search

QasimRiaz / akomantoso

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/akomantoso
0 stars 1 forks source link

MultipleVersions VersionType needs to be removed #7

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Prior discussion indicated that "MultipleVersions" could not be supported
in a real scenario. It was suggested that this particular version type be
removed.

"MultipleVersions: this value reflects the fact that the content of the
document is the juxtaposition of fragments belonging to two or more
different versions of the same act, each fragment marked as belonging to
one or many of these versions. Thus in a MultipleVersions act there could
be two or more copies of article 2, each associated to the date it started
enactment and ended enactment."

<xsd:simpleType name="VersionType"  >
    <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
        <xsd:enumeration value="OriginalVersion" />
        <xsd:enumeration value="SingleVersion" />
        <xsd:enumeration value="MultipleVersions" />
    </xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 27 Oct 2007 at 6:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 27 Oct 2007 at 3:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
VersionType reference:

http://schemadocs.akomantoso.org/schemas/akomantoso10_xsd/simpleTypes/VersionTyp
e.html

Original comment by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
>Prior discussion indicated that "MultipleVersions" could not be supported
>in a real scenario. It was suggested that this particular version type be
>removed.

Uh? I don't remember any such discussion. NormeInRete is happily using 
MultipleVersions in many situations. 
There are tricky issues, especially with IDs, but nothing that can't or hasn't 
been solved already. 

MultipleVersions is useful and should be maintained even if noone at the moment 
is making multiple version 
documents.

Original comment by fvit...@gmail.com on 17 Nov 2007 at 6:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
There was a discussion and below is the "evidence" and you were also there :-)

Monica does not seem to agree that NIR is happily using it.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Flavio Zeni <flavio.zeni@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: MultipleVersions type act
To: Fabio Vitali <fabio@cs.unibo.it>
Cc: Ashok Hariharan <ashok.hariharan@gmail.com>, Monica Palmirani
<monica.palmirani@unibo.it>

Thank you Monica. But if this is the case, I am asking Fabio if we still need 
to keep
the multipleversion type.

Please Fabio see the below exchange.

Thank you.

Flavio

On 7/17/07, Monica Palmirani <monica.palmirani@unibo.it> wrote:

    Dear Ashok,

    we don't beleave in the multiple verisons.
    For the legislative consolidation this method that is in theory very
    amazing in reality it is a mess under the integrity and consistency
    point of view.

    Sorry we don't manage this kind of very confused type of document.
    Yours,
    Monica

    Ashok Hariharan ha scritto:
    > Ciao Monica:
    >
    > I found this type of document:
    >
    > "MultipleVersions: this value reflects the fact that the content of
    > the document is the juxtaposition of fragments belonging to two or
    > more different versions of the same act, each fragment marked as
    > belonging to one or many of these versions. Thus in a MultipleVersions
    > act there could be two or more copies of article 2, each associated to
    > the date it started enactment and ended enactment."
    >
    > When is this type of act generated ?
    >
    > How does the naming convention apply to such an act document ? (since
    > each fragment could have a differernt date)
    >
    > I looked for examples, but couldnt find any... So an example doc would
    > be very helpful
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > Ashok

Original comment by flavio.z...@gmail.com on 17 Nov 2007 at 7:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The Italian Senate is relying on Multiple Versions for storing in the same 
document two subsequent versions 
of the same bill (e.g., approved by Senat in first reading and by the Deputies 
Chamber in the second. 
Regardless of what you say, MultipleVersion does work, for two as well as >2 
versions. I am not hiding that it 
can become rather complicated, but if you want to do parallel display, change 
tracking display, or any type of 
comparison, having a single document with both versions is MUCH handier than 
two or more documents with 
individual versions. 

I can go much more deeply about this. 

What Cirsfid does, whether they appreciate, care, use, or understand 
MultipleVersion is beyond the point. It is 
being used with no recorded mention of problems. It is not easy, but It is not 
broken.

Original comment by fvit...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2007 at 5:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The Multiple Versions is useful for the bill's amendments because they are
independent from the time: they are instantaneous.  e.g. it is very useful for
marking up a synopsis document between two steps in the workflow Senate and 
Chamber
or between the Committee and the Assembly amendments.

This document in Italy (synopsis or testo a fronte o allegato A)is an official
Parliament document as well as the bill.

Therefore I completely agree with Fabio: it is necessary to maintain Multiple 
Versions.

About its application in modifications over the time is applicable with success 
to
simple "text modifications" (repeal, insertion, substitution), but it is less
applicable and affidable, and some times impossible, to the temporal 
modifications or
the other types of amendments due too the overlapping sometime not well defined 
in
the part of the text.

Original comment by monica.p...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2007 at 9:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Fine ... but let me say that, Monica, you may agree with Fabio but you are 
disagree
with yourself when you wrote <in reality it is a mess under the integrity and
consistency point of view> We were just following on what you called "a mess".

Fine, we all can change opinion but at least do not make us sound as "lunatics" 
who
do come up with odds statements out of the blue.

Flavio

Original comment by flavio.z...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2007 at 9:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Fine ... but let me say that, Monica, you may agree with Fabio but you are 
disagree
with yourself when you wrote <in reality it is a mess under the integrity and
consistency point of view> We were just following on what you called "a mess".

Fine, we all can change opinion but at least do not make us sound as "lunatics" 
who
do come up with odd statements out of the blue.

Flavio

Original comment by flavio.z...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2007 at 9:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I clarify my sentence once time so you can understand better and don't say me 
"lunatic":
a) for the bill there isn't inconsistency or less of integrity because the
modification s are all instantaneuse
b) for the modifications over the time of an act (different modifications that 
should
be applied in different moment into the lifecicle of the document) it is a mess 
under
the integrity and consistency point of view expecially if we have "temporal
modifications.

It is clear enough? (by the way the full moon is expected for 24 nov.)
Monica

Original comment by monica.p...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2007 at 9:52