A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Sources of Law (LEX)
draft-spinosa-urn-lex-15
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | PierLuigi Spinosa , Enrico Francesconi , Caterina Lupo | ||
| Last updated | 2022-05-05 (Latest revision 2022-03-22) | ||
| Stream | Independent Submission | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-13)
Ready with Issues
OPSDIR Telechat review
(of
-13)
Has Issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-11)
Not Ready
OPSDIR Last Call review
(of
-11)
Has Issues
|
||
| Stream | ISE state | Response to Review Needed | |
| Consensus boilerplate | No | ||
| Document shepherd | Eliot Lear | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2014-04-29 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists (IESG: Dead::Revised I-D Needed) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Barry Leiba | ||
| Send notices to | rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA - Not OK | |
| IANA expert review state | Reviews assigned |
draft-spinosa-urn-lex-15
INTERNET-DRAFT P. Spinosa
Intended Status: Informational (ICT consultant)
Expires: September 18, 2022 E. Francesconi
CNR
C. Lupo
(ICT consultant)
March 22, 2022
A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace
for Sources of Law (LEX)
draft-spinosa-urn-lex-15.txt
Abstract
This document describes a Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace
Identification (NID) convention for identifying, naming, assigning,
and managing persistent resources in the legal domain. This
specification is published to allow adoption of a common convention
by multiple jurisdictions to facilitate ease of reference and access
to resources in the legal domain.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 18, 2022.
Copyright Notice
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1 The Purpose of Namespace "lex" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Entities Supporting this Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 General Characteristics of the System . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Linking a LEX Name to a Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6 Use of LEX Names in References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.9 Syntax Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Specifications of Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Identifier structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Conformance with URN Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Validation Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 General Syntax and Features of the LEX Identifier . . . . . . 16
4.1 Allowed and Not Allowed Characters . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Reserved Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3 Case Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 National Characters and Diacritic Signs . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6 Date Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5 Specific Syntax and Features of the LEX Identifier . . . . . . 18
5.1 Spaces, Connectives and Punctuation Marks . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3 Ordinal Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6 Creation of the Source of Law LEX Identifier . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1 Basic Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2 Model of Sources of Law Representation . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3 The Structure of the Local Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4 Structure of the Document Identifier at Work Level . . . 21
6.5 Aliases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.6 Structure of the Document Identifier at Expression Level 23
6.7 Structure of the Document Identifier at Manifestation
Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.8 Sources of Law References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7 The Procedure of Uniform Names Assignment . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1 Specifying the <jurisdiction> Element of the LEX
Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2 Jurisdictional Registrar for Names Assignment . . . . . . 27
7.3 Identifier Uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.4 Identifier Persistence Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 28
8 Principles of the Resolution Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1 The General Architecture of the System . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2 Catalogues for Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
8.3 Suggested Resolver Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9 Namespace Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10 Community Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.1 NID Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.2 Jurisdiction-code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
13 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
14 Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Attachment A -- Summary of the Syntax of the Uniform Names of
the "lex" Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Attachment B -- Specific Syntax of the Identifier at Work Level . 41
B1 The <authority> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B1.1 Indication of the Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B1.2 Multiple Issuers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B1.3 Indication of the Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B1.4 Indication of the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B1.5 Indication of the Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B1.6 Conventions for the Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B2 The <measure> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B2.1 Criteria for the Indication of the Type of Measure . . . 42
B2.2 Further Specification to the Type of Measure . . . . . . 43
B2.3 Aliases for Sources of Law with Different Normative
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B2.4 Relations between Measure and Authority in the Aliases . 43
B3 The <details> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B3.1 Indication of the Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B3.2 Multiple Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B3.3 Unnumbered Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B3.4 Multiple Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B4 The <annex> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
B4.1 Formal Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
B4.2 Annexes of Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Attachment C -- Specific Syntax of the <version> Element of the
Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
C1 The <version> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
C1.1 Different Versions of a Legislative Document . . . . . . 47
C1.2 Identification of the Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Attachment D -- Http LEX Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
D1 Http URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
D2 The Http LEX Identifier Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
D3 The Http LEX Identifier at Work Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
D4 The Http LEX Identifier at Expression Level . . . . . . . . . 52
D5 The Http LEX Identifier at Manifestation Level . . . . . . . . 53
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
1 Introduction
1.1 The Purpose of Namespace "lex"
The purpose of the "lex" namespace is to assign an unequivocal
identifier, in well-defined format, to documents that are sources of
law. To the extent of this namespace, "sources of law" include any
legal document within the domain of legislation, case law and
administrative acts or regulations; moreover potential "sources of
law" (acts under the process of law formation, as bills) are included
as well. Therefore "legal doctrine" is explicitly not covered.
The identifier is conceived so that its designed construction depends
only on the characteristics (details) of the document itself and is,
therefore, independent from the document's on-line availability, its
physical location, and access mode. The identifier itself is assigned
by the jurisdiction that owns the identified document. Even a
document that is not available online at all may still have a LEX URN
that identifies it.
This identifier can be used as a way to represent the references (and
more generally, any type of relation) among the various sources of
law. In an on-line environment with resources distributed among
different Web publishers, uniform resource names allow simplified
global interconnection of legal documents by means of automated
hypertext linking. LEX URNs are therefore particularly useful when
they can be mapped into or associated with locators such as HTTP
URLs.
1.2 Entities Supporting this Specification
The following entities support the publication of this proposal:
- CNR (National Research Council of Italy) - Italy;
- Agency for Digital Italy (AgID) - Presidency of the Council of
Ministers - Italy;
- PRODASEN - IT Department of the Federal Senate - Brazil;
- LII (Legal Information Institute), Cornell Law School - USA.
1.3 The Context
This specification of an unequivocal identifier for legal documents
follows a number of initiatives in the field of legal document
management. These specifications for an an unequivocal identifier of
legal documents follows a number of initiatives in the field of legal
document management.
Since 2001 the Italian Government, through the National Center for
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Information Technology in the Public Administration, the Ministry of
Justice and CNR (the National Research Council of Italy) promoted
the NormeInRete project. It was aimed at introducing standards for
sources of law description and identification using XML and URN
techniques.
Other national initiatives in Europe introduced standards for the
description of legal sources [FRAN]. Such initiatives, based in
synergies between government, national research institutes, and
universities, have defined national XML standards for legal document
management, as well as schemes for legal document identification.
Outside Europe, similar initiatives have addressed similar problems
[FRAN]. Several of these identifiers are based on a URN schema.
In today's information society the processes of political, social and
economic integration of European Union member states as well as the
increasing integration of the world-wide legal and economic processes
are causing a growing interest in exchanging legal information
knowledge at national and trans-national levels.
The growing desire for improved quality and accessibility of legal
information amplifies the need for interoperability among legal
information systems across national boundaries. A common well-defined
schema used to identify sources of law at international level is an
essential prerequisite for interoperability.
Interest groups within several countries have already expressed their
intention to adopt a shared solution based on a URN technique.
The need for an unequivocal identifier of sources of law in different
EU Member States, based on open standards and able to provide
advanced modalities of document hyper-linking, has been expressed in
several conferences (as [LVI]) by representatives of the Publications
Office of the European Union (OP), with the aim of promoting
interoperability among national and European institution information
systems. Similar concerns have been raised by international groups
concerned with free access to legal information, and the Permanent
Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law [HCPIL]
that encourage State Parties to "adopt neutral methods of citation of
their legal materials, including methods that are medium-neutral,
provider-neutral and internationally consistent.". In a similar
direction the CEN Metalex initiative is moving, at European level,
towards the definition of a standard interchange format for sources
of law, including recommendations for defining naming conventions to
them.
The need of unequivocal identifiers for sources of law is of
particular interest also in the domain of case law. Such need is
extremely felt within both common law systems, where cases are the
main law sources, and civil law systems, for the importance of
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
providing an integrated access to cases and legislation, as well as
to track the relationships between them. This domain is characterized
by a high degree of fragmentation in case law information systems,
which usually lack interoperability.
In the European Union, the community institutions have stressed the
need for citizens, businesses, lawyers, prosecutors and judges to
become more aware not only of (directly applicable) EU law, but also
of the various national legal systems. The growing importance of
national judiciaries for the application of Community law was
stressed in the resolution of the European Parliament of 9 July 2008
on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system.
Similarly the the Council of the European Union has underlined the
importance of cross-border access to national case law, as well as
the need for its standardisation, in view of an integrated access in
a decentralized architecture. In this view the Working Party on Legal
Data Processing (e-Law) of the Council of the European Union formed a
task group to study the possibilities for improving cross-border
access to national case law. Taking notice of the report of the
Working Party's task group the Council of the EU decided in 2009 to
elaborate on a uniform, European system for the identification of
case law (ECLI: European Case-Law Identifier) and uniform Dublin
Core-based set of metadata.
The Council of the European Union invited the Member States to
introduce in the legal information systems the European Legislation
Identifier (ELI), an http-based Semantic Web oriented identification
system for European Union and Member States legislation.
The LEX identifier (also referred in this text as "LEX name") is
conceived to be general enough so as to provide guidance at the core
of the standard and sufficient flexibility to cover a wide variety of
needs for identifying all the legal documents of different nature,
namely legislative, case-law and administrative acts. Moreover, it
can be effectively used within a federative environment where
different publishers (public and private) can provide their own items
of a legal document (that is there is more than one manifestation of
the same legal document).
However specifications and syntax rules of LEX identifier can be used
also for http-based naming convention (Appendix D) to cope with
different requirements in legal information management, for example
the need of having an identifier compliant with the Linked Open Data
principles.
This document supplements the required name syntax with a naming
convention that interprets all these recommendations into an original
solution for sources of law identification.
1.4 General Characteristics of the System
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
The specification contained in this document promote interoperability
among legal information systems by the definition of a namespace
convention and structure that will create and manage identifiers for
legal documents. The identifiers will be:
- globally unique
- transparent
- reversible
- persistent
- location-independent, and
- language-neutral.
These qualities will facilitate legal document management as well as
providing a mechanism of stable cross-collections and cross-country
references.
Transparency means that given an act and its relevant metadata
(issuing authority, type of measure, etc.) it is possible to create
the related urn identifier. Moreover this identifier is able to
unequivocally identify the related act. These two properties make the
identification system reversible (from an act to its URN and from a
URN to the related act).
Language-neutrality is an especially important feature that will
promote adoption of the standard by organizations that must adhere to
official-language requirements. This specification provides useful
guidance to both public and private groups that create, promulgate,
and publish legal documents. Registrants wish to minimize the
potential for creating conflicting proprietary schemes, while
preserving sufficient flexibility to allow for diverse document types
and to respect the need for local control of collections by an
equally diverse assortment of administrative entities.
As usual, the problem is to provide the right amount guidance at the
core of the specification while providing sufficient flexibility to
cover a wide variety of needs. This LEX specification does this by
splitting the identifier into parts. The first part uses a pre-
existing standard specification ("country/jurisdiction name
standard") to indicate the country (or more generally the
jurisdiction) of origin for the legal document being identified; the
remainder ("local name") is intended for local use in identifying
documents issued in that country or jurisdiction. This second part
depends only on the system of sources of law identification operating
in that nation and it is mainly composed by formalized information
related to the enacting authority, the type of measure, the details
and possibly the annex.
The identification system based on uniform names includes:
- a schema for assigning names capable of representing unambiguously
any addressed source of law (namely legislation, case law and
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
administrative acts), issued by any authority (intergovernmental,
supranational, national, regional and local) at any time (past,
present and future);
- a resolution mechanism - in a distributed environment - that ties a
uniform name to the on-line location of the corresponding
resource(s).
This document considers the first of these requirements. It also
contains a few references to the architecture of the resolution
service and to the corresponding software.
1.5 Linking a LEX Name to a Document
The LEX name is linked to the document through meta-information which
may be specified:
- internally to the document itself through a specific element within
an XML schema or by an [HTML] META tag;
- externally by means of a Resource Description Framework [RDF]
triple, a specific attribute in a database, etc.
At least one of these modalities is necessary for enabling automated
construction and updating of catalogues (distributed and centralized)
and the implementation of resolvers that associate the uniform name
of a document with its physical location(s). LEX assumes no
particular relationship between the originator of the document, its
publisher, and the implementer of catalogues or resolution services.
They may be the same entity, or not.
1.6 Use of LEX Names in References
LEX names can be used in references as a HREF attribute value of the
hypertext link to the referred document.
This link can be created in two ways:
- by manually inserting, in the referring document, the link with the
uniform name: this is a burdensome procedure especially for
documents that are already on-line;
- by automatically constructing (either permanently or temporarily)
the link with the uniform name, through reference parsers of a
text: this is a more time-saving procedure even if subject to a
certain percentage of errors, since references are not always
accurate or complete. This solution could nevertheless be
acceptable for already published documents.
In any case, whatever the method adopted is, new documents produced
in XML format (compliant with the DTD/XMLSchema defined in the
related country) should express references through the uniform name
of the document referred to.
1.7 Definitions
According to this document, the following terms are used in the
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
following meaning:
- Source of Law:
is a general concept, and is used to refer to legislation, case
law, regulations and administrative acts. In its broadest sense,
the source of law is anything that can be conceived of as the
originator of 'erga omnes' legal rules. In this document "source of
law" refers also to acts during their formation cycle as bills that
might or might not become sources of law;
- Jurisdictional Registrar:
is an organization which shares and defines in any country or
jurisdiction the assignment of the main components of the resource
identifier through which the identifier uniqueness is guaranteed.
This task includes the definition of allowed jurisdiction names and
units, as well as the primary elements (issuing authorities and
type of legal measures) of LEX URNs according to the
characteristics of the jurisdiction or institutions organization.
1.8 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.9 Syntax Used in this Document
This document uses the syntax common to many Internet RFCs, which is
based on the ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form) [RFC5234] meta-
language.
2 Registration Template
This section provides the details of the URN registration using the
template and guidance found in [RFC8141].
Namespace Identifier:
"lex" requested according to [RFC8141].
Version:
1.0
Date:
2021-04-26
Registrant:
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
National Research Council of Italy (CNR)
Via de' Barucci, 20
50127 Florence
Italy
e-mail: lex@ittig.cnr.it
phone: +39 055 43995
contact: Enrico Francesconi
e-mail: enrico.francesconi@cnr.it
Purpose:
The purpose of the "lex" namespace is to assign an unequivocal
identifier, in well-defined format, to documents that are
sources of law.
This specification of an unequivocal identifier for legal
documents follows a number of initiatives in the field of legal
document management. Those initiatives were aimed at
introducing standards for sources of law identification and
mark-up using URI and XML techniques, respectively (for more
details see Section 1.3). The LEX identifier is conceived to
be general enough, so as to provide guidance at the core of the
specification and sufficient flexibility to cover a wide
variety of needs for identifying all the legal documents of
different nature, namely legislative, case-law and
administrative acts. Moreover, it can be effectively used
within a federative environment where different publishers
(public and private) can provide their own items of an act
(that is there is more than one manifestation of the same act).
The LEX identifier is conceived to be: globally unique,
transparent, reversible, persistent, location-independent, and
language-neutral. It is organized into parts. The first part
uses a predetermined standard to specify the country (or more
generally the jurisdiction) of origin for the legal document
being identified; the remainder is intended for local use in
identifying documents issued in that country or jurisdiction.
This second part depends only on the system of sources of law
identification operating in that nation and it is mainly
composed by formalized information related to the enacting
authority, the type of measure, the details and possibly the
annex. For more details on the nature of the LEX
characteristics and the general internal organization, see
Section 1.4.
The LEX name is linked to the document through specific meta-
information, internally (with a tag) or externally (with a
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
attribute) (for details on this see Section 1.5)
LEX names can be used in references either in (X)HTML document
or, more generally, in XML documents format (compliant with the
DTD/XMLSchema defined in the related country) (see Section 1.6
for more information).
Syntax:
The identifier has a hierarchical structure as follows:
"urn:lex:" NSS
where <NSS> is the Namespace Specific String composed as
follows:
NSS = jurisdiction ":" local-name
where:
<jurisdiction> is the part providing the identification of the
jurisdiction, identifying the scope (state, regional,
municipal, supranational or of an organization) where a set of
sources of law have validity. It is also possible to represent
international organizations (either states or public
administrations or private entities);
<local-name> is the uniform name of the source of law in the
country or jurisdiction where it is issued; its internal
structure is common to the already adopted schemas. It is able
to represent all the aspects of an intellectual production, as
it is a legal document, from its initial idea, through its
evolution during the time, to its realisation by different
means (paper, digital, etc.).
LEX specifications give information on the internal structure
of both <jurisdiction> and <local-name>, including
specifications about case sensitivity, the use of national
characters and diacritics, as well as spaces, connectives,
punctuation marks, abbreviations, acronyms, date formats and
ordinal numbers. For more details on the internal structure and
syntax of the LEX identifier, see Section 3, 4 and 5.
The use of r- and q- components, introduced by [RFC8141], with
LEX URNs is not defined in this document. However a LEX URNs
resolution system can be developed to deal with such components
according to the semantics specified in [RFC8141].
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Assignment:
The Jurisdictional Registrar (or those it delegates) of each
adhering country or organization is responsible for the
definition or acceptance of the uniform name's primary elements
(issuing authority and type of legal measure).
Any country or jurisdiction, aiming to adopt this schema,
identifies a Jurisdictional Registrar, an organization which
shares and defines the structure of the optional part of the
name, according to the organization of the state or
institution. The process of assigning the <local-name> will be
managed by each specific country or jurisdiction under the
related <jurisdiction> element (details on this can be found in
Section 7.2).
Identifiers in the "lex" namespace are defined through a
<jurisdiction> field assigned to the sources of law of a
specific country or organization, and a <local-name> assigned
by the issuing authority. The goal of the LEX schema is to
maintain uniqueness and persistence of all resources identified
by the assigned URNs. The values of the elements for the LEX
identifier within a jurisdiction are defined by the
Jurisdictional Registrar. This ensures that the constructed
URNs are unique (see Section 7.3 for details on uniqueness).
The persistence of identifiers depends on the durability of the
institutions that assign and administer them (see Section 7.3
for details on persistence).
Security and Privacy:
This document introduces no additional security considerations
beyond those associated with the use and resolution of URNs in
general.
Interoperability:
As an openly specified naming convention to identify sources of
law at international level, LEX is meant to guarantee
interoperability among legal information systems across
national boundaries.
The characteristics of the LEX naming convention facilitate
legal document management as well as providing a mechanism of
stable cross-collections and cross-country references, thus
allowing the distribution of the legal information towards a
federated architecture.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Resolution:
The resolution service associates a LEX identifier with a
specific document address on the internet. The architecture of
the resolution service will be organized in two fundamental
components: a chain of information in DNS (Domain Name System)
and a series of resolution services from URNs to URLs, each
competent within a specific domain of the namespace (see
Section 8.1 for more details).
To cope with possible incomplete or inaccurate uniform names,
the implementation of a catalogue, based on a relational-
database, able to associate a URN to related URLs, is
suggested, as it will lead to a higher flexibility in the
resolution process. A resolver can provide names normalization,
completion of inaccurate or incomplete names, and finally their
resolution in network locations (see Section 8.2 and 8.3 for
characteristics and behaviour of a catalogue for resolution).
Documentation:
The syntax, semantics and usage details of LEX URNs are given
in [this RFC].
Additional Information:
See [FRAN] and [SPIN].
Revision Information:
None
3 Specifications of Registration
3.1 Identifier Structure
The <jurisdiction> element is composed of two specific fields:
jurisdiction = jurisdiction-code *(";" jurisdiction-unit)
where:
<jurisdiction-code> is usually the identification code of the country
where the source of law is issued.
To facilitate the transparency of the name, the <jurisdiction-code>
follows usually the rules of identification of other Internet
applications, based on Domain Name (for details or special cases see
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Section 11.2).
Where applicable, the ccTLD, or the TLD, or the Domain Name of the
country or multinational or international organisation is used. If
such information is not available for a particular institution, a
specific code will be defined (see Section 11.2).
Examples reported in this document are hypothetical and assumed that
the corresponding Domain Name is used for the <jurisdiction-code>.
However, a special register for the <jurisdiction-code> is required,
the rules of which are defined in section 11.2.
<jurisdiction-unit> are the possible administrative hierarchical sub-
structures defined by each country or organisation within their
specific legal system. This additional information can be used in
case two or more levels of legislative or judicial production exist
(e.g., federal, state and municipality level) and the same bodies may
be present in each jurisdiction. Therefore acts of the same type
issued by similar authorities in different areas differ for the
jurisdiction-unit specification. An example can be the following:
"br:governo:decreto" (decree of federal government),
"br;sao.paulo:governo:decreto" (decree of SU+00E3o Paulo state) and
"br;sao.paulo;campinas:governo:decreto" (decree of Campinas
municipality).
Examples (hypothetical) of sources of law identifiers are:
urn:lex:it:stato:legge:2003-09-21;456 (Italian act)
urn:lex:fr:etat:loi:2004-12-06;321 (French act)
urn:lex:es:estado:ley:2002-07-12;123 (Spanish act)
urn:lex:ch;glarus:regiere:erlass:2007-10-15;963 (Glarus Swiss Canton
decree)
urn:lex:eu:commission:directive:2010-03-09;2010-19-EU (EU Commission
Directive)
urn:lex:us:supreme.court:decision:1963-03-18;372.us.335 (US SC
decision)
urn:lex:be:conseil.etat:decision:2008-07-09;185.273 (Decision of the
Belgian Council of State)
3.2 Conformance with URN Syntax
The "lex" NID syntax conforms to [RFC8141]. However, a series of
characters are reserved to identify elements or sub-elements, or for
future extensions of the LEX naming convention (see Section 4.2).
3.3 Validation Mechanism
The Jurisdictional Registrar (or those it delegates) of each adhering
country or organization is responsible for the definition or
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
acceptance of the uniform name's primary elements (issuing authority
and type of legal measure).
3.4 Scope
Global interest. In fact each body that enacts sources of law can
identify them by this scheme. Furthermore, other bodies (even not
enacting sources of law, such as newspaper or magazine publishers,
etc.) aiming to refer legal documents, can unequivocally identify
them by this scheme.
4 General Syntax and Features of the LEX Identifier
This section lists the general features applicable to all
jurisdictions.
4.1 Allowed and Not Allowed Characters
These characters are defined in accordance with the [RFC8141]
"Uniform Resource Names (URNs)". For various reasons, later
explained, in the "lex" <NSS> only a sub-set of characters is
allowed. All other characters are either eliminated or converted.
For the full syntax of the uniform names in the "lex" space, please
see Attachment A.
4.2 Reserved Characters
These characters MUST always and uniquely be used for the purpose
assigned below.
The first category includes those characters bearing a specific
meaning in the general creation of the URI (Uniform Resource
Identifier)(see Section 2 of [RFC3986]) such as "%", "?", "#" , etc.
The following characters instead are reserved in the specific "lex"
namespace: However, the following reserved characters are given
special meaning in the specific "lex" namespace:
- "@" separator of the expression, that contains information on
version and language;
- "$" separator of the manifestation, that contains information on
format, editor, etc.;
- ":" separator of the main elements of the name at any entity;
- ";" separator of level. It identifies the introduction of an
element at a hierarchically lower level, or the introduction of a
specification;
- "+" separator of the repetitions of an entire main element (e.g.,
multiple authorities);
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
- "," separator of the repetitions of individual components in the
main elements, each bearing the same level of specificity (e.g.,
multiple numbers);
- "~" separator of the partition identifier in references (e.g.,
paragraph of an article);
- "*" and "!" are reserved for future expansions.
To keep backward compatibility with existing applications in some
jurisdictions, the "lex" NID syntax does not include the use of the
character "/" in this version. This character will be converted into
"-" (see Sections 6.7 and B3.4) or into "." (see Section B4.2).
4.3 Case Sensitivity
Names belonging to the "lex" namespace are case-insensitive. It is
RECOMMENDED that they be created in lower case, but names that differ
only in case MUST be considered to be equivalent.
(e.g., "Ministry" will be recorded as "ministry").
4.4 National Characters and Diacritic Signs
In order to exploit DNS as a routing tool towards the proper
resolution system, to keep editing and communication more simple and
to avoid character percent-encoding, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that
national characters and diacritic signs are turned into base ASCII
characters (e.g., the Italian term "sanitU+00E0" converted into
"sanita", the French term "ministU+00E8re" converted into
"ministere"), in case by transliteration (e.g. "MU+00FCnchen"
converted into "muenchen").
This conversion consists of:
- transcription from non-Latin alphabets;
- transliteration of some signs (diaeresis, eszett, ...);
- preservation of the only basic characters, eliminating the signs
placed above (accents, tilde, ...), below (cedilla, little tail,
...) or on (oblique cut, ...).
If this conversion is not acceptable by a specific jurisdiction or is
not available in a given language, UTF-8 %-encoding [STD63] MUST be
used. In this case it should be noted that the generated URN (as some
of its parts) can not be used directly for routing through DNS, and
therefore the jurisdiction must adopt one of the following
strategies:
- to convert non-ASCII characters within the DNS into the IDN
encoding, using the [RFC5894] punycode translation (ex:
mU+00FCnchen in xn--mnchen-3ya), and to develop an interface
software that converts the URN before the navigation in DNS, or
- to create a routing service relying to a software, out of DNS,
addressing a proper resolution service.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Summarizing, the preference order is the following:
- Conversion into base ASCII (RECOMMENDED solution);
- Conversion to punycode only for navigation in DNS, via software
interface;
- Creation of a routing service relying on a software, out of DNS,
addressing a proper resolution service.
The first solution allows native DNS routing, while the other two
require a software development for the interface or the routing.
However it is up to the specific jurisdiction to choose the preferred
solution.
Two examples (Latin and Cyrillic alphabet) relating to the different
solutions adopted are here reported:
a. a circular adopted by the Municipality of Munich (Rundschreiben
der Stadt MU+00FCnchen):
- ascii = urn:lex:de:stadt.munchen:rundschreiben:...
- utf-8 = urn:lex:de:stadt.mU+00FCnchen:rundschreiben:...
- punycode = urn:lex:de:stadt.xn--mnchen-3ya:rundschreiben:...
b. a state law of the Russian Federation (latin: gosudarstvo zakon;
cyrillic: U+0441U+043EU+0441U+0442U+043EU+044FU+043DU+0438U+0435
U+0437U+0430U+043AU+043EU+043D):
- ascii = urn:lex:ru:gosudarstvo:zakon:...
- utf-8 = urn:lex:ru:U+0441U+043EU+0441U+0442U+043EU+044FU+043D
U+0438U+0435:U+0437U+0430U+043AU+043EU+043D:...
- punycode = urn:lex:ru:xn--80aebe3cdmfdkg:xn--80ankme:...
assuming that the Russia jurisdiction-code is expressed in ASCII
("ru"), while the Cyrillic version ("U+0440U+0444") has the puny-
code "xn--p1ai".
4.5 Abbreviations
Abbreviations are often used in law for indicating institutions (e.g.
Min.), structures (e.g. Dept.), or legal measures (e.g. Reg.) but not
in a uniform way, therefore their expansion is highly RECOMMENDED.
(e.g., "Min." is reported as "ministry")
4.6 Date Format
Dates are expressed by numbers in the [ISO8601] format:
yyyy-mm-dd
(e.g., "September 2, 99" will be written as "1999-09-02")
5 Specific Syntax and Features of the LEX Identifier
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
In this section there are other features related to specific
jurisdictions and the implementation of which is RECOMMENDED.
5.1 Spaces, Connectives and Punctuation Marks
All the language connectives (e.g., articles, prepositions, etc.),
the punctuation marks and all the special characters (as apostrophes,
dashes, etc.), when explicitly present, are eliminated (no
transformation occurs in cases of languages with declensions or
agglutinating languages). The words left are connected to each other
by a dot (".") which substitutes the "space".
(e.g., "Ministry of Finances, Budget and of Economic Planning"
becomes "ministry.finances.budget.economic.planning";
"Ministerstvo Finansov" becomes "ministerstvo.finansov")
5.2 Acronyms
The use of acronyms might be confusing and encourage ambiguity in
uniform names (the same acronym may indicate two different
institutions or structures), therefore their expansion is highly
RECOMMENDED.
(e.g., "FAO" is expanded as "food.agriculture.organization")
5.3 Ordinal Numbers
To even the representation, it is highly RECOMMENDED that any ordinal
number included in a component of a document name (e.g., in the
description of an institution body) is indicated in Western Arabic
numerals, regardless to the original expression: whether in Roman
numerals, or with an adjective, or in Arabic numeral with apex, etc.
(IV, third, 1U+00B0, 2^, etc.).
(e.g., "Department IV" becomes "department.4")
6 Creation of the Source of Law LEX Identifier - Baseline structure
6.1 Basic Principles
The uniform name must identify one and only one document (more
precisely a "bibliographic resource" [ISBD], see also Section 6.2)
and is created in such a way that it is:
- self-explanatory ;
- identifiable through simple and clear rules;
- compatible with the practice commonly used for references;
- able to be created from references in the text, automatically (by
parser) or manually;
- representative of both the formal and the substantive aspects of
the document.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
6.2 Model of Sources of Law Representation
According to [FRBR] (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records) model developed by IFLA (International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions), in a source of law, as in any
intellectual production, 4 fundamental entities (or aspects) can be
specified.
The first 2 entities reflect its contents:
- work: identifies a distinct intellectual creation; in our case, it
identifies a source of law both in its being (as it has been issued
or proposed) and in its becoming (as it is modified over time);
- expression: identifies a specific intellectual realisation of a
work; in our case it identifies every different (original or up-to-
date) version of the source of law over time and/or language in
which the text is expressed;
while the other 2 entities relate to its form:
- manifestation: identifies a concrete realisation of an expression;
in our case it identifies realizations in different media
(printing, digital, etc.), encoding formats (XML, PDF, etc.), or
other publishing characteristics;
- item: identifies a specific copy of a manifestation; in our case it
identifies individual physical copies as they are found in
particular physical locations.
In this document the [FRBR] model has been interpreted for the
specific characteristics of the legal domain. In particular, apart
from the language which does produce a specific expression, the
discriminative criterion between expression and manifestation is
based on the difference of the juridical effects that a variation can
provide with respect to the involved actors (citizens, parties,
institutions). In this scenario the main characteristic of the
expression of an act is represented by its validity over the time,
during which it provides the same juridical effects. These effects
change for amendments or annulments of other legislative or
jurisprudential acts. Therefore notes, summarizations, comments,
anonymizations and other editorial activities over the same text do
not produce different expressions, but different manifestations.
6.3 The Structure of the Local Name
The <local-name> within the "lex" namespace MUST contain all the
necessary pieces of information enabling the unequivocal
identification of a legal document. If the <local-name> violates
this requirement, the related URN is not a valid one within the "lex"
namespace.
In the legal domain, at the "work" level, three components are always
present: the enacting authority, the type of provision and the
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
details. A fourth component, the annex, can be added if any.
It is often necessary to differentiate various expressions, that is:
- the original version and all the amended versions of the same
document;
- the versions of the text expressed in the different official
languages of the state or organization.
Finally the uniform name allows a distinction among diverse
manifestations, which may be produced by multiple publishers using
different means and formats.
In every case, the basic identifier of the source of law (work)
remains the same, but information is added regarding the specific
version under consideration (expression); similarly a suffix is added
to the expression for representing the characteristics of the
publication (manifestation).
Information which forms a source of law uniform name at each level
(work, expression, manifestation) is expressed in the official
language of the related jurisdiction; in case of multiple official
languages (as in Switzerland) or more involved jurisdictions (as in
international treaties), more language-dependent names (aliases) are
created.
Therefore, the more general structure of the local name appears as
follows:
local-name = work ["@" expression] ["$" manifestation]
However, consistent with legislative practice, the uniform name of
the main original provision (work) becomes the identifier of an
entire class of documents which includes: the original main document,
the annexes, and all their versions, languages and formats
subsequently generated.
6.4 Structure of the Document Identifier at Work Level
The structure of the document identifier is made of the four
fundamental elements mentioned above, clearly distinguished one from
the other in accordance with an order identifying increasingly narrow
domains and competences:
work = authority ":" measure ":" details *(":" annex)
where:
<authority> is the issuing or proposing authority of the measure
(e.g., State, Ministry, Municipality, Court, etc.);
<measure> is the type of the measure, both public nature (e.g.,
constitution, act, treaty, regulation, decree, decision, etc.) as
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
well as private one (e.g., license, agreement, etc);
<details> are the terms associated to the measure, typically the date
(usually the signature date) and the number included in the heading
of the act;
<annex> is the identifier of the annex, if any (e.g., Annex 1).
In case of annexes, both the main document and its annexes have their
own uniform name so that they can individually be referenced; the
identifier of the annex adds a suffix to that of the main document.
In similar way the identifier of an annex of an annex adds an ending
to that of the annex which it is attached to.
The main elements of the work name are generally divided into several
elementary components, and, for each, specific rules of
representation are established (criteria, modalities, syntax and
order).
For the details regarding each element, please see the Attachment B.
Examples (hypothetical) of <work> identifiers are:
urn:lex:it:stato:legge:2006-05-14;22
urn:lex:uk:ministry.justice:decree:1999-10-07;45
urn:lex:ch;glarus:regiere:erlass:2007-10-15;963
urn:lex:es:tribunal.supremo:decision:2001-09-28;68
urn:lex:fr:assemblee.nationale:proposition.loi:13.legislature;1762
urn:lex:br:estado:constituicao:1988-10-05;lex-1
urn:lex:un.org:united.nations;general.assembly:resolution:
1961-11-28;a-res-1661
urn:lex:nl:hoge.raad:besluit:2008-04-01;bc8581
It is worth to note that the type of measure is important to identify
case law, as well as legislation, especially within the legal systems
where cases, by tradition, are identified only through the year of
release and a number. Since the aim of the "urn:lex" schema is to
identify specific materials, the type of measure or the full date are
able to provide discrimination between materials belonging to a
specific case.
Here below is an example where the type of measure or the full date
are essential for identify specific materials of a case:
- 4/59 Judgement of the EEC Court of Justice 04/04/1960, Mannesmann
AG and others / ECSC High Authority
urn:lex:eec.lex.arpa:court.justice:judgement:1960-04-04;4-59
- 4/59 Order of the EEC Court of Justice 18/05/1960, Mannesmann AG
and others / ECSC High Authority
urn:lex:eec.lex.arpa:court.justice:order:1960-05-18;4-59
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
6.5 Aliases
International treaties involve more jurisdictions (the signing ones)
so they are represented through more identifiers, each of them
related to an involved jurisdiction. For example, a bilateral France
and Germany treaty is identified through two URNs (aliases) belonging
to either "fr" or "de" jurisdiction
(e.g., "urn:lex:fr:etat:traite:..." and
"urn:lex:de:staat:vertrag:...")
since it pertains to both the French and the German jurisdiction.
In the states or organisations that have more than one official
language, a document has more identifiers, each of them expressed in
a different official language, basically a set of equivalent aliases.
This system permits manual or automated construction of the uniform
name of the referred source of law in the same language used in the
document itself.
(e.g., "urn:lex:eu:council:directive:2004-12-07;31",
"urn:lex:eu:consiglio:direttiva:2004-12-07;31", etc.)
Moreover, a document can be assigned more than one uniform name in
order to facilitate its linking from other documents. This option can
be used for documents that, although unique, are commonly referenced
from different perspectives. For example, the form of a document's
promulgation and its specific content (e.g., a Regulation promulgated
through a Decree of the President of the Republic).
6.6 Structure of the Document Identifier at Expression Level
There may be several expressions of a legal text, connected to
specific versions or languages.
Each version is characterized by the period of time during which that
text is to be considered as the valid text (in force or effective).
The lifetime of a version ends with the issuing of the subsequent
version.
New versions of a text may be brought into existence by:
- changes in the text (amendments) due to the issuing of other legal
acts and to the subsequent production of updated or consolidated
texts;
- correction of publication errors (rectification or errata corrige);
- entry into or departure from a particular time span, depending on
the specific date in which different partitions of a text come into
force.
Each of such versions may be expressed in more than one language,
with each language-version having its own specific identifier.
The identifier of a source of law expression adds such information to
the work identifier, using the following main structure:
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
expression = version [":" language]
where:
<version> is the identifier of the version of the (original or
amended) source of law. In general it is expressed by the
promulgation date of the amending act; anyway other specific
information can be used for particular documents. If necessary, the
original version is specified by the string "original", expressed in
the language of the act or version (for the details regarding this
element, please see the Attachment C);
<language> is the identification code of the language in which the
document is expressed, according to [BCP47] (it=Italian, fr=French,
de=German, etc.). The granularity level of the language (for example
the specification of the German language as used in Switzerland
rather than the standard German) is left to each specific
jurisdiction. The information is not necessary when the text is
expressed in the unique official language of the country or
jurisdiction.
Examples (hypothetical) of document identifiers for expressions are:
urn:lex:ch:etat:loi:2006-05-14;22@originel:fr
(original version in French)
urn:lex:ch:staat:gesetz:2006-05-14;22@original:de
(original version in German)
urn:lex:ch:etat:loi:2006-05-14;22@2008-03-12:fr
(amended version in French)
urn:lex:ch:staat:gesetz:2006-05-14;22@2008-03-12:de
(amended version in German)
urn:lex:be:conseil.etat:decision:2008-07-09;185.273@originel:fr
(original version in French of a Belgian decision)
6.7 Structure of the Document Identifier at Manifestation Level
To identify a specific manifestation, the uniform name of the
expression is followed by a suitable suffix containing the following
main elements:
- <format>: the digital format (e.g., XML, HTML, PDF, etc.) expressed
according to the MIME Content-Type standard [RFC2045], where the
"/" character is to be substituted by the "-" sign;
- <editor>: editorial staff who produced it, expressed according to
its Internet domain name. Since publishers' domain names may vary
over time, manifestations already assigned by a publisher remain
unchanged even if the identified object is no longer accessible. In
this case, in order to make its materials accessible, the publisher
will have to create for each of them a new manifestation with the
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
new domain name;
- <component>: possible components of the expressions contained in
the manifestation. Such components are expressed by language-
dependent labels representing the whole document (in English "all")
or the main part of the document (in English "body") or the caption
label of the component itself (e.g. Table 1, Figure 2, etc.);
- <feature>: other features of the document (e.g., anonymized
decision text).
The <manifestation> suffix will thus read:
manifestation = editor ":" format
[":" component [":" feature]]
To indicate possible features or peculiarities, each main element of
the manifestation MAY be followed by further specifications
(separated by ";"), for example as regards <editor> the archive name
and the electronic publisher, for <format> the version, etc.
Therefore the main elements of the manifestation will assume the
forms:
editor = publisher *(";" specification)
format = mime *(";" specification)
component = part *(";" specification)
feature = attribute *(";" specification)
The syntax details of the <manifestation> element is shown in
attachment A, in the related section.
(examples (hypothetical):
the original version the Italian act 3 April 2000, n. 56 might have
the following manifestations with their relative uniform names:
- PDF format (vers. 1.7) of the whole act edited by the Italian
Parliament:
"urn:lex:it:stato:legge:2000-04-03;56$application-
pdf;1.7:parlamento.it"
- XML format (version 2.2 DTD NIR) of the text of the act and PDF
format (version 1.7) of the "Figura 1" (figure 1) contained in the
body, edited by the Italian Senate:
"urn:lex:it:stato:legge:2000-04-03;56$text-xml;dtd-
nir-2.2:senato.it:testo"
"urn:lex:it:stato:legge:2000-04-03;56$application-
pdf;1.7:senato.it:figura.1"
the Spanish URN of the html format of the whole Judgement of the
European Court of Justice n. 33/08 of 11/06/2009, in Spanish version,
published in the Jurifast data base in anonymized form:
"urn:lex:eu:tribunal.justicia:sentencia:2009-06-11;33-
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
08@original:es$text-html:juradmin.eu;jurifast:todo:anonimo")
Furthermore, it is useful to be able to assign a uniform name to a
manifestation (or to a part of it) in case non-textual objects are
involved. These may be multimedia objects that are non-textual in
their own right (e.g. geographic maps, photographs, etc.), or texts
recorded in non-textual formats, such as image scans of documents.
In these ways, a LEX name permits:
- exploitation of all the advantages of an unequivocal identifier
that is independent of physical location;
- a means to provide choice among different existing manifestations
(e.g. XML or PDF formats, resolution degree of an image etc.) of
the same expression.
6.8 Sources of Law References
References to sources of law often refer to specific partitions of
the act (article, paragraph, etc.) and not to the entire document.
From a legal point of view, a partition is always a text block, that
represents a logical subdivision of an act.
As regards the digital representation, in a structured format (as
XML) perfectly fitting the document logical structure, a partition is
represented by an element (a block of text) with its own ID; this ID
aims to identify the related element and to locate it. In this case,
therefore, it is possible either to extract or to point to a
partition.
In a mark-up not fitting the logical structure of the text (as HTML),
generally only the starting point of the partition, rather than the
whole block of text or element, is identified through a label (a <a
id=partitionID></a> tag in Html Markup Language [HTML]). In this case
therefore it is not possible to extract a partition but only to point
to it.
In both cases, having a partition identifier is useful; therefore,
for allowing browsers to point to a specific partition, it is
necessary that such partition is endowed with an unequivocal label or
ID within the including document and its value is the same
independently from the document format.
For enabling the construction of the partition identifier between
different collections of documents, specific construction rules for
IDs or labels will be defined and shared, within each country or
jurisdiction, for any document type (e.g., for legislation, the
paragraph 2 of the article 3 might have as label or ID the value
"art3;par2", similarly for case-law, paragraph 22 of the judgement in
Case 46/76 Bauhuis v Netherlands, might have as label or ID the value
"par22").
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Furthermore, it is useful to foresee the compatibility with
applications able to manage this information (e.g., returning the
proper element); these procedures are particularly useful in the case
of rather long acts, such as codes, constitutions, regulations, etc.
For this purpose it is necessary that the partition identifier is
transmitted to the servers (resolution and application) and therefore
it cannot be separated by the typical "#" character of URI fragment,
which is not transmitted to the server.
According to these requirements, the syntax of a reference is:
URN-reference = URN-document ["~" partition-id]
(e.g., to refer to the paragraph 3 of the article 15 of the French
Act of 15 may 2004, n. 106, the reference can be
"urn:lex:fr:etat:loi:2004-05-15;106~art15;par3").
Using a different separator ("~") from the document name, the
partition ID is not withheld by the browser but it is transmitted to
the resolution process. This enables the resolver to retrieve (for
example, out of a database) only the referred partition, if the
partition syntax is compatible with the media type used, otherwise to
return the whole act.
Anyway, to make it effective in a browser pointing to the indicated
partition, the resolver SHOULD transform the partition ID of each
returned URL in a URI fragment. If this operation cannot be
accomplished, the browser is positioned at the beginning of the
document. The transformation in URI fragment is obtained appending to
the URL the "#" character followed by the partition ID (in the
example above, the returned URL will be <URL-document>#art15;par3).
