← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
Fwd: Representation of the annexes in Akoma ntoso
Please find also this interesting post from Véronique.
Yours,
mp
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Oggetto:
Representation of the annexes in Akoma ntoso
Data:
Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:25:10 +0000
Mittente:
PARISSE, Véronique <>
A:
<>,
<>
CC:
<>
Dear Monica, dear Fabio,
This is a small reflexion on the
representation of the annexes and attachment of an act or
a bill.
In the European legislation among
others, there is an important semantic distinction between
the annexes and the attachments :
Annexes are used as a means
of presenting material outside the actual enacting
terms because it is technical or voluminous or both.
Examples of such material might be rules to be applied
by customs officers, doctors or veterinarians (such as
chemical analysis techniques, sampling methods, and
forms to be used), lists of products, tables of
figures, plans and drawings and so on.
Attachments, on the other hand, are
other legal acts pre-existing that are attached (not
‘annexed’) to an act.
They are generally approved by the act where
they are attached. Examples of acts which may be set
out in this way are rules of subordinate bodies and
international agreements.
Akoma
Ntoso represents these two concepts with a componentRef
inside an attachments element and considers
that both are independent documents.
But the
annexes are, by their nature, an integral part of the
current act.
It is more a structural decomposition than
another document.
It has no special metadata. In the
European legislation, it has not other heading that the
word ANNEX with, eventually, an number in the case of
multiple annexes.
So, the constraint to structure it
has an independent document is an inconvenient.
Why not
represent the annexes with a specific structural element
(for example, called <annex>) that has a
content of type "maincontent" and can occurs after the
conclusions of the act/bill ?
If
there is a need to represent it as another XML instance
(voluminous), it is still possible to represent it as a
fragment (a componentRef inside the annex element).
So, the decision to leave the annex as part of the
xml instance of the bill or to put it in a specific xml
instance will become a technical decision.
We can
reserve the
attachments element only for the other legal act
that is attached to the current act and is really another
document with its own metadata.
This
proposal simplifies also the representation of the
amending bill or the amendment when the modification is
about a complete annex, as you can see in the following
examples.
The
file COM_COM(2011)0876_EN.doc contains an example of an
amending bill, with a annex (annex 1) containing a new
annex (annex X) to introduce in the amended act (Directive
2000/60/EC) .
As you
can see in the drawing amending-bill.jpg, with the
current representation in Akoma Ntoso, 3 xml instances are
needed :
one
for the bill,
a
second for the annex and
a
third for the quoted annex.
With
representation of annexes by a structural element <annex>,
the representation can be more simple, because there is
only one xml instance : the annex is a structure inside
the bill and contains a quotedStructure
containing an annex.
The
structure will be something like this :
<akomantoso>
<bill>
<body>
</body>
<annex>
<num>ANNEX
I</num>
<p><mod>
<quotedStructure>
<annex>
<num>ANNEX
X</num><heading>LIST OF PRIORITY SUBSTANCES
IN THE FIELD OF WATER POLICY</heading>
<table>
...
And,
finally, the representation of amendment like the
following is also simplified (in blue: text of the
amendment; in green, text of the annex of the amending
bill; in bruin, the text of the annex in the amended act):
<DocAmend>Proposal for a directive</DocAmend>
<Article>Annex II a (new)</Article>
<DocAmend2>Directive
2008/105/EC</DocAmend2>
<Article2>Annex
II (new)</Article2>
Text
proposed by the Commission
Amendment
ANNEX IIa
‘ANNEX II
– Regulation (EC) No. 850/2004 of
the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004;
– Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of
the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18 December 2006;
– Directive 98/8/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February
1998;
– Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of
the European Parliament and of the Council
of 22 May 2012;
– Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of
the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 October 2009;
– Directive 2009/128/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 21
October 2009;
– Directive 2010/75/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 24
November 2010;
– Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of
the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 2010;
– Directive 2010/84/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15
December 2010.’
Or.
<Original>{EN}en</Original>
What
do you think of this proposition ?
Kind
regards
Véronique
Parisse
Attachment:
COM_COM(2011)0876_EN.doc
Description: MS-Word document
Attachment:
amending-bill.jpg
Description: JPEG image
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →