Good question - we are seeing it in slightly different terms, and we don't want the English text to be expressed in ways that are convenient for a computer reader but inconvenient for a human reader. At this stage we are just picking out the if-then-and-or-not logic, but getting drafters to agree what counts as what - so we reckon "A person who drives must X" is the same, legally & logically, as "If a person drives, the person must X" (& "A person must X if the person drives", & "A person driving must X"). In fact we think even these are the same, except that we would keep the intermediate term "driver" - "(1) A driver must X. (2) In para (1) "driver" means a person who drives." & "(1) A driver must X. (2) In para a driver is a person who drives.". We are looking to get drafters to agree that we parse & mark up all of these in the same way as if-thens, and we publish the text with that markup. We then hope that if someone wants to make a fancier coded version of the legislation, capturing more than we have, they will find our published version of the basics can be fed into their coding as a starting point. We will be looking for a greatly simplified equivalent of LegalRuleML, and a basic reasoner that can use that. We are hoping that all adds up, but we are keen to have any problems pointed out to us.
Great work! Really interesting to read about the process and the initial steps.
Thanks Warren - more to come in due course
Fantastic to see this explanation. Has the work so far generated tips for how drafters can write legislation that is easier to express as code?
Good question - we are seeing it in slightly different terms, and we don't want the English text to be expressed in ways that are convenient for a computer reader but inconvenient for a human reader. At this stage we are just picking out the if-then-and-or-not logic, but getting drafters to agree what counts as what - so we reckon "A person who drives must X" is the same, legally & logically, as "If a person drives, the person must X" (& "A person must X if the person drives", & "A person driving must X"). In fact we think even these are the same, except that we would keep the intermediate term "driver" - "(1) A driver must X. (2) In para (1) "driver" means a person who drives." & "(1) A driver must X. (2) In para a driver is a person who drives.". We are looking to get drafters to agree that we parse & mark up all of these in the same way as if-thens, and we publish the text with that markup. We then hope that if someone wants to make a fancier coded version of the legislation, capturing more than we have, they will find our published version of the basics can be fed into their coding as a starting point. We will be looking for a greatly simplified equivalent of LegalRuleML, and a basic reasoner that can use that. We are hoping that all adds up, but we are keen to have any problems pointed out to us.
Makes sense… much appreciated!