1.
The Roles of the Official Gazettes in Web 2.0 ^
[1]
The new challenge of the Internet era is to foster all the potentialities of Web 2.0, to improve interchange between different bodies, and at the same time to preserve digital document collections over the long period. For legal resources, these issues are dramatically true, and they represent critical points in the digitalization process, moving to the paperless era of e-Law. This long-term approach supports the development of eGov, eDemocracy, and eParticipation, and it creates the essential prerequisites for a competing and growing economy.
[2]
In this scenario the official-gazette organizations can play a key role adopting Legal XML standards for preserving the authenticity, integrity, and validity over time of such fundamental document collections as law corpora. An official-gazette body is entrusted with safeguarding some key principles: permitting all citizens equal access, guaranteeing transparency and independency from proprietary applications, supporting open access to legal resources as a fundamental legal value in a modern democracy, favoring the private sector in the use of public information (Directive 2003/98/EC), and in this way supporting interoperability.
[3]
An abstract analysis of the fundamental functions of the official gazettes of European and non-European bodies identifies three main roles independent of the legal tradition underlying the legal system and independent of the form of government:
- to provide legal validity of normative acts through official publication instruments, mostly empowered at the constitutional level as sources of law;
- to ensure the publicity, authenticity, and cognoscibility of the law;
- to preserve in long term the legal deposit of those documents.
[4]
Recently, those institutional roles, endorsed by democratic establishments, have been enriched with new utilities making it possible to:
- offer free and authoritative access to original legal sources on the web;
- provide consolidated and updated law collections with annotations;
- supply the digital online publication of the legally binding original text (e.g., digital authentic publication);
- give new added-value services (commentary, jurisprudence, legal notes, etc.).
[5]
The figure 1 shows some statistics regarding the European countries (27 member states and the European Union institutions). But other services could arise from the Web 2.0 platform,1 services with which to fight the overproduction of legal information, the crisis of legislation,2 and the disorienting of end-users. New tools (e.g., iPad, smartPhone, etc.) make it possible to envisage the navigation of content by mobile devices, to use RSS3 to update news in real time, to adopt expert tagging for qualifying and interconnecting the content, to apply folksonomy techniques for fostering the semantic web, to use graphic representation to help citizens, and to use social networking techniques for creating jurisprudence and commentary. In order to open the door to these new applications – devoted, among the other purposes, to closing the digital divide, which still remains really deep,4 and which affects the digital democracy – we have to use Legal XML standard for legal documents.
Figure 1. Figures elaborated from Access to legislation in Europe,5 p. 230.
2.
Legal XML and Official Gazettes in Europe ^
[6]
In the European scenario seventeen6 official gazettes out twenty-eight are using XML format at some phase in their publishing process to favor interoperability, access, application-neutrality, and preservation of the document in the long term. The World e-Parliament Report 2010 provides interesting figures (see figure 2) on the use of the XML in parliaments: 34% of parliaments are now using XML, 90% for interoperability, 71% for presentation on the Web, 48% to improve searching, and 38% for long-term preservation.
[7]
In this scenario the potential of XML use for official-gazette purposes is tremendous, and the most important legal-publication bodies cannot avoid this rendezvous with innovation.
[8]
Transparency. Often the publication process joins the content layers (the law approved by an empowered body) with the typographic aspects, so the digital document becomes a mix of different tags, metadata, and information that is difficult to disentangle. This affects the information’s transparency as concerns the citizens, and also as concerns interoperability with other information systems (search engines, spiders, etc.). So the risk is that of loose over time the differences between the information added by an official gazette and the text approved by a law- or rule-making body. Another risk is that of moving to a PDF or opaque standard that doesn’t permit manipulation of the text or the machine reading of the semantic content.
[9]
Access and Accessibility . The XML document format can be broadcast widely with different devices; it also permits an inclusive and open communication, so as to reduce the digital divide,7 and improves accessibility for people with disabilities.
[10]
Multicanality . The separation between content representation and the typographic layer makes it possible to reshape the layout for different media: the Internet, mobile communication, TV, kiosks, paper.
[11]
New Way to Search . With XML it is possible to increase search potentialities and the accuracy, applying the indexing techniques and at the same time fostering the structure of the text. It is extremely useful to adopt ontologies, folksonomies, and content tagging (see de.li.cious), so as to close the gap between the legal experts and citizens.
[12]
Interoperability .The XML inside an official gazette makes it possible to set up an effective policy of interoperability between different information systems (legacy systems) and between the different institutions involved in the legislative process.
Figure 3. Accursius’s Magna Glossa
[13]
Consolidated Text . XML makes it possible to update the legal text in a semi-automatic way using different methods (direct consolidation, inverse consolidation, side-by-side comparison). The granularity of these manipulations is no longer limited to the document unit (article, paragraph), as currently happens on the database approach, but makes it possible to operate on the single fragment of a provision.
[14]
Graphical Representation . The metadata embedded in legal XML documents makes it possible to represent the semantic connections and relationships with graphical tools. This approach makes possible a greater usability of the legislative-document collection.
[15]
Long-Term Preservation . Accursius’sMagna Glossa8 is a good example of long-term preservation of an ancient act. This example underscores the opportunity of having a format document capable of preserving clearly separated content, metadata, structure, and presentation elements (the illuminations). After hundreds of years, this document preserves its semantic integrity. Can we do the same with our legal digital documents? There is the serous risk of archiving digital documents in a format that’s not open and not independent of the application layer, with a separation between the metadata (glosses) and the original text that is not clean.
[16]
Self-Containable . If the goal is to represent the legislative or legal document in an autonomous way, independently of any type of database, application or indexer, we need to maintain all the main metadata within the document. In other words, it is advisable to not fragment the semantic schema of the document’s information into several separate files; on the contrary, it is strongly suggested that document’s unity on the Web be preserved. This approach will encourage the growth of new services.
[17]
Technological Neutrality and Independence. A open XML standard makes it possible to maintain the document collection independent from the technical platforms and application trends. This makes it so that in the future we will be able to manage the paternity of the information, without any intermediary layer. Some legislative repositories scatter legal documents in the database fields and present them with on-the-fly rendering.
[18]
Reuse . Due to the fact that XML is an evident data-interchange format, the legislative collection that is marked up and annotated becomes a truly legal heritage available for any kind of reuse. Directive 2003/98/EC opens an opportunity to reshape the relationship between the public and private sectors as concerns public data. An official gazette could exploit this precious capital9 to improve transparency for the citizen, all the while supporting the economic growth of new legal-documentation services.10
3.
State of the Art of Legal XML ^
[19]
Several legal-information systems over the last twenty years have been designed to manage change in legal corpora with technologies like databases, SGML, and HTML at first, and with XML and OWL thereafter, with the goal of providing updated versions of the law at any given time (the so-called point-in-time mechanism).
[20]
EnAct [1], [2], written by Timothy Arnold-Moore for the government of Tasmania, was the first system, in 1995, producing the point-in-time11 legislative database in SGML. In 1992, the LII (Legal Information Institute) of the Cornell Law School, launched by Peter Martin and Tom Bruce [10], provided on the Web (HTML) the consolidated United States Code.12 AustLII, the Australasian Legal Information Institute, cofounded by Graham Greenleaf in 1995, now makes accessible on the Web more than 400 legal databases using HTML [13]. Eur-Lex began to consolidate a database of European Legislation in 1999 using Formex, an SGML data standard now translated into XML (Formex v4).13 Norway activated on 1 January 2001 a Web service by Lovdata14 and began providing consolidated legislation [6]. In 2002, France transformed the commercial service Jurifrance into a public Web portal called Legifrance,15 including consolidated text in a mixed format (HTML, XML, PDF). Austria, with the eLaw project of 2004, transformed its previous database (RIS, 1983) into a Web collection of authentic documents, completely dematerializing the legal official gazette publication. The Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy) started consolidating regulations in 2003 using the NormeInRete XML schema,16 and the Italian High Court of Cassation started the same markup in 2005 and is now getting ready to consolidate this set of documents. The Italian senate recently started some experimental XML markup on the bill to produce side-by-side comparison text for underlining the differences between two versions (coming for the most part from other institutions) [3]. On June 30, 2009, the Brazilian senate launched the parliamentary consolidated database (LexMLBrazil)17 with the point-in-time function based on a customisation of XML Akoma Ntoso schema. The Chilean Library of Congress18 provides the updated legislation using the national XML schema for legal resources, and since 2009 it has been offering, through the LeyChile service, all the versions of legal documents over time starting from 1998. Finally, the Kenya Law Report19 is now converting its database of laws into XML documents marked up using the Akoma Ntoso standard [20], [21].
[21]
Despite the previous apparently successful implementation of Legal XML, there is still a skeptical attitude toward adopting XML for legal and legislative documentation20 (see Figure 4, from Chapter 5 of the World e-Parliament Report 2010), this owing to some physiological errors made by its enthusiastic early adopters.
[22]
The PDF format provides an interesting possible option for managing legislative resources in easer way, eventually accompanied by OWL or RDF metadata in a separate store. Nevertheless, all the above-mentioned opportunities to implement Web 2.0 functionalities will definitely be tharted without XML. Even if the PDF is enriched by metadata (as in the GLIN project),21 we are in any event witnessing a fracture between the text as originally issued and endorsed by a lawmaking body and the computer search mechanism based on separate metadata, not aligned with the text. In this way we lost the possibility of providing open documents to the citizens, third parties, consumer associations, etc., so as to build new applications in the semantic Web society [18], and to apply reasoning tools to the legal document or to semantic ontologies for managing the text.
[23]
There is a well-know dilemma between XML expressivity and the cost of the markup procedure (How much an XML file provides a fine markup? What is the cost increase?), but moreover, in the long term, the PDF file obscures the semantics of parts of the document by making it less manageable by future technologies.
[24]
If we are to avoid these risks and the failures that XML surely hides, we need to identify the characteristics that a Legal XML standard should have in doing all we expect it to be able to do, especially in the long-term perspective.
4.
Characteristics of the Legal XML Standard ^
[25]
What characteristics should the Legal XML standard embody if it is to avoid future risks, all the while exploiting the opportunities of the semantic Web, and for long-term preservation, too? We can group the characteristics in two classes: functional and technological requirements.
[26]
The functional requirements listed in what follows.
Legal and Legislative Orientation . The Legal XML standard provides a representation of the main structures of legal documents using a principled approach that provides the best combination of technological excellence and sophisticated juridical competency In this context, XML has to capture the relevant legal metadata of the single act (law, decree, etc.), along with the metadata of the whole publicationper se . The legislative documents express and embed cultural values, legal principles, a territory’s sovereignty, the political management class’s intellectual occupations, and historical traditions. For these reasons it is incumbent upon us to represent all this knowledge in the best way, so as to preserve the legal values for the next generation (as Accursius did in the XIII century).
Descriptiveness. The Legal XML standard preserves the document’s original description and avoids an excessive generalization of the elements. That helps the back-office markup phase to recognize the correct application of the tags, and it also helps the document’s external application by making it self-explanatory. The tag vocabulary guides the users to understand the meaning (e.g., article tags obviously represent the basic normative unit; block tags are too general and ambiguous).
Prescriptiveness . The Legal XML standard implements rules and constraints directly drawn from the legal domain, and they can be used to increase the quality of available legal information (e.g., by supporting local legal-drafting rules). The rules embedded into the XML schema improve quality and provide a grid that the authors, editors, and documentalists must use in achieving harmonization over time.
Self-Containment. The Legal XML standard provides a place within the document for all the information needed to access, use, and understand the content and the metadata of the document itself. This means that external resources (such as ontological specifications and traditional databases) become useful shortcuts rather than fundamental mechanisms for traditional and innovative uses of the documents. This is fundamental for their long-term preservation, since this makes document collections independent of the architectural choices and technological evolutions which may be found in different installations or which become available over time.
Structure Modeling . The Legal XML standard fully describes the document’s original structure when expressed in XML. The proper attention is given to the textual content and to the metadata associated with it, so as to respect the author’s subdivision of the document. The official gazette’s cover page is no so longer a subsidiary part of the gazette: it is the expression of a procedural step, representing a precise lawmaking provision.
Strong Separation of Levels. The Legal XML standard strongly separates all the layers of the semantic Web: content, structure, metadata, ontology, and rules.
Strong Naming Policy. The Legal XML standard adopts at all levels a syntax based on URIs that can be used to precisely refer to the concept being sought. This makes it possible to correctly and specifically support a large class of references, including static legal references, dynamic legal references, data-level object inclusion, and ontological references.
Strong Temporal Model. The Legal XML standard correctly represents the temporal model underlying the concept of a legal document’s dynamicity over time. Based on the naming policy, it makes it possible to represent versions, variants, and documents containing a plurality of versions, as well as static and dynamic references.
Strong Workflow Model. The Legal XML standard includes a mechanism for expressing workflow events connected as well with a strong context ontology.
Interchange Document Format . The Legal XML standard provides a data-interchange format from one standard to another, as well as between legacy systems, application layers, and different data formats. It is both an interchange and interoperability standard.
Homogeneous Publishing Format. The Legal XML standard provides an open document infrastructure for publishing heterogeneous collections of legal resources, independently of the type of legal document and legal system, and independently of jurisdiction.
Descriptiveness. The Legal XML standard preserves the document’s original description and avoids an excessive generalization of the elements. That helps the back-office markup phase to recognize the correct application of the tags, and it also helps the document’s external application by making it self-explanatory. The tag vocabulary guides the users to understand the meaning (e.g., article tags obviously represent the basic normative unit; block tags are too general and ambiguous).
Prescriptiveness . The Legal XML standard implements rules and constraints directly drawn from the legal domain, and they can be used to increase the quality of available legal information (e.g., by supporting local legal-drafting rules). The rules embedded into the XML schema improve quality and provide a grid that the authors, editors, and documentalists must use in achieving harmonization over time.
Self-Containment. The Legal XML standard provides a place within the document for all the information needed to access, use, and understand the content and the metadata of the document itself. This means that external resources (such as ontological specifications and traditional databases) become useful shortcuts rather than fundamental mechanisms for traditional and innovative uses of the documents. This is fundamental for their long-term preservation, since this makes document collections independent of the architectural choices and technological evolutions which may be found in different installations or which become available over time.
Structure Modeling . The Legal XML standard fully describes the document’s original structure when expressed in XML. The proper attention is given to the textual content and to the metadata associated with it, so as to respect the author’s subdivision of the document. The official gazette’s cover page is no so longer a subsidiary part of the gazette: it is the expression of a procedural step, representing a precise lawmaking provision.
Strong Separation of Levels. The Legal XML standard strongly separates all the layers of the semantic Web: content, structure, metadata, ontology, and rules.
Strong Naming Policy. The Legal XML standard adopts at all levels a syntax based on URIs that can be used to precisely refer to the concept being sought. This makes it possible to correctly and specifically support a large class of references, including static legal references, dynamic legal references, data-level object inclusion, and ontological references.
Strong Temporal Model. The Legal XML standard correctly represents the temporal model underlying the concept of a legal document’s dynamicity over time. Based on the naming policy, it makes it possible to represent versions, variants, and documents containing a plurality of versions, as well as static and dynamic references.
Strong Workflow Model. The Legal XML standard includes a mechanism for expressing workflow events connected as well with a strong context ontology.
Interchange Document Format . The Legal XML standard provides a data-interchange format from one standard to another, as well as between legacy systems, application layers, and different data formats. It is both an interchange and interoperability standard.
Homogeneous Publishing Format. The Legal XML standard provides an open document infrastructure for publishing heterogeneous collections of legal resources, independently of the type of legal document and legal system, and independently of jurisdiction.
[27]
The technical requirements are as follows.
Neutral and Open document format . The Legal XML standard provides a homogeneous infrastructure for representing the structure of heterogeneous legal resources. The standard should be public, open, well documented, and distributed across the community. A close and proprietary XML standard will not help the Open Gov Initiative, even if the data format becomes the vogue.
Reliance on Existing Standards. The Legal XML standard completely and correctly makes use of, and is based on, Web standards: XML, URIs, XML Schema, XML Namespace, RDF, OWL, etc.
Metadata Modelling . The Legal XML standard associates documents with a rich set of metadata elements, designed for providing not just values, but the semantics associated with them, and providing a principled framework for reasoning on and comparing abstract and concrete concepts the documents and their content.
Minimal Required Metadata Set Format for Queries . The Legal XML standard guarantees a minimal metadata set for the interoperability of queries within heterogeneous collections of legal documents expressed in different local and national standards. It increases interoperability between different document databases. Initiatives such as N-Lex or Eur-Lex could take advantage of those requirements to manage all legal sources coming from different countries with the same data software architecture and tools without the need to have the actual data format converge into a single one [7].
Pattern Design Oriented . The Legal XML standard is designed to respect classes of patterns [4]. In other words, we define classes of tags with properties in line with a certain content model, which identifies the structure allowed within the element. Most of the elements in the Akoma Ntoso standard have very similar structural descriptions. These structural descriptions (the patterns) are seven, and any other tags in the schema belong to them. The advantages of this approach are the modularization of the schema, flexibility with respect to extensions, and the consistency of behaviors for each class of elements. Especially this last feature favors the development of tools.
Reliance on Existing Standards. The Legal XML standard completely and correctly makes use of, and is based on, Web standards: XML, URIs, XML Schema, XML Namespace, RDF, OWL, etc.
Metadata Modelling . The Legal XML standard associates documents with a rich set of metadata elements, designed for providing not just values, but the semantics associated with them, and providing a principled framework for reasoning on and comparing abstract and concrete concepts the documents and their content.
Minimal Required Metadata Set Format for Queries . The Legal XML standard guarantees a minimal metadata set for the interoperability of queries within heterogeneous collections of legal documents expressed in different local and national standards. It increases interoperability between different document databases. Initiatives such as N-Lex or Eur-Lex could take advantage of those requirements to manage all legal sources coming from different countries with the same data software architecture and tools without the need to have the actual data format converge into a single one [7].
Pattern Design Oriented . The Legal XML standard is designed to respect classes of patterns [4]. In other words, we define classes of tags with properties in line with a certain content model, which identifies the structure allowed within the element. Most of the elements in the Akoma Ntoso standard have very similar structural descriptions. These structural descriptions (the patterns) are seven, and any other tags in the schema belong to them. The advantages of this approach are the modularization of the schema, flexibility with respect to extensions, and the consistency of behaviors for each class of elements. Especially this last feature favors the development of tools.
5.
Legal Document Values Over Time ^
[28]
The Akoma Ntoso Legal XML standard is designed to enable all the aforementioned characteristics; and this gives us an advantage in achieving the goal of long-term preservation. Still, we want to analyze now how an XML file could acquire legal binding proprieties, and how it is possible to keep these properties as a stable requirement for preserving authenticity, integrity, and validity over time in the face of technological change. First of all, the properties we refer to must be given new definitions on a legal-informatics approach. There are four definitions in particular:
Authenticity in this context consists in having certain elements for declaring that the document is endorsed by an empowered authority, through an official chain of power and roles, and that the content is compliance with the document’s original version, meaning the version the authors, acting through their sovereign powers, wanted and decided to issue.
Integrity consists in being able to detect any changes that may have intervened between the document single digital items (physical copies) and the original master file. Also, any alteration or graphical transformation could modify the human cognitive perception of the normative and legal content, and so integrity is not confined to guaranteeing the correctness of the hash-algorithm control, but is also meant to preserve the layout form, which too is a instrument for communicating the correct interpretation of the law.22
Validity is achieved once all the normative rules are applied (including the signature) with which to produce an enforceable and legal binding document.
Persistency consists in store the document in the long run, and in archiving all the connected information concerning the XML standard’s entire logical schema, the history of the document and how it is produced (e.g., hardware, software, etc.), the different layers of annotations, and the various persons in charge during markup. In other words, persistency consists in having information with which to trace the document entire lifecycle.
Integrity consists in being able to detect any changes that may have intervened between the document single digital items (physical copies) and the original master file. Also, any alteration or graphical transformation could modify the human cognitive perception of the normative and legal content, and so integrity is not confined to guaranteeing the correctness of the hash-algorithm control, but is also meant to preserve the layout form, which too is a instrument for communicating the correct interpretation of the law.22
Validity is achieved once all the normative rules are applied (including the signature) with which to produce an enforceable and legal binding document.
Persistency consists in store the document in the long run, and in archiving all the connected information concerning the XML standard’s entire logical schema, the history of the document and how it is produced (e.g., hardware, software, etc.), the different layers of annotations, and the various persons in charge during markup. In other words, persistency consists in having information with which to trace the document entire lifecycle.
5.1.
Authenticity, Integrity, Validity, and Persistency ^
[29]
In several European countries, the increasing use of Legal XML has made it easier to release the official gazette online with legal validity using different security systems for guaranteeing authenticity, validity, and integrity (chain of confidence, digital/electronic signatures,23 workflow certification). In Estonia since 2001, in France since 2004, in Slovenia since 2007, and in Italy since 2009, the paper and electronic version are equally valid; in Norway since 2001, in Austria since 2004, in Denmark since 2008, and in Spain since 2009 only the electronic version is the only authentic format [14]. Usually the combination of digital/electronic signature techniques and a tight control of the entire publication process guarantee the electronic document’s authenticity and integrity, and as consequence also the validity of the official gazette online (either on a document-by-document basis or with reference to each issue of the gazette as a whole).
[30]
Most applications start the process of electronic publication from an XML format document; then they transform the XML into some unmodified form (e.g., PDF/A) so as to present the outcome to the end-user in a friendly and readable manifestation, also ready for Web presentation. The problem that we have in most of these applications is how to balance three main aspects: (i) preserving as much as possible the separation between the legal document’s content as produced by the original author from the metadata added in the post-processing workflow; (ii) preserving the document format’s semantic descriptiveness (hopefully in XML); (iii) maintaining the document manifestation’s legal validity (the manifestation as expressed in a particular graphical layout, and the document was signed by the issuing authority).
[31]
We want to analyze three main scenarios in the current state of the art. Our argumentation is based on two facts: (1) an original legal document format should be fixed as a master copy for legal reasons (clear identification of the original source of law) and also for legal archiving purposes; (2) the authority entitled to endorse the law signs the digital document in a well-know and mandatory fixed format24 that should be identical to the end-user presentation, without any intervening manipulation by external applications.
[32]
In these circumstances we have three main possibilities:
The original law is the xml file and the authority (e.g., president, queen, ministry) signs the XML file directly (using a digital signature). In this case the XML is the source of law, and any transformation could in principle alter the original document (the XML). The XSLT could delete, integrate, and move parts of the content that the author (e.g., parliament) has fixed using its legislative power and sovereignty. If the PDF is discrepant from the HTML version derived from the XML file, the only legal valid and binding document for the judge is the act’s XML form. The advantage of this approach is to preserve the semantic representation embedded in the XML file that has legal validity. This is the approach that Austria has chosen. Its disadvantages lie in the fact that the digital-signature process fixes only the XML file and not all the other instruments (e.g., XSTL, XSLT-FO) involved in the graphical transformation. So, in the future, the XML file could be transformed in different readable layouts without any integrity check with respect to the original version signed by the empowered authority. Secondarily, in line with normative theory of law [15], the tags added while marking up the file or included through the transmission protocol themselves become sources of law because approved by the authority with authentication process and signature. This secondary consideration is so true that in this scenario the metadata embedded in the act’s XML representation are themselves assumed to be integral elements forming the source of law, even if the markup process by its nature involves interpretation of the normative content being marked up. Moreover, the metadata (e.g., classification, keywords, qualification of normative references) unquestionably amounts to subjective interpretation (data about data) and are usually officially and intentionally approved by the author or authority (e.g., Parliament). The risk in the future is that of opening an XML file containing mixed information: content approved by Parliament, metadata included by the marker, other tag elements added by the informatics systems – in such a way that it becomes impossible for us to distinguish the original content from the added technicality. It is questionable if in this scenario we can maintain the persistency and integrity of the original endorsed content as approved by its author over the long run (e.g., one hundred years).
The original law is the transformation in some unmodified and static format (e.g., PDF/A) of the XML file. The authority signs this transformation, and the XML is no longer legally valid. So any other transformation or elaboration of this XML file will not thereafter be legally valid. The disadvantage is evident. We would miss the opportunity to use XML format documents with legal validity and interoperability, and we would face much greater semantic Web challenges.
The authorized person signs both formats , the XML and the PDF. In this case we have a double original source of law, with possibly a slight discrepancy in layout and with a noteworthy problem as concerns the primacy and certainty of law.
The original law is the transformation in some unmodified and static format (e.g., PDF/A) of the XML file. The authority signs this transformation, and the XML is no longer legally valid. So any other transformation or elaboration of this XML file will not thereafter be legally valid. The disadvantage is evident. We would miss the opportunity to use XML format documents with legal validity and interoperability, and we would face much greater semantic Web challenges.
The authorized person signs both formats , the XML and the PDF. In this case we have a double original source of law, with possibly a slight discrepancy in layout and with a noteworthy problem as concerns the primacy and certainty of law.
Figure 5. Digital signature of an original legal act
[33]
A possible robust solution is to sign the XML file and the XSLT specifications that can reproduce the transformation as well as the authority or the person authorized to see when he or she signed the digital document. In this way the XML could be used as a legally valid source of law for any legal purposes and also for long-term archiving. Moreover, the XSLT and CSSdigist (the result of the hash function’s transformation) could be included in the XML for an integrity check (href=”SHA1=77394DA98349F[..]”). Using this approach in some normative framework, as in Italy, any other transformation (as into a PDF format) could be considered a conforming copy of the original digital document (e.g., the transformed XML) if the authorized person signs the conformity statement/ certificate. In this solution we will in the end have these results: a) the original legally binding document is in XML format using a Legal XML standard that clearly divides content and metadata, using a robust document ontology; b) the signature is applied simultaneously to both the XSLT and the CSS that takes up the layout transformation; c) the signature also involves the DTD or the XML-schema; d) the XSLT and CSS package hash is included in the XML file metadata to guarantee self-contained integrity as concerns not only the content but also the visual transformation.
[34]
A possible further transformation into PDF from the original XML file is possible as a conforming copy if the person responsible for the legal archiving (e.g., the head of the official gazette) signs the conformity statement. Recently the Italian Law on the Code of the Digital Public Administration (d.lgs. 82/2005) was amended25 with the possibility of using a two-dimensional digital stamp applied to the document, even in the analogical format, so as to favor the check for conformity between the PDF file content and the original XML file embedded in the digital stamp.26
5.2.
The Akoma Ntoso Approach ^
[35]
One of the pillars of Akoma Ntoso, and of the other standards of the same generation [7], consists in preserving as much as possible the legal document’s ontological values. In other words, Akoma Ntoso ensures that the legal document will be preserved exactly as the author has represented, modeled, and conceived it, independently of the XML technique used. For this reason XML is used by Akoma Ntoso according to a document-oriented approach rather than to a data-oriented approach. The tags are entered into the document for the purpose of modeling its semantics rather than breaking up the document into several fields in the database. The following picture shows the risks entailed by such fragmentation, too dependent on the applicative layer.
