82,891
edits
Legal code: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
might become | might become | ||
{subject|Each party} {commitment|will} {action|make each payment or delivery specified in each Confirmation to be made by it}, {condition|subject to the other provisions of this Agreement.} | |||
Or | Or | ||
{subject|all} {commitment|must {qualifier|absolute} } {action|pay {conjunction|or} deliver} {object|obligations in Confirm} {condition|subject to {target|Agreement} } | |||
The point being that “agrees to”, “will”, “shall”, “must”, “is obliged to”, “shall be obligated to”, “shall unconditionally be obligated to” and so on all code back to “ | The point being that “agrees to”, “will”, “shall”, “must”, “is obliged to”, “shall be obligated to”, “shall unconditionally be obligated to” and so on all code back to “{commitment|must}”. The commitment tag has a limited number of operators: say, “must”, “must not”, “may” and has a potential qualifier (the default would be “absolute”; alternatives “reasonably”, “best efforts”) and so on. | ||
Ideally a lawyer would be able to code from principles. | Ideally a lawyer would be able to code from principles. | ||
I don’t think you would need to describe the complete set. Even if you only had subject, object, commitment it could reduce a lot of crap. | |||
So the question is, is this possible? Is this Bertrand Russell folly? Esperanto? | So the question is, is this possible? Is this Bertrand Russell folly? Esperanto? | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Semantic code project]] | |||
*[[ISDA code project]] | |||