Doing this, knowing the granularity of the act markup, the resolver
could exploit the hierarchical structure of the ID, eliminating sub-
partitions not addressed. If only the article was identified in the
act, in the previous example it could return <URL-document>#art15
only.
Anyway it is possible to use the general syntax (with "#"); in this
case only the URN document component of the reference is transmitted
to the resolver, therefore the whole document will be always
retrieved.
7 The Procedure of Uniform Names Assignment
7.1 Specifying the <jurisdiction> Element of the LEX Identifier
Under the "lex" namespace, each country or international organization
is assigned with a jurisdiction code, which characterizes the URNs of
the source of law of that country or jurisdiction. This code is
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
assigned according to ccTLD (as well as TLDN (Top Level Domain Name)
or DN (Domain Name) for the organizations) representation and it is
the value of the <jurisdiction-code> element, which preserves cross-
country uniqueness of the identifiers.
7.2 Jurisdictional Registrar for Names Assignment
Any country or jurisdiction, who intends to adopt this schema, MUST
identify a Jurisdictional Registrar, an organization which shares and
defines the structure of the optional part (<jurisdiction-unit>) of
the name, according to the organization of the state or institution
(for details see Section 11.2). It must appoint a Jurisdictional
Registrar and inform the Designed Experts, together with the
registration of a jurisdiction code. For example, in a federal state
a <jurisdiction-unit> corresponding to the name of each member state
(e.g. "br;sao.paolo", "br;minas.gerais", etc.) may be defined.
The process of assigning the <local-name> will be managed by each
specific country or jurisdiction under the related <jurisdiction>
element.
In any country the Jurisdictional Registrar shares and defines the
assignment of the primary elements (issuing authority and type of
legal measure) of the local names considering the characteristics of
its own state or institution organization.
Such a Registrar MUST establish, according to the guidelines
indicated in the current document, a uniform procedure within the
country or organization to define <local-name> elements, to take
decisions upon normalizations and finally to solve and avoid possible
name collisions as well as to maintain authoritative registries of
various kinds (e.g., for authorities, types of measures, etc.). In
particular, accurate point-in-time representations of the structure
and naming of government entities are important to semantically-aware
applications in this domain.
Moreover, the Registrar shares and defines the rules to construct
partition IDs for each document type.
Finally, the Registrar will develop and publish the rules and the
guidelines for the <local-name> construction as well as the
predefined values and codes. The Registrar should also promote the
urn:lex identifier for the sources of law of its jurisdiction.
Such a set of rules will have to be followed by all institutional
bodies adopting the URN LEX identification system in a country or
jurisdiction, as well as by private publishers, and each of them will
be responsible for assigning names to their domains.
7.3 Identifier Uniqueness
Identifiers in the "lex" namespace are defined through a
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 28]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
<jurisdiction> element assigned to the sources of law of a specific
country or organization, and a <local-name> assigned by the issuing
authority, in conformance with the syntax defined in Section 6. The
main elements (authority and type of measure) of the <local-name> are
defined by the Jurisdictional Registrar, so that it is ensured that
the constructed URNs are unique. The Jurisdictional Registrar MUST
provide clear documentation of rules by which names are to be
constructed, and MUST update and make accessible its registries.
Any issuing authority is responsible to define formal parameters to
guarantee local name uniqueness by attributing, if necessary, a
conventional internal number, which, combined with the other <local-
name> components (authority, measure and date), builds an unequivocal
identifier. Uniqueness is achieved by checking against the catalogue
of previously assigned names.
7.4 Identifier Persistence Considerations
The persistence of identifiers depends on the durability of the
institutions that assign and administer them. The goal of the LEX
schema is to maintain uniqueness and persistence of all resources
identified by the assigned URNs.
In particular, the CNR, as proposer, is responsible of maintaining
the uniqueness of the <jurisdiction> element; given that the
<jurisdiction> is assigned on the basis of the long-held ccTLD
representation of the country (or the TLDN or DN of the organization)
and that the country or organization associated code is expected to
continue indefinitely, the URN also persists indefinitely.
The rules for the construction of the name are conceived to delegate
the responsibility of their uniqueness to a set of authorities which
is identified within each country or organization.
Therefore, each authority is responsible for assigning URNs which
have a very long life expectancy and can be expected to remain unique
for the foreseeable future. Practical and political considerations,
as well as diverse local forms of government organization, will
result in different methods of assigning responsibility for different
levels of the name.
Where this cannot be accomplished by the implementation of an
authoritative hierarchy, it is highly desirable that it be done by
creating consensus around a series of published rules for the
creation and administration of names by institutions and bodies that
operate by means of collaboration rather than compulsion.
Issuing authorities that operate in more localized scopes, ranging
from the national down to the very local, MUST equally take
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 29]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
responsibility for the persistence of identifiers within their scope.
8 Recommendations for the Resolution Process
8.1 The General Architecture of the System
The task of the resolution service is that of associating a LEX
identifier with a specific document address on the network. By
contrast with systems that can be constructed around rigorous and
enforceable engineering premises, such as DNS, the "lex" namespace
resolver will be expected to cope with a wide variety of "dirty"
inputs, particularly those created by the automated extraction of
references from incomplete or inaccurate texts. In this document,
the result is a particular emphasis on a flexible and robust resolver
design.
The system has a distributed architecture based on two fundamental
components: a chain of information in DNS (Domain Name System) and a
series of resolution services from URNs to URLs, each competent
within a specific domain of the namespace.
The client retrieves the document associated with this URN using the
procedure described in [RFC3404], which starts with a DNS NAPTR
query.
A resolution service can delegate the resolution and management of
hierarchically-dependent portions of the name.
Delegation of this responsibility will not be unreasonably withheld
provided that the processes for their resolution and management are
robust and are followed.
For the "lex" namespace, CNR will maintain in the <lex-nameserver>
(see Section 11.1) the root zone of the chain resolution (equivalent
to "lex.urn.arpa" (see [RFC3405]) and, in correspondence with the
adhesion (see Section 11.2) of a new country (e.g., "br") or
organization, will update the DNS information with a new record to
delegate the relative resolution. This may be obtained by a regular
expression that matches the initial part of the URN (e.g.,
"urn:lex:br") and redirects towards the proper zone (e.g.,
"lex.senado.gov.br").
Likewise the institution responsible for the jurisdiction uniform
names (e.g., "urn:lex:br") has the task of managing the relative root
in the DNS system (e.g., "lex.senado.gov.br" zone) and routing the
resolution towards its resolvers on the basis of parts of the uniform
names. In similar way it can delegate the resolution of
country/organization sub-levels (e.g., "urn:lex:br;sao.paolo")
towards the relative zone (e.g., "lex.sao-paolo.gov.br").
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 30]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Such DNS routing chain does not work for all the URN components
containing %-encoded characters. Therefore, when converting a lex:URN
in UTF-8 code to a DNS query, clients MUST perform punycode
conversion [RFC5891] before sending the query.
The resolution service is made up of two elements: a knowledge base
(consisting in a catalogue or a set of transformation rules) and a
software to query the knowledge base itself.
8.2 Catalogues for Resolution
Incompleteness and inaccuracy are rather frequent in legal citations,
and incomplete or inaccurate uniform names of the referred document
are thus likely to be built from textual references (this is even
more frequent if they are created automatically through a specific
parser). For this reason, the implementation of a catalogue, based on
a relational-database, is suggested, as it will lead to a higher
flexibility in the resolution process.
In addition the catalogue must manage the aliases, the various
versions and languages of the same source of law as well as the
related manifestations.
It is suggested that each enacting authority implements its own
catalogue, assigning a corresponding unambiguous uniform name to each
resource.
8.3 Suggested Resolver Behaviour
First of all the resolver should separate the part corresponding to
the partition ID, through the "~" separator, from the document name.
So, the resolution process SHOULD implement a normalization of the
uniform name to be resolved. This may involve transforming some
components to the canonical form (e.g., filling out the acronyms,
expanding the abbreviations, unifying the institution names,
standardizing the type of measures, etc.). For this function
authorities and types of measure registers are useful.
The resolver SHOULD then query the catalogue searching for the URN
which corresponds exactly to the given one (normalized if necessary).
Since the names coming from the references may be inaccurate or
incomplete, an iterative, heuristic approach (based on partial
matches) is indicated. It is worth remarking that incomplete
references (not including all the elements to create the canonical
uniform name) are normal and natural; for a human reader, the
reference would be "completed" by contextual understanding of the
reference in the document in which it occurs.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 31]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
In this phase, the resolver should use the partition ID information
to retrieve, if it is possible, only the referred partition,
otherwise to return of the entire document.
Lacking more specific indications, the resolver SHOULD select the
best (most recent) version of the requested source of law, and
provide all the manifestations with their related items.
A more specific indication in the uniform name to be resolved will,
of course, result in a more selective retrieval, based on any
suggested expression and/or manifestations components (e.g. date,
language, format, etc.).
Finally, the resolver SHOULD append to URLs the "#" character
followed by partition ID, transforming it in a URI fragment for
browser pointing.
9 Namespace Considerations
In collaboration with the legislative XML community, registrants
carried out a preliminary study [SART] of the URI alternatives to
satisfy the key requirements.
The options analysed were: a private URI scheme, URL, PURL and URN.
URN was considered the most appropriate URI given the requirements
analysis.
Advantages we would emphasize are:
- greater flexibility in building the identifier;
- the capacity to represent name components that are not strictly
hierarchical;
- the potential for clear division of the identifier into macro
parts, main elements and components, using different separators;
- ease of managing optional parts of a name.
10 Community Considerations
The use of the "lex" namespace facilitates the interoperability of
information systems used in the Public Administration at the national
and international level. Moreover it allows the distribution of the
legal information towards a federated architecture. In such an
architecture, documents are directly managed by the issuing
authorities, with resulting benefits in information authenticity,
quality and currency. A shared identification mechanism of resources
guarantees that a distributed system will be as efficient and
effective as a comparable centralized system.
Creators of Internet content that references legal materials -
including publishers operating well outside the traditional arenas of
legal publishing - benefit by the registration of the namespace
because it facilitates the linking of legal documents, whether by
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 32]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
manual or automated means, and reduces the cost of maintaining
documents that contain such references.
Any citizen or organisation with Internet web browser capability will
have the possibility to use the namespace and its associated
application, registers, and resolution services, to facilitate
document access (if available).
11 IANA Considerations
11.1 NID Registration
IANA is requested to make an assignment from the "Uniform Resource
Names (URN)" registry described by [RFC8141] to register "lex"
according to the registration request set out in Section 2. The
assignment should be made from the "Formal URN Namespaces" registry.
In addition, to activate a distributed resolution system, the one-off
registration of the following NAPTR records is required:
in the URN.ARPA domain:
IN NAPTR 1 0 "" "" "!^urn:lex:!_lex!i" .