[36]
The document-oriented approach makes possible to preserve the document as the author produced it: the logic of the database does not transform the content or the order of the elements; the document is thus application-independent, and it ensures more transparency and persistency over time.
Figure 6. Fragmentation of a legal document
[37]
If the document has several annexes or a particular structure, Akoma Ntoso does not force it into the standard but makes it flexible, so as to represent the author’s intentions.
[38]
This is essential in making sure that the document’s contents preserve their legal validity over time, accurately reflecting what the competent issuing body originally intended with respect to such contents.
Figure 7. Document-oriented approach
[39]
The second aspect that Akoma Ntoso preserves is the metadata block, which is separate from the content structure description; and in particular it is possible to use the FRBR approach to assign the metadata at the work, expression, or manifestation level. The metadata at the work level belongs to the author (e.g., Parliament); the metadata at the expression level belongs to the editorial staff (e.g., a legislative office); and at the end the manifestation metadata belongs to the marker (e.g., system, person, editor, etc.). For this reason the roles that different actors play in the document-management process are kept clearly distinct, as is the metadata coming from the workflow processes.
[40]
Finally, it is possible in Akoma Ntoso to use a particular type of metadata called preservation in which to include any information concerning the chain of certification or the information about the file-production process (e.g., software, hardware, platform). In this particular place it is possible to include the digital signature metadata established for the XML format (XAdES-T).27
6.
Conclusions ^
[41]
The official gazettes have a full possibility to shape a new Web 2.0 era of legal information, and they also have responsibility for preserving the authenticity, legality, and authoritativeness of legal corpora in the future. In this scenario the advantages of Legal XML use are indisputable. It is also clear that the Legal XML standard is a good investment when it comes to preserving the legal heritage in long term and guaranteeing transparency, cooperation, and participation for the community. The investment needed to implement this approach is relevant, but some Legal XML standards are better than others at ensuring neutrality with respect to technological evolution in the long run, and in the meantime they could preserve the content’s legal validity. They assume a strong and robust document-oriented approach combined with an ability to fix the layout presentation for future generations without loss of expressiveness and interoperability.
7.
References ^
| [1] | Arnold-Moore T., Jane C.: Connected to the Law: Tasmanian Legislation Using EnAct. Journal of Information, Law and Technology 2000(1). |
| [2] | Arnold-Moore T.: Automatically Processing Amendments to Legislation. ICAIL 1995, pp. 297-306, 1995. |
| [3] | Bacci L., Spinosa P., Marchetti C., Battistoni R.: Automatic mark-up of legislative documents and its application to parallel text generation, in Proc. of LOAIT Workshop, pp. 45-54, 2009. |
| [4] | Barabucci G., Cervone L., Di Iorio A., Palmirani M., Peroni S., Vitali F.: Managing semantics in XML vocabularies: an experience in the legal and legislative domain, Balisage 2010 (under publication). |
| [5] | Bekiari, C., Doerr, M. and Le Boeuf, P.: International Working Group on FRBR and CIDOC CRM Harmonization. 2008. FRBR object-oriented definition and mapping to FRBRER (v. 0.9 draft). Accessed 20 August 2009 http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/frbr_oo /frbr_docs/FRBR_oo_V0.9.pdf. |
| [6] | Bing J.: The Policies of Legal Information Services: a Perspective of Three Decades, Yulex 2003, ISBN 82-7226-077-8, pp. 35-57, 2003. |
| [7] | Boer A., Radboud W., Vitali F.: MetaLex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format, in Computable Models of the Law, Springer, 2008. |
| [8] | Breuker J., Boer A., Hoekstra R., Van Den Berg C.: Developing Content for LKIF: Ontologies and Framework for Legal Reasoning, in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2006, pp.41-50, ISO Press, Amsterdam, 2006. |
| [9] | Breuker J., Casanovas P., Klein M.C.A., Francesconi .E.: Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web - Channelling the Legal Information Flood IOS Press 2009. |
| [10] | Bruce T., Martin P.W.: The Legal Information Institute: What Is It and Why Is It?, Cornell Law Forum 2-6, 1994. |
| [11] | Di Iorio A., Schirinzi M., Vitali F., Marchetti C.: A Natural and Multi-layered Approach to Detect Changes in Tree-Based Textual Documents. ICEIS 2009, pp. 90-101, 2009. |
