The Clause Model

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

Hi

Following last week's teleconference, i was to write an evaluation of the latest 
incarnation of the clause model, as contained in Peter's document.

Having thought further about the issues Peter identifies, and other implications 
of the model, i believe there are certain problems we've been trying to address 
which can't be solved without viewing things in a different light. 
Fortunately, this is quite easy to do and doesn't mean throwing out all our work 
to date.

I've attached my response in RTF, for ease of quotation etc. i won't get a 
chance to test the RTF in various versions of Word until tomorrow, but please 
let me know if there are any glitches.

Also, I've copied below the summary for anyone who finds that more convenient.

Looking forward to discussing this in Thursday's teleconf, and maybe before :)

cheers,

Jason


---------------------


Summary

It is the thesis of this document that everything turns on whether we insist on 
an element which represents a grammatical paragraph, so that a list (block or 
inline) in a sentence can be encapsulated in that element:

<Item>
     <GrammaticalPara>
	Here is a list of colours:
                 <Items>
                     <Item><Text>red,</Text></Item>
                     <Item><Text>green,</Text></Item>
                     <Item><Text>blue</Text></Item>
                 </Items>
     </GrammaticalPara>
<Item>

In the models the TC has been considering, the GrammaticalPara element has been 
labeled Para or Block.  I call these Grammatical Paragraph models, and argue 
that these models have certain inevitable consequences.   The consequnces flow 
from the fact that you can also do:

<Item>
     <GrammaticalPara>
	Here is a list of colours:
     </GrammaticalPara>
     <Items>
                <Item><Text>red,</Text></Item>
                <Item><Text>green,</Text></Item>
                <Item><Text>blue</Text></Item>
     </Items>
<Item>

On the other hand, if we decide that we do not need to model a grammatical 
paragraph, but rather, are content with capturing blocks of text (a 
typographical view), then a simpler model is available:

<Item>
	<Text>Here is a list of colours:</Text>
                 <Items>
                     <Item><Text>red,</Text></Item>
                     <Item><Text>green,</Text></Item>
                     <Item><Text>blue</Text></Item>
                 </Items>
</Item>

  I call models with this feature a Simple Paragraph Model (after DocBook's 
"simpara" element)1.

I suggest that in view of the difficulties sometimes encountered in asking 
lawyers and other contract authors to choose between block-lists and 
sub-clauses, the TC should adopt a Simple Paragraph Model.

It completely avoids some of the technical difficulties which have dogged us so 
far, and is considerably easier for lawyers and other contract authors.

By way of introduction, this document explains in more detail the outstanding 
issues with lists and subclauses which we have been grappling with.

It is these issues, and the insight that they are inherent in Grammatical 
Paragraph Models,2 which leads us to a Simple Paragraph model.

The model contained in Peter's "Structural markup – Basic clause model proposal 
and specification" document (draft 1.0 of 11 November 2003) is a Grammatical 
Paragraph model.  Hereinafter I refer to it (and that document as a whole) as GP1.

In my view, a Simple Paragraph Model offers us very considerable advantages over 
any Grammatical Paragraph Model.

It is for this reason that the body of this document does not discuss the 
specifics of GP1.

If, following a comparison of Simple and Grammatical Paragraph Models, and a 
discussion of their relative merits, the TC expresses a preference for a 
Grammatical Paragraph Model, GP1 would need to be considered further. For this 
reason, a critique of GP1 and recommendations for improving it are contained in 
Appendix 2.

SimpleParagraphModel.rtf