YEARS OF EUROPEAN ONLINE ANNÉES DE EN LIGNE ...
YEARS OF EUROPEAN ONLINE ANNÉES DE EN LIGNE ... YEARS OF EUROPEAN ONLINE ANNÉES DE EN LIGNE ...
the development of the metadata vocabulary was based on a synopsis of the metadata which are used in the different systems in the different countries. It turned out that the items could be classiied in two groups. the irst was related to the national or local legislation system. these metadata can hardly be reused on a more generic level. the other group, however, contain elements which are present in more or less all of the mentioned systems. the discussion also revealed that the development of a common metadata vocabulary has to proceed on two levels. A glossary has to be deined which does not only list the terms to be used, but also gives deinitions of what is meant by a speciic item. Only then can the terms be used to create an XmL grammar for the metadata concerned. A special item of the discussion concerned the description of the contents of legal acts within the metadata section. the use of thesauri and/or ontologies has to be taken into account. the multilingual approach such as presented by Eurovoc is beyond the scope of most of the national systems. But it was underlined that, for the domains covered by Eurovoc, this approach is useful. It has, of course, to be completed by additional information on those subjects which are not covered by European legislation and as a consequence not taken into account by Eurovoc. Another subject concerns the reuse of metadata information by systems giving access to legislative documents. the N-Lex system, which is still experimental, could certainly be improved and simpliied if documents foresee a commonly readable description of their contents. 2.3. Interests In the meetings of the working group, some issues more or less related to its mission have emerged. members of the working group showed interest in many different aspects of the use of technology in all parts of the production of oficial gazettes. the interests expressed by the members was often rooted in challenges experienced in the different countries and, as often in a working group, others have experienced the same challenges. the group thus showed its usefulness by giving the opportunity to exchange common challenges and solutions. Among the many and diverse interests expressed by the members, two issues proved to be of general interest, namely: • editorial tools for drafting legislation, • automatic indexation of legislation. the working group chose different approaches to the issues. Some members had an extensive knowledge of developing and/or implementation of edi- 01_2007_5222_txt_ML.indd 82 6-12-2007 15:13:48
WORKSHOP tors, thus providing the opportunity to examine the issue in one of the meetings. however, members did not have suficient expertise regarding automatic indexation, leading them to recommend the founding of a new working group. As mentioned, all the projects in the working group had considered the issue of an appropriate and user-friendly editor for drafting legislation in an XmL environment. One of the main grounds for concern about editors is the more and more widespread wish for capturing the legislative text at the source. If drafters write the legislative text in XmL, the text is ready for integration into information systems, publishing and archiving procedures, and there is no need for additional markup in prepress production — additional markup being both costly and creating opportunities for mistakes and errors. the working group examined the case of editors in its second meeting, with a presentation and demonstration of the NIREditor which was developed in the context of the Norme-inrete project. the working group’s discussions showed that there are at least three solutions to the editor question. these are: • a speciic editor (such as the NIREditor), • a generic XmL editor such as Xmetal which was used in the Swedish project and which can be conigured in such a way that all tags are hidden for the user, and • a generic word processor (e.g. microsoft word) with additional processing into XmL, such as the EU’s Legiswrite. the discussion showed that there were various arguments for and against the different approaches, and therefore no speciic conclusions could be drawn. here are some of the arguments: ‘A specific editor will only allow valid XML with no use for an a posteriori validation to the annoyance of the drafter’ ‘It is easier to do additional processing with the legislative texts than introducing a new editor to the users’ ‘The cost to develop and support a specific editor is too high’ ‘Cost of software licence for a generic XML editor is too high, if the editor should be used by all drafters’ ‘A specific editor gives the possibilities to aid the drafter with legal techniques at a much higher level’ 82 | 83 01_2007_5222_txt_ML.indd 83 6-12-2007 15:13:48
- Page 32 and 33: nicht autorisierte Abschrift der of
- Page 34 and 35: „Die Anforderungen und Bedingunge
- Page 36 and 37: hat, „Zugänglichkeit und Verstä
