<section>
<title>Host Schema Evaluation</title>
<para>
This evaluates:
<replaceable>
DocBook
</replaceable>
</para>

<qandaset defaultlabel='qanda'>
<qandadiv><title>Object Representation</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q2.1">
<para>
Does the host schema use a generic structural markup model?
</para></question><answer><para>
Docbook documents start with an <sgmltag>article</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>book</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>chapter</sgmltag>, or even a <sgmltag>section</sgmltag>.
<sgmltag>Section</sgmltag>'s may contain other <sgmltag>section</sgmltag>'s arbitrarily.  
<sgmltag>Section</sgmltag>'s may contain
paragraphs or
lists.  
There are three types of lists, <sgmltag>itemizedlist</sgmltag>s, <sgmltag>orderedlist</sgmltag>s, or <sgmltag>variablelists</sgmltag>.
The latter are good for definition lists, or words with text relevant to each
word.
Lists may contain paragraph or other lists.  Each listitem may contain
paragraphs.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q2.2"><para>
Does the host schema define a "clause" object?</para></question><answer><para>
No, although a <sgmltag>section</sgmltag> could be used for this.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q2.3"><para>
Does the host schema define a paragraph level object that represents a structural or grammatical paragraph?</para></question><answer><para>
Yes, <sgmltag>Para</sgmltag>.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q2.4"><para>
Using the host schema, can the clause equivalent object be inserted at arbitrary levels in the
document hierarchy without transformation?
</para></question><answer><para>
Not clear, as I don't know which element would serve as a clause.
If we use <sgmltag>Section</sgmltag>, it can be arbitrarily nested, but cannot appear
inside of <sgmltag>Para</sgmltag> or <sgmltag>List</sgmltag>.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q2.5"><para>
In the host schema, are  element names and the structure sufficiently flexible
that the clause and paragraph level objects can be used for other legal and 
business documents?
</para></question><answer><para>
<sgmltag>Section</sgmltag> and <sgmltag>Para</sgmltag> and lists can and are
used for many types of documents.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Metadata</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q3.1"><para>
Does the host schema provide a mechanism to add semantic information
about:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem><para>whole documents</para></listitem><listitem><para>distinct objects,such as clauses, within documents?
</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
</para></question><answer><para>
<sgmltag>Section</sgmltag> and the higher level tags such as <sgmltag>Article</sgmltag>
support an "info" element.  These contain <sgmltag>author</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>Address</sgmltag>, groups of authors, copyright, editions, date, <sgmltag>LegalNotice</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>RevHistory</sgmltag>, 
</para><para><sgmltag>Para</sgmltag> has a few metadata tags including
<sgmltag>RevHistory</sgmltag> and <sgmltag>Author</sgmltag> and <sgmltag>OtherCredit</sgmltag>.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q3.2"><para>
If so, is the metadata model for the host schema sufficient for contracts or will it be necessary to extend it?
</para></question><answer><para>
Many elements needed are already present, but I suspect the TC would want to
add a few more.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q3.3"><para>
Does the host schema allow embedded values to be represented and semantic
information to be added to these values?
</para></question><answer><para>
There is a <sgmltag>Replaceable</sgmltag> markup tag, but this would provide
limited support for replacing items.  No mention of embedding tags from
other namespaces is in the documentation.  However, Norman Walsh and others
published an article on using the new RelaxNG-based schema
  to embedded other markup
(TEI) within Docbook (or vice versa).

