1. R. Winkels Comparing XML standards Alexander Boer Leibniz 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: 1. paper publishing 2. electronic p2p exchange 3. electronic client-server 4. editing

8. Is it oriented: 1. Producing organizations 2. Consuming organizations Profile of user: 1. Specialist non-routine decision maker 2. Routine administrative decision maker 3. Uninformed citizen 4. Publisher 5. 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. META Lex 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 StoreKnowledge Store L1 MetaLex PDF Word XML P1 A1 L2 -------------- Identity/concept Manifestation Reference 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 1. 4 XML documents 2. 4 RDF sources, and 3. 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