- Page 38 and 39: Old testament. this passage is set
- Page 40 and 41: this checkpoint is given a Priority
- Page 42 and 43: knowledge of the law. Adults, child
- Page 44 and 45: It is a dificult task to predict th
- Page 47 and 48: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 49 and 50: SOUVENIRS D’UNE DÉLÉGUÉE NATIO
- Page 51 and 52: EUR-LEX TODAY AND TOMORROW After mo
- Page 53 and 54: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 55 and 56: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 57 and 58: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 59 and 60: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS AND LEGAL INFORMA
- Page 61 and 62: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 63 and 64: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 65 and 66: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 67 and 68: LIFE AS A CELEX HOST INtRODUCtION I
- Page 69 and 70: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 71 and 72: MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WORKING PART
- Page 73 and 74: CONCLUSIONS first, I would like to
- Page 75 and 76: En tant que déléguée de la Grèc
- Page 77 and 78: LEGAL XML — USE OF XML FOR THE PR
- Page 79 and 80: WORKSHOP • publishing technologie
- Page 81: WORKSHOP • NiR and the NiR editor
- Page 85 and 86: WORKSHOP 3. SCOPE the expected resu
- Page 87 and 88: WORKSHOP gestützt auf die Verordnu
- Page 89 and 90: WORKSHOP which describe general com
- Page 91 and 92: WORKSHOP Arithmetic Poetry. Ameri
- Page 93 and 94: WORKSHOP Metadata fields collected
- Page 95 and 96: WORKSHOP tion of the common metadat
- Page 97 and 98: ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING OF LEGISLATIO
- Page 99 and 100: WORKSHOP the working group has focu
- Page 101 and 102: WORKSHOP • the integrity of a rec
- Page 103 and 104: WORKSHOP Examples of different appr
- Page 105 and 106: WORKSHOP conidence uses certiicatio
- Page 107 and 108: WORKSHOP 3. LEGISLAtIVE ISSUES CONC
- Page 109 and 110: WORKSHOP signature, is only publish
- Page 111 and 112: WORKSHOP 3.2.4. ARE THERE ACTS, DEC
- Page 113 and 114: WORKSHOP Electronic signature of PD
- Page 115 and 116: WORKSHOP formats are available: htm
- Page 117 and 118: WORKSHOP the chain of conidence is
- Page 119 and 120: WORKSHOP the object of SOLON is to
- Page 121 and 122: WORKSHOP 5. A secure session is now
- Page 123 and 124: WORKSHOP ESTONIA A certiicate-based
- Page 125 and 126: WORKSHOP ertheless, some assistance
- Page 127 and 128: WORKSHOP (b) If the system is XmL-b
- Page 129 and 130: COHERENCE OF TERMINOLOGY AND SEARCH
- Page 131 and 132: WORKSHOP nym for legal categories,
WORKSHOP<br />
tors, thus providing the opportunity to examine the issue in one of the meetings.<br />
however, members did not have suficient expertise regarding automatic indexation,<br />
leading them to recommend the founding of a new working group.<br />
As mentioned, all the projects in the working group had considered the<br />
issue of an appropriate and user-friendly editor for drafting legislation in an<br />
XmL environment. One of the main grounds for concern about editors is the<br />
more and more widespread wish for capturing the legislative text at the source.<br />
If drafters write the legislative text in XmL, the text is ready for integration into<br />
information systems, publishing and archiving procedures, and there is no<br />
need for additional markup in prepress production — additional markup being<br />
both costly and creating opportunities for mistakes and errors.<br />
the working group examined the case of editors in its second meeting,<br />
with a presentation and demonstration of the NIREditor which was developed<br />
in the context of the Norme-inrete project.<br />
the working group’s discussions showed that there are at least three solutions<br />
to the editor question. these are:<br />
• a speciic editor (such as the NIREditor),<br />
• a generic XmL editor such as Xmetal which was used in the Swedish<br />
project and which can be conigured in such a way that all tags are hidden<br />
for the user, and<br />
• a generic word processor (e.g. microsoft word) with additional processing<br />
into XmL, such as the EU’s Legiswrite.<br />
the discussion showed that there were various arguments for and against<br />
the different approaches, and therefore no speciic conclusions could be drawn.<br />
here are some of the arguments:<br />
‘A specific editor will only allow valid XML with no use for an a posteriori<br />
validation to the annoyance of the drafter’<br />
‘It is easier to do additional processing with the legislative texts than<br />
introducing a new editor to the users’<br />
‘The cost to develop and support a specific editor is too high’<br />
‘Cost of software licence for a generic XML editor is too high, if the<br />
editor should be used by all drafters’<br />
‘A specific editor gives the possibilities to aid the drafter with legal<br />
techniques at a much higher level’<br />
82 | 83<br />
01_2007_5222_txt_ML.indd 83 6-12-2007 15:13:48
Change language