</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Processing Technologies</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q4.1"><para>
Does the host schema require use of a particular processing technology?
</para></question><answer><para>
No.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q4.2"><para>
Does the design of the host schema preclude use of particular currently available
processing technologies?
</para></question><answer><para>
No.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Number of Content Objects</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q5.1"><para>
Does the host schema permit the numbering of clauses, paragraphs, lists
and other objects to be represented in the markup?
</para></question><answer><para>
Lists can be numbered or each item given specific names using a <sgmltag>variablelist</sgmltag>.  However, the idea of having the user enter a specific
number for each <sgmltag>listitem</sgmltag>  is not supported.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q5.2"><para>
Does the host schema provide a mechanism to define the numbering schema applied to the document so
that two applications could apply the same numbering, if desired?
</para></question><answer><para>
There is some flexibility of specifying a type for a <sgmltag>itemizedlist</sgmltag>.  There is a <sgmltag>Override</sgmltag> attribute for the
<sgmltag>listitem</sgmltag> which could be used to give a specific number
to it.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Complete Document Representation</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q6.1"><para>Using the host schema, will it be possible for the contract author to explicitly represent all parts of the
narrative contract terms or will it be necessary to imply some 
parts?
</para></question><answer><para>
<sgmltag>Docbook</sgmltag> has a complete set of tags.  Hoever, it has no
specific tags for contracts.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q6.2"><para>
Does the host schema represent the relationship between all significant 
components in a way that allow high quality print and web rendition of of contact documents?
</para></question><answer><para>
Yes.  Theere is an extensive set of style sheets that are used to prepare
printed documents using XSL-FO.  I use them regularly to prepare hundreds
of page of  class notes for my classes.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Variables Definition</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q7.1"><para>
Does the host schema include a mechanism for defining variables for embedded data values?
</para></question><answer><para>
Other than a very limited <sgmltag>Replaceable</sgmltag>, no.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q7.2"><para>If the host schema does not include such a mechanism,
is there any obstacle to adding it?
</para></question><answer><para>
No.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Ease of use for authors</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q8.1"><para>
Based on the following factors is the host schema easy for contract authors to use:
<itemizedlist><listitem><para>Does it require authors to know only a small number of elements (positive factor)?
</para></listitem><listitem><para>
Does it require authors make unnecessary or subtle distinctions that will be applied inconsistently (negative factor?)
</para></listitem><listitem><para>
Does it have a clear logical structure that can be quickly explained to new users ( positive factor)?
</para></listitem><listitem><para>
Does it allow authors to re-locate content objects within a document
hierarchy with minimal or no need for transformation of markup
(positive factor)?
</para></listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para></question><answer><para>
I found the tags for the basic narrative part of the document such as
<sgmltag>listitem</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>itemizedlist</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>para</sgmltag>, <sgmltag>Section</sgmltag>, etc. quite straightforward to apply.
</para><para>
There are many other tags for things appearing in
computer documents such as variables, names of classes, and the like. 
In my own uses, I found several would be close to the use I had in mind, but
none that quite fit.
(However, these tags are not relevant to contract documents.)
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Schema Syntax</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q9.1"><para>
Is the host schema a DTD only or can it also be expressed as an XML Schema or other schema type?
</para></question><answer><para>
Definitions exist for DTD, SGML, XML Schema,
and Relax NG.  
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Adaptability to contracts</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q10.1"><para>
Does the host schema provide for the complete representation for the distinct structures commonly found in contracts?
</para></question><answer><para>
There is no markup for things specific to contracts such as signature
blocks.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q10.2"><para>
If not, does the host schema explicitly allow additional distinct structures
to be added?
</para></question><answer><para>
There is no explicit mechanism for adding extensions provided.  However,
I see no problem in creating them.  The XML Style sheets provided
for Docbook are
modular and should be extensible.
</para><para>
Mr. Norm Walsh and others published a document showing
that the Relax NG schema allow one to interleave TEI and Docbook.
(See "A Unified Model for Text Markup: TEI, Docbook and
Beyond" XML Europe 2004, 18-21 April 2004 by
Sebastian Rahtz, Norman Walsh, and Lou Burnard).
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q10.3"><para>Does the host schema allow elements not considered necessary for contracts markup
to be removed without contract documents being incompatible in a disadvantageous way with other documents using the host schema?
</para></question><answer><para>
I see no reason why a simplified version could not be created that would
work well.  The Docbook Technical Committee has produced a "Simplified Doc Book."
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q10.4"><para>
If distinct contract structures are added to the host schema, will this result in
contracts documents being incompatible in a
disadvantageous way with other documents using the host schema?
</para></question><answer><para>
Not that I can see.  Of course such document would have to be validated
against a schema appropriately augmented to support such documents.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Vendor and Developer Support</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q11.1"><para>
Is the host schema already in widespread or general use for markup of narrative
documents?
</para></question><answer><para>
There are several sets of style sheets or "tool chains" to convert Docbook XML
into print or HTML format.  
</para><para>
It is used heavily by the publisher O'Reilly, considered the best publisher
for computer books.  It is used extensively in LINUX and other UNIX documentation such as PHP.  There is also a version of Docbook called WebSite which
is used for setting up web sites.
The Relax NG specification is written in Docbook.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q11.2"><para>Are the already developed applications that Will make it easy of for organizations to implement the TC's specification based around the host
schema?
</para></question><answer><para>
As discussed above, there are several tool chains and style sheets available
for producing documents from docbook.  Some of this material is available from
the DocBook Sourceforge site.
</para><para>
Some use XSL-FO, in which case a renderer is needed.  Others are based on Passive Tex, available for free.
</para><para>
One can use the Apache FOP renderer.  It is useful but has
problems, according to a recent post on the docbook applications mailing
list.  Antenna House and XEP sell  XSL-FO renderers.
</para><para>
As I mentioned elsewhere, I developed hundreds of pages of classnotes
in Docbook.  Thus, I use a style sheet processor and a renderer.
</para><para>
Unfortunately, several times, the renderer would hang when
converting XSL-FO to PDF.  This is even after validating the Docbook XML
against the document.  It is not clear whether this is a problem
with only docbook toolchains or one can have a problem with any of
other candidate host schemas such as TEI.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q11.3"><para>Is there any reason to expect that the
host schema will prove any particular advantages in gaining market support?

</para></question><answer><para>
Docbook is used primarily by people in the computer field, and the users
seem to come from that technical culture, even if they are using it to do
things not related to computers such as publishing a school catalog.
</para><para>
O'Reilly sells a book based on the XML tags and Bob Stayton published
a book on using and adapting the style sheets.  Both are available as HTML on the web.
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv><qandadiv><title>Other Factors</title>
<qandaentry><question id="Q12.1"><para>Does the host schema provide any other advantages for use in the TC's specification?
</para></question><answer><para>
</para></answer></qandaentry>
<qandaentry><question id="Q12.2"><para>
Does the host schema have any other disadvantages that make it undesirable for use in the TC's
specification?
</para></question><answer><para>
</para></answer></qandaentry>
</qandadiv>
</qandaset>
</section>



