from other standards

  4. Does it use existing standards for: • naming • linking • validation Etc…

  5. 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?

  6. Is it for: • relating documents • metadata about documents • document logical structure (formal profile) • Some other special purpose (e.g. paper publishing)

  7. Is it optimized for: • paper publishing • electronic p2p exchange • electronic client-server • editing

  8. Is it oriented: • Producing organizations • Consuming organizations Profile of user: • Specialist non-routine decision maker • Routine administrative decision maker • Uninformed citizen • Publisher • Author

  9. Precedence to: • Efficiency • Transparency • Simplicity • Coverage • Extensibility • Languages

  10. How many sources are in domain of standard? How many different types of users (of the XML)? Who asked for the standard?

  11. 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)

  12. 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)

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. XML vocabularies

  16. XML vs. RDF

  17. Semantic Layer Data Store Knowledge Store MetaLex MetaLex XML L1 L2 <….> -------------- -------------- </…> P1 P1 A1 A1 Word PDF Identity/concept Reference Manifestation Typed reference

  18. 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

  19. Results from Furore Workshop experiments Student without previous exposure to XML created • 4 XML documents • 4 RDF sources, and • RDF temporal model relating sources

  20. Results from Furore Workshop experiments • Problems with usability: • Namespace, base, URI (identity), URL (import) • No suitable editor (Protégé/SemanticWorks bugs) for RDF

  21. 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

More Related