_lex IN NAPTR 10 10 "" "" "" <lex-nameserver>.
in the URN.URI.ARPA domain:
IN NAPTR 1 0 "" "" "!^urn:lex:!_lex!i" .
_lex IN NAPTR 10 10 "" "" "" <lex-nameserver>.
where <lex-nameserver> indicates the server of the organization that
is responsible for the resolution of the "lex" namespace and will be
communicated by the applicant when the application is approved.
11.2 Jurisdiction-code Registration
It is requested to create a new registry for <jurisdiction-code>,
with the following format:
- <jurisdiction-code>: the identifier code of jurisdiction, assigned
to the country or organisation;
- <jurisdiction>: the official denomination of the jurisdiction,
country or organisation;
- <registrant>: essential information to identify the organization
that requested the registration of the code. Such organization will
be responsible for its DNS zone and for the attribution of sub-zone
delegations, and so on. It is desirable that each jurisdiction
creates a register of all delegated levels so that the organization
responsible of each sub-zone can easily be identified;
- <reference>: a reference to the defining document (if any).
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 33]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
The table is initially empty. Possible example entries are:
"br"; "Brazil"; "Prodasen, Federal Senate, <address>, <contact>";
[reference]
"eu"; "European Union"; "DG Digit, European Commission, <address>,
<contact>"; [reference]
"un.org"; "United Nations"; "DPI, United Nations, <address>,
<contact>"; [reference]
CNR will take care to create and maintain the registry for
<jurisdiction-code> and the root <lex-nameserver> of the resolution
routing.
A new Jurisdictional Registrar will contact CNR or the Designated
Expert(s) according to the established rules of governance (published
in the CNR website dedicated to the LEX governance). The application
will be evaluated according to the Jurisdictional Registrar
authoritativeness and the offered guarantees. The Designated
Expert(s) will evaluate such applications, with a similar approach as
of the DNS. Typically such applications should come from public
administrations, as authorities enacting sources of law.
The adopted registration policy is compliant with the "Expert Review"
as specified in [RFC8126]. Designated Expert(s) will assign
jurisdiction codes based on the following principles:
- if a request comes from a jurisdiction that corresponds to a
country and the jurisdiction code is the same as a top level ccTLD,
which is not yet registered, then the top level ccTLD should be
used as the jurisdiction code;
- if a request comes from a jurisdiction that corresponds to a multi-
national (e.g., European Union) or international (e.g., United
Nations, World Trade Organization) organizations the Top Level
Domain Name (e.g., "eu") or the Domain Name (e.g., "un.org",
"wto.org") of the organization should be used as the jurisdiction
code;
- in case when such multi-national or international organization does
not have a registered domain, Designated Expert(s) should assign
something like <name>.lex.arpa, where <name> will be the English
acronym of the organization name. For example, the jurisdiction
code of the European Economic Community could be "eec.lex.arpa".
Jurisdiction codes can't be renamed, because allowing for renames
would violate rules that URN assignments are persistent.
Jurisdiction codes can never be deleted. They can only be marked as
"obsolete", i.e. closed for new assignments within the jurisdiction.
Requests to obsolete a jurisdiction code are also processed by
Designated Expert.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 34]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Designated Expert(s) can unilaterally initiate allocation or
obsolescence of a jurisdiction code.
Request for new jurisdiction code assignment must include
Organization or Country requesting it and Contact information (email)
of who requested the assignment.
12 References
12.1 Normative References
[BCP47] A. Phillips, M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages",
BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009
[STD63] F. Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC2045] N. Freed, N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3404] M. Mealling, Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS),
Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
Resolution Application, RFC 3404, October 2002.
[RFC3405] M. Mealling, Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS),
Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures, RFC 3405,
October 2002.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC5234] D. Crocker Ed., P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008
[RFC5891] J. Klensin, Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol, RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC5894] J. Klensin, "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010
[RFC7231] R. Fielding, J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 35]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
[RFC8126] M. Cotton, B. Leiba, T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 8126, June
2017
[RFC8141] P. Saint-Andre, J.C. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, April 2017
[RFC8174] B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017.
[RFC8288] M. Nottingham, "Web Linking", RFC 8288, October 2017
[ISO8601] ISO 8601, "Data elements and interchange formats", ISO
8601:2004
[HTML] W3C, HyperText Markup Language, https://www.w3.org/html/
12.2 Informative References
[FRAN] E. Francesconi, "Technologies for European Integration.
Standards-based Interoperability of Legal Information
Systems", ISBN 978-88-8398-050-3, European Press Academic
Publishing, 2007.
[FRBR] Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,
https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/
frbr_2008.pdf
[HCPIL] The Hague Conference on Private International Law "Access
to Foreign Law in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Conclusions and Recommendations"
(https://assets.hcch.net/docs/
b093f152-a4b3-4530-949e-65c1bfc9cda1.pdf)
[ISBD] ISBD: International Standard Bibliographic Description -
Consolidated Edition. Edited by the Standing Committee of
the IFLA Cataloguing Section Berlin/Munich: De Gruyter
Saur, 2011 ISBN 978-3-11-026379-4 (IFLA Series on
Bibliographic Control; Nr 44)
[LVI] Ginevra Peruginelli, Mario Ragona (eds.), "Law via the
Internet. Free Access, Quality of Information,
Effectiveness of Rights", European Press Academic
Publishing, 2008, ISBN 9788883980589.
[RDF] W3C, RDF Schema 1.1, February 2014,
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 36]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
[SART] G. Sartor, M. Palmirani, E. Francesconi, M. Biasiotti
(Eds.), Legislative XML for the Semantic Web. Principles,
Models, Standards for Document Management, Law,
Governance and Technology Series, Springer, 2011, ISBN
978-94-007-1886-9.
[SPIN] P.L. Spinosa, "The Assignment of Uniform Names to Italian
Legal Documents", URN-NIR 1.4, June, 2010, ITTIG
Technical Report n. 8/2010.
13 Acknowledgements
The authors of this document wish to thank all the supporters for
giving suggestions and comments.
They are also grateful to the Legislative XML community for the
interesting discussions on this topic and to the Working Group
"Identification of the legal resources through URNs" of Italian
NormeInRete project for the provided guidance [SPIN].
The authors owe a debt of gratitude to Tom Bruce, director of the
Legal Information Institute of the Cornell University Law School, for
his contribution in revising this document and sharing fruitful
discussions which greatly improved the final draft. The authors wish
to specially thank Marc van Opijnen (Dutch Ministry of Security and
Justice) for his valuable comments on LEX specifications which
contributed to improve the final result, as well as for the common
work aimed to harmonize ECLI and LEX specifications. Thanks also to
Joao Alberto de Oliveira Lima, legislative system analyst of the
Brazilian Federal Senate, and to Attila Torcsvari, information
management consultant, for their detailed comments on the first
drafts of this document, which provided significant hints to the
final version of the standard, and to Robert Richards of the Legal
Information Institute (Cornell University Law School), promoter and
maintainer of the Legal Informatics Research social network, as well
as to the members of this network, for their valuable comments on
this proposal.
Finally, many thanks go to Loriana Serrotti who significantly
contributed to the first drafting of this document.
14 Author's Addresses
PierLuigi Spinosa
(ICT consultant)
Via Zanardelli, 15
50136 Firenze
Italy
Telephone: +39 339 5614056
e-mail: pierluigi.spinosa@gmail.com
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 37]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Enrico Francesconi
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
Via de' Barucci, 20
50127 Firenze
Italy
Telephone: +39 055 43995
e-mail: enrico.francesconi@cnr.it
Caterina Lupo
(ICT consultant)
Via San Fabiano, 25
00165 Roma
Italy
Telephone: +39 3382632348
e-mail: caterina.lupo@gmail.com
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 38]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Attachment A -- Summary of the Syntax of the Uniform Names of the "lex"
Namespace
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of a Uniform Resource Name (URN) of the "lex" namespace
; NID-lex = namespace
; NSS-lex = specific name
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
URN-lex = "urn:" NID-lex ":" NSS-lex
NID-lex = "lex"
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of a "lex" specific name
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
NSS-lex = jurisdiction ":" local-name
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <jurisdiction> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
jurisdiction = jurisdiction-code *(";" jurisdiction-unit)
jurisdiction-code = 2*alf-dot
jurisdiction-unit = alf-dot
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <local-name> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
local-name = work ["@" expression] ["$" manifestation]
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <work> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
work = authority ":" measure ":" details *(":" annex)
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <authority> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
authority = issuer *("+" issuer)
issuer = (institution *(";" body-function)) / office
institution = alf-dot
body-function = alf-dot
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 39]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
office = alf-dot
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <measure> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
measure = measure-type *(";" specification)
measure-type = alf-dot
specification = alf-dot
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <details> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
details = (dates / period) ";" numbers
dates = date *("," date)
period = alf-dot
numbers = (document-id *("," document-id)) / number-lex
document-id = alf-dot-oth
number-lex = "lex-" 1*DIGIT
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <annex> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
annex = annex-id *(";" specification)
annex-id = alf-dot
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <expression> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
expression = version [":" language]
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <version> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
version = (amendment-date / specification)
*(";" (event-date / event))
amendment-date = date
event-date = date
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 40]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
event = alf-dot
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <language> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
language = 2*3alfa *["-" extlang] / 4*8alfa
extlang = 3alfa *2("-" 3alfa)
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the <manifestation> element
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
manifestation = format ":" editor
[":" component [":" feature]]
format = mime *(";" specification)
mime = alf-dot-hyp
editor = publisher *(";" specification)
publisher = alf-dot-hyp
component = part *(";" specification)
part = alf-dot-hyp
feature = attribute *(";" specification)
attribute = alf-dot-hyp
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Structure of the date
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
date = year "-" month "-" day
year = 4DIGIT
month = 2DIGIT
day = 2DIGIT
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; Allowed, reserved and future characters
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
; allowed = alfadot / other / reserved
; reserved = ":" / "@" / "$" / "+" / ";" / "," / "~"
; future = "*" / "!"
alf-dot = alfanum *alfadot
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 41]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
alf-dot-hyp = alfanum *(alfadot / "-")
alf-dot-oth = alfanum *(alfadot / other)
alfadot = alfanum / "."
alfa = lowercase / uppercase
alfanum = alfa / DIGIT / encoded
lowercase = %x61-7A ; lower-case ASCII letters (a-z)
uppercase = %x41-5A ; upper-case ASCII letters (A-Z)
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; decimal digits (0-9)
encoded = "%" 2HEXDIG
HEXDIG = DIGIT / %x41-46 / %x61-66 ; hex digits (0-9,A-F,a-f)
other = "-" / "_" / "'" / "=" / "(" / ")"
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 42]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Attachment B -- Specific Syntax of the Identifier at Work Level
B1 The <authority> Element
B1.1 Indication of the Authority
The <authority> element of a uniform name may indicate, in the
various cases:
- the actual authority issuing the legal provision. More
specifically, the authority adopting the provision or enacting it;
- the institution where the provision is registered, known and
referenced to, even if produced by others (e.g., the bills
identified through the reference to the Chamber where they are
presented);
- the institution regulated (and referred to in citations) by the
legal provision even when this is issued by another authority
(e.g., the statute of a Body);
- the entity that proposed the legal material not yet included in the
institutional process (e.g. a proposed bill written by a a
political party).