| [12] | Gordon Thomas F.: Constructing Legal Arguments with Rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF). Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies 2008, pp. 162-184. |
| [13] | Greenleaf G.: Jon Bing and the History of Computerised Legal Research – Some Missing Links' in Olav Torvund and Lee Bygrave (Eds) Et tilbakeblikk på fremtiden («Looking back at the future») pp. 61-75, Institutt for Rettsinformatikk, Oslo, 2004. |
| [14] | Hietanen A., Report on Electronic publishing of legislation – towards authenticity, 4th Euroepan Forum of Official Gazettes, June 2007, Tallinn. |
| [15] | Kelsen H., Lineamenti di dottrina pura del diritto, Einaudi., Torino 1967. |
| [16] | Lupo C., Vitali F., Francesconi E., Palmirani M., Winkels R., de Maat E., Boer A., and Mascellani P.: General xml format(s) for legal sources - Estrella European Project IST-2004-027655. Deliverable 3.1, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. |
| [17] | Palmirani M., Contissa G., Rubino R.: Fill the Gap in the Legal Knowledge Modelling. RuleML 2009: 305-314. |
| [18] | Rifkin J.: The Age of Access. Penguin Putnam, New York, 2000. |
| [19] | Sartor G.: Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. Vol. 5. Treatise on Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Berlin: Springer, 2005. |
| [20] | Vitali F., Zeni, F.: Towards a Country-Independent Data Format: The AkomaNtoso Experience. Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, 67–86. European Press Academic Publishing,2007. |
| [21] | Vitali F.: Akoma Ntoso Release Notes. [http://www.akomantoso.org]. Accessed 20 August 2010. |
Monica Palmirani, CIRSFID – University of Bologna. Via Galliera 3, 40121, Bologna, IT
monica.palmirani@unibo.it
- 1 www.gov2summit.com/gov2010/ .
- 2 Sartor et. al., Legal Informatics and Management of Legislative Documents, 2008,www.ictparliament.org/sites/default/files/WP002_legislativeinformatics.pdf .
- 3 Really Simple Syndication.
- 4 Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010, ICT for Sustainability, World Economic Forum, 2010, p. 97, «Despite the best efforts of governments and the private sector, the broadband digital divide persists as a significant challenge to inclusive and sustainable development, especially in emerging economies.»
- 5 Access to Legislation in Europe, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009, ISBN 978-92-78-40510-6.
- 6 See Access to Legislation in Europe.
- 7 23.9% of Broadband penetration into the 27 European States, February 2010, EuroStat; 65% of Level of Internet Access, January 2010.
- 8 The Magna Glossa of theCorpus Iuris Civilis was started by Azzone and was finished in 1228 by Accursius. It is now archived at the Collegio di Spagna in Bologna.
- 9 «The value of the EU PSI market is estimated at €27 billion, which is four times the EU market for mobile roaming services.» COM(2009) 212 final.
- 10 Re-use of Public Sector Information: Review of Directive 2003/98/EC, Brussels, 7.5.2009, COM(2009) 212 final.
- 11 Point-in-time is the function that makes it possible to manage all of a document’s versions over time, rather than only the original document and its latest version.
- 12 www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ .
- 13 http://formex.publications.europa.eu/index.html .
- 14 www.lovdata.no/info/lawdata.html .
- 15 www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ .
- 16 http://demetra.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ .
- 17 http://projeto.lexml.gov.br/documentacao/resumo-em-ingles .
- 18 www.leychile.cl/Consulta .
- 19 www.kenyalaw.org/update/index.php .
- 20 See the World e-Parliament Report 2010.
- 21 GLIN - Global Legal Information Networkwww.glin.gov/search.action .
- 22 Just by adding in the graphical layout and paragraph marking is it possible to alter the legal message the author intends to communicate; or simply presenting the annexes in a different hierarchical organization is a way to vary the normative message (e.g., hierarchy of the laws).
- 23 Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures.
- 24 Annex III, paragraph 2, Directive 1999/93/EC: «Secure signature-creation devices must not alter the data to be signed or prevent such data from being presented to the signatory prior to the signature process.».
- 25 Decreto legislativo 30/12/2010, n. 235, Modifiche ed integrazioni al decreto legislativo 7 marzo 2005, n. 82, recante Codice dell'amministrazione digitale, a norma dell'articolo 33 della legge 18 giugno 2009, n. 69. (GU n. 6 del 10-1-2011 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 8).
- 26 See the Italian Official Gazette process or some applications in the Italian Ministry of Finance.
- 27 XAdES-T as described in the document ETSI TS 101 903. http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.2.2/ts_101903 v010202p.pdf.