B1.2 Multiple Issuers
Some sources of law are enacted by a number of issuing parties (e.g.,
inter-ministerial decrees, agreements, etc.). In this case, the
<authority> element contains all the issuing parties (properly
separated), as follows:
authority = issuer *("+" issuer)
(e.g., "ministry.justice+ministry.finances")
B1.3 Indication of the Issuer
Each issuing authority is essentially represented by either an
institutional office (e.g., Prime Minister) or an institution (e.g.,
Ministry); in the last case, the authority is indicated in accordance
with the institution's hierarchical structure, from the more general
to more specific (Council, Department, etc.), ending with the
relative office (President, Director, etc.).
Therefore, the structure of the issuer is as follows:
issuer = (institution *(";" body-function)) / office
(e.g., "ministry.finances;department.revenues;manager")
B1.4 Indication of the Body
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 43]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Depending on the kind of measure, the body within the issuing
authority is unambiguously determined (e.g., the Council for Regional
Acts) and normally it is not indicated in the references.
Just like in practice, the indication of the enacting authority is
limited to the minimum in relation to the type of measure.
(e.g., "region.tuscany:act" and not "region.tuscany;council:act")
B1.5 Indication of the Function
Generally, the function is indicated, sometimes instead of the body
itself:
- in case of political, representative or elective offices
(e.g., "university.oxford;rector:decree" instead of
"university.oxford;rectorship:decree");
- when it refers to a top officer in the institution (e.g., general
manager, general secretary, etc.) which is not always possible to
associate a specific internal institutional structure to
(e.g., "national.council.research;general.manager").
It is not indicated when it clearly corresponds to the person in
charge of an institution (typically, a general director); in this
case, only the structure and not the person in charge is indicated
(e.g., "ministry.justice;department.penitentiary.administration").
The function MUST be indicated when:
- it is not the same of the director or the person in charge of the
structure (for example, in case of an undersecretary, a deputy
director, etc.);
- the type of measure may be both monocratic or collegial: the
indication of the office eliminates the ambiguity.
B1.6 Conventions for the Authority
Acts and measures bearing the same relevance as an act, issued or
enacted since the foundation of the State, have conventionally
indicated "state" (expressed in each country official language) as
authority; the same convention is used for constitutions, codes
(civil, criminal, civil procedure, criminal procedure, etc) and
international treaties.
B2 The <measure> Element
B2.1 Criteria for the Indication of the Type of Measure
In uniform names the issuing authority of a document is mandatory.
This makes unnecessary to indicate any further qualification of the
measure (e.g., ministerial decree, directorial ordinance, etc.), even
if it is widely used.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 44]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
When the authority-measure combination clearly identifies a specific
document, the type of measure is not defined through attributes
referring to the enacting authority.
(e.g., "region.tuscany:act" and not "region.tuscany:regional.act")
B2.2 Further Specification to the Type of Measure
In the <measure> element, it is usually sufficient to indicate the
type of a measure. As usual, references to sources of law, rather
than through the formal details (date and number), may be made
through some of their characteristics such as the subject-matter
covered (e.g., accounting regulations), nicknames referring to the
promoter (e.g., Bassanini Act) or to the topic of the act (e.g.,
Bankruptcy Law), etc..
In these cases, the type of measure MAY be followed by further
specifications useful in referencing even if the details are lacking:
measure = measure-type *(";" specification)
(e.g., "regulations;accounting" or "act;bankruptcy")
B2.3 Aliases for Sources of Law with Different Normative References
There are legislative measures that, although unique, are usually
cited in different ways, for example through the legislative act
introducing them into the legal order (President's decree,
legislative decree, etc.) or through their legislative category
(regulations, consolidation, etc.).
In order to ensure, in all the cases, the validity of the references,
an alias (additional URN LEX identifier), that takes into account the
measure category, is added to what represents the legislative form of
the same act.
(e.g., "state:decree.legislative:1992-07-24;358" and
"state:consolidation;public.contracts:1992-07-24;358").
B2.4 Relations between Measure and Authority in the Aliases
The sources of law including different normative references are
usually introduced in legislation through the adoption or the issuing
of an act, which they are either included or attached to. It is,
therefore, necessary to create an alias linking the two aspects of
the same document. Specifically, the different measures can be:
- adopted/issued by an authority different from the one regulated by
the provision (e.g., the statute of a Body); in this case, the
correlation is established between two uniform names each featuring
a completely different <authority> element
(e.g., "italian.society.authors.publishers:statute" and
"ministry.cultural.activities+ministry.finances.budget.economic.
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 45]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
planning:decree");
- issued by the institution itself either because it has issuing
authority or by virtue of a proxy (e.g., a provision that refers to
the functioning of the Body itself); in this case, the two aliases
share the first part of the authority;
(e.g., "municipality.firenze:statute" and
"municipality.firenze;council:deliberation");
- issued by the same Body to regulate a particular sector of its own
competence; in this case the <authority> element is the same
(e.g., "ministry.justice:regulation;use.information.tools.
telematic.process" and "ministry.justice:decree").
B3 The <details> Element
B3.1 Indication of the Details
The details of a source of law usually include the date of the
enactment and the identification number (inclusion in the body of
laws, register, protocol, etc.).
Some measures can have multiple dates; there are also cases in which
the number of the measure does not exist (unnumbered measures) or a
measure has multiple numbers (e.g., unified cases). For these
reasons, the set up of both elements (date and number) includes
multiple values.
Some institutions (e.g., the Parliaments) usually identify documents
through their period of reference (e.g., the legislature number)
rather than through a date, which would be much less meaningful and
never used in references (e.g., Senate bill S.2544 of the XIV
legislature). In these cases, the component <period> is used in
substitution of the component <dates>.
Usually details of a measure are not reported according to a specific
sequence; in accordance with the global structure of the uniform
name, which goes from the general to the specific, the sequence date-
number has the following form:
details = (dates / period) ";" numbers
(e.g., "2000-12-06;126", "14.legislature;s.2544")
B3.2 Multiple Dates
Some sources of law, even if unique, are identified by more than one
date; in this case, in the field <dates> all the given dates are to
be reported and indicated as follows:
dates = date *("," date)
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 46]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
(e.g., the measure of the Data Protection Authority of December 30,
1999- January 13, 2000, No. 1/P/2000 has the following uniform name:
"personal.data.protection.authority:measure:1999-12-30,2000-01-13;
1-p-2000").
B3.3 Unnumbered Measures
Measures not officially numbered in the publications may have a non-
unequivolcal identifier, because several measures of the same type
can exist, issued on the same day by the same authority.
To ensure that the uniform name is unambiguous, the <numbers> field
MUST, in any case, contain a discriminating element, which can be any
identifier used internally, and not published, by the authority
(e.g., protocol).
If the authority does not have its own identifier, one identifier
MUST be created for the name system. In order to easily differentiate
it, such number is preceded by the string "lex-":
number-lex = "lex-" 1*DIGIT
(e.g., "ministry.finances:decree:1999-12-20;lex-3")
It is responsibility of the authority issuing a document to assign a
discriminating specification to it; in case of multiple authorities,
only one of them is responsible for the assignment of the number to
the document (e.g., the proponent).
The unnumbered measures published on an official publication (e.g.,
the Official Gazette), instead of by a progressive number are
recognized by the univocal identifying label printed on the paper.
Such an identifier, even if unofficial but assigned to a document in
an official publication, is to be preferred because it has the clear
advantage to be public and therefore easier to be found.
B3.4 Multiple Numbers
Some legal documents (e.g., bills), even if unique, are identified by
a set of numbers (e.g., the unification of cases or bills).
In this case, in the <numbers> field, all the identifiers are
reported, according to the following structure:
numbers = document-id *("," document-id)
(e.g., "2000-06-12;c-10-97,c-11-97,c-12-97")
The characters which are not allowed (e.g., "/") or reserved (e.g.,
":"), including the comma, cannot exist inside the <document-id>, and
therefore MUST be turned into "-".
Where special characters contained in the number of the act are
distinctive of the act itself (e.g. bill n. 123-bis (removal of 123)
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 47]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
and n. 123/bis (return of 123)) and would disappear with the
conversion to "-", a further ending must be added, allowing to
distinguish the acts (e.g. bill n.123-bis-removal and 123-bis-
return).
B4 The <annex> Element
B4.1 Formal Annexes
Although annexes are an integral part of the legal document, they may
be referred to and undergo amendments separately from the act to
which they are annexed. It is, therefore, necessary that both the
main document as well as each formal individual annex is
unequivocally identified.
Formal annexes may be registered as separate parts or together with a
legal provision; they may also be autonomous in nature or not. In any
case, they MUST be given a uniform name, which includes the uniform
name of the source of law to which they are attached, and a suffix
which identifies the annex itself.
The suffix of formal annexes includes the official heading of the
annex and, possibly, further specifications (e.g., the title) which
will facilitate the retrieval of the annex in case the identifier is
missing:
annex = annex-id *(";" specification)
(e.g., "region.sicily;council:deliberation:1998-02-12;14:annex.a;
borders.park")
The characters which are not allowed (e.g. "/") or which are reserved
(e.g. ":") must not be featured in the <annex-id> and therefore MUST
be turned into ".".
B4.2 Annexes of Annexes
When there are annexes to an annex, their corresponding identifiers
are created by adding to the identifier of the original annex those
of the annexes that are connected with it (that is, attached to it).
(e.g., Table 1 attached to Attachment A of the preceding legal act
has the following uniform name:
"region.sicily;council:deliberation:1998-02-12;14:annex.a;
borders.park:table.1;municipality.territories").
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 48]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Attachment C -- Specific Syntax of the <version> Element of the
Expression
C1 The <version> Element
C1.1 Different Versions of a Legislative Document
The creation of an updated text of a document may have one of the
following forms:
- "multi-version": when specific mark-ups which identify the modified
parts of a document (added, substituted or deleted parts) and their
related periods of effectiveness are indicated inside one single
object (e.g., an xml file). Such a document will be able, in a
dynamic way, to appear in different forms according to the
requested date of effectiveness.
In this document type, usually a set of metadata contains the
lifecycle of the document (from the original to the last
modification), including the validity time interval of each version
and of each related text portion;
- "single-version": when, on the contrary, a new and distinct object
is created for each amendment to the text at a given time. Each
object is, therefore, characterized by its own period of validity.
In any case all the versions SHOULD be linked one another and
immediately navigable.
In a "multi-version" document each time interval should have a link
to the related in-force document version which can be therefore
displayed.
In a "single-version" document, the metadata should contain links to
the all the previous modifications and a link only to the following
version, if any.
[RFC8288] can be used as reference to establish links between
different document versions, either in the "multi-version" or in the
"single-version" document. According to [RFC8288] the following
relations are useful:
- current (or last or last-version): in-force version
- self: this version
- next: next version
- previous: previous version
- first: original version
It is RECOMMENDED that these relations are inserted in the header of
each version (if "single-version") or associated to each entry
containing a single URN (if "multi-version").
C1.2 Identification of the Version
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 49]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
In order to identify the different time versions of the same act, to
the uniform name of the original document has to be added a specific
suffix.
Such a suffix identifies each version of a legal provision and
includes, first and foremost, one of the following elements:
- the issuing date of the last amending measure taken into account;
- the date in which the communication of the rectification or of the
errata corrige, is published;
- a specification which must identify the reason concerning the
amendment (e.g., the specific phase of the legislative process),
for the cases in which the date is not usually used (e.g., bills).
Anyway it is possible to add further specifications that will
distinguish each of the different versions of the text to guarantee
identifier unequivocalness. For example with regard to changes of the
in-force or effectiveness of any partition or portion of the text
itself (e.g., when the amendments introduced by an act are applied at
different times) or different events occurring in the same date.
version = (amendment-date / specification)
*(";" (event-date / event))
where:
- <amendment-date> contains the issuing date of the last considered
amendment or of the last communication of amendment. In case the
original text introduces differentiated periods in which an act is
effective and the information system produces one version for each
of them, such element contains the string "original" expressed in
the language of the act or version;
- <specification> any information useful to identify unambiguously
and univocally the version;
- <event-date> contains the date in which a version is put into
force, is effective or is published;
- <event> is a name assigned to the event producing a further version
(e.g., amendment, decision, etc.).
The issuing date of an amending act was chosen as identifier of a
version because it can be obtained from the heading (formal data).
(e.g., the name "state:royal.decree:1941-01-30;12@1998-02-19"
identifies the updated text of the "Royal Decree of 30/1/1941, No.
12" with the amendments introduced by the "Law Decree of 19/2/1998,
No. 51", without any indication of its actual entry into force. The
same uniform name with the additional ending ";1999-01-01" indicates
the in-force or effective version starting in a different date (from
1/1/99).
For a full compatibility, every updating of a text or of the
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 50]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
effectiveness of a "multi-version" document implies the creation of a
new uniform name, even if the object remains only one, containing the
identifier of the virtually generated version, exactly as in the case
of a "single-version" document. A specific meta-data will associate
every uniform name with the period of time during which such a name
together with its corresponding text is to be considered valid.
(e.g., the multi-version document containing the "R.D. of 01/30/1941,
no. 12", updated by the amendments introduced by the "D.Lgs. of
02/19/1998, no. 51", contains the name of the original
"state:royal.decree:1941-01-30;12" as well as the name of the updated
version "state:royal.decree:1941-01-30;12@1998-02-19").
Please note that in case of attachments or annexes, the creation of a
new version (even in the case of only one component) would imply the
creation of a new uniform name for all the connected objects in order
to guarantee their alignment (i.e., the main document, the
attachments and annexes).
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 51]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Attachment D -- Http LEX Identifier
D1 Http URI
Http URIs have been promoted [RFC3986] as stable and location-
independent identifiers. According to this syntax, at all levels,
resource IDs belong to the http scheme and are normally resolved
using mechanisms widely available in browsers and web servers.
Such kind of identifiers have been suggested also within the set of
principles and technologies, known as "Linked Data" as a basic
infrastructure of the semantic web to enable data sharing and reuse
on a massive scale.
Such principles, introduced by Tim Berners-Lee in his Web
architecture note "Linked Data"
(http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html), are synthetically:
- Use URIs as names for things;
- Use HTTP URIs, so that people can look up those names;
- When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the
standards (RDF, SPARQL);
- Include links to other URIs, so that they can discover more things.
The second principle is the one more affecting a discussion about the
scheme to be used for legal resources identification; in particular
to the aim of guaranteeing the access to the resources, http
identifiers are suggested. This property is addressed as
"dereferenceability", meaning a resource retrieval mechanism using
any of the Internet protocols, e.g. HTTP, so that HTTP clients, for
instance, can look up the URI using the HTTP protocol and retrieve a
description of the resource that is identified by the URI.
Such property is available for http identifiers either with or
without a resolver allowing a 1-to-1 association with the "best copy"
of the resource; in the legal domain it is related to the unique act
manifestation of a specific publisher and format.
The same property holds for URN identifiers, as long as a resolver is
properly set-up, allowing 1-to-N association with more manifestations
of a resource (act).
Therefore an http identifier, stable and independent from the
resource location, can be effectively used when a single publisher
provides a specific item of this resource (1-to-1 mapping between an
identifier and manifestation of an act). The independence from the
resource location is managed by a "303 See Other" status code (see
[RFC7231]) which may require a resolver able to access the physical
location of the resource (e.g., through submitting a query to a
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 52]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
database). A URN identifier, stable and independent form the resource
location, can be effectively used within a federative environment
where different publishers can provide different items of the same
act (1-to-N mapping between an identifier and different
manifestations of an act).
In order to comply with the Linked Data principles and to build http
identifiers using the LEX namespace specifications, the LEX schema
and metadata set can be serialized according to an http URI syntax.
It is worthwhile to mention that URN focuses on acts identification,
while Linked Data principles focus on identifying a resource on the
Web.
In the following sections the http serialization of the urn LEX
schema is reported.
D2 The Http LEX Identifier Structure
The http hierarchical structure of the LEX identifier is the
following:
"http://" host-name "/lex/" jurisdiction "/" local-name
where:
- <host-name> represents the name of the organization server
publishing the resource;
- "lex" is the equivalent of the URN namespace ID and provides the
reference to the naming convention adopted;
- <jurisdiction> and <local-name> share meaning and syntax of the
corresponding components in the LEX specifications.
The <jurisdiction> element follows the syntax rules of the
corresponding element in the URN specification, therefore it has the
following structure:
jurisdiction = jurisdiction-code *(";" jurisdiction-unit)
The character ";" still separates the identification code of the
country or jurisdiction where the source of law is issued
(<jurisdiction-code>) from any possible administrative hierarchical
sub-structures defined by each country or organisation according to
its own legal system.
The <local-name> follows the [FRBR] model as implemented by the LEX
specifications, therefore its http structure is the following:
local-name = work "/@/" expression "/$/" manifestation
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 53]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
The content of URN:LEX identifier elements is directly transferred to
the corresponding elements of its http version, except for characters
outside the ASCII set: such characters have to be converted into a
valid ASCII format using the typical URL percent encoding rules.
D3 The Http LEX Identifier at Work Level
According to the corresponding level of the URN version, the http LEX
identifier structure at work level is the following:
work = authority "/" measure "/" details *("/" annex)
The elements <authority>, <measure> and <annex> follow the same
syntax rules of the corresponding elements in the URN specification.
Examples of http identifiers at <work> level, corresponding to the
urn examples in Section 6.4, are the following:
http://<host-name>/lex/it/stato/legge/2006-05-14;22
http://<host-name>/lex/uk/ministry.justice/decree/1999-10-07;45
http://<host-name>/lex/ch;glarus/regiere/erlass/2007-10-15;963
http://<host-name>/lex/es/tribunal.supremo/decision/2001-09-28;68
http://<host-name>/lex/fr/assemblee.nationale/proposition.loi/
13.legislature;1762
http://<host-name>/lex/br/estado/constituicao/1988-10-05;lex-1
http://<host-name>/lex/nl/hoge.raad/besluit/2008-04-01;bc8581 ,br
http://<host-name>/lex/un.org/united.nations;general.assembly/
resolution/1961-11-28;a-res-1661
D4 The Http LEX Identifier at Expression Level
According to the corresponding level of the URN version, the http LEX
structure at expression level is the following:
expression = version ["/" language]
The elements <version> and <annex> follow the same syntax rules of
the corresponding elements in the URN specification.
Examples of http identifiers at expression level, corresponding to
the urn examples in Section 6.6, are the following:
http://<host-name>/lex/ch/etat/loi/2006-05-14;22/@/originel/fr
(original version in French)
http://<host-name>/lex/ch/staat/gesetz/2006-05-14;22/@/original/de
(original version in German)
http://<host-name>/lex/ch/etat/loi/2006-05-14;22/@/2008-03-12/fr
(amended version in French)
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 54]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
http://<host-name>/lex/ch/staat/gesetz/2006-05-14;22/@/2008-03-12/de
(amended version in German)
http://<host-name>/lex/be/conseil.etat/decision/2008-07-09;185.273
/@/originel/fr
(original version in French of a Belgian decision)
D5 The Http LEX Identifier at Manifestation Level
Information provided in the URN version at manifestation level is
differently accommodated in the corresponding level of the http LEX
identifier.
The <editor> element, reported at manifestation level in the urn LEX
version, is an information already contained in the <host-name> of
the http LEX identifier, therefore it is omitted in the
<manifestation> elements.
Similarly the <feature> element is omitted since it loses its meaning
which would derived from the comparison between different
manifestations.
The <format> element is reported as unique extension of the data
format in which the manifestation is drafted. The value is compliant
with the registered file extensions, thus it can be "pdf" for PDF,
"doc" for MS Word, "xml" for XML documents, "tif" for tiff image
format, etc.
Therefore the http LEX structure at manifestation level is the
following:
manifestation = [ component *(";" specification)] "." format
The element <component> follows the same syntax rules of the
corresponding element in the URN specification.
Examples of http identifiers at manifestation level, corresponding to
the urn examples in Section 6.7 are the following:
http://www.senato.it/lex/it/stato/legge/2000-04-03;56/$/testo.xml
(body of the Italian law 3 April 2000, n. 56, published by the
Italian Senate in xml format)
http://www.senato.it/lex/it/stato/legge/2000-04-03;56/$/figura.1.pdf
(Figure 1 in PDF format of the Italian law 3 April 2000, n. 56,
published by the Italian Senate)
http://www.juradmin.eu/jurifast/lex/eu/tibunal.justicia/sentencia/
2009-06-11;33-08/@/original/es/$/todo.html
(the Spanish http LEX identifier of the html format of the whole
Judgement of the European Court of Justice n. 33/08 of 11/06/2009,
in Spanish version, published by the Juriadmin site in the
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 55]
INTERNET DRAFT URN LEX Namespace for Sources of Law March 2022
Jurifast data base)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lex/eu/commission/directive/
2010-03-09;2010-19-EU/$/body.xml
(body of the EU Directive n. 2010-19-EU, dated 2010-03-09, in its
XML format published by Eur-Lex)
P. Spinosa Expires September 18, 2022 [Page 56]