82,882
edits
Semantic code project: next steps: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===Levels of meaning/audience=== | ===Levels of meaning/audience=== | ||
There are at least three layers of meaning, which equate with audiences: (a) business: what practically is the deal I have to do; (b) litigation: if worst came to worst what would a court say about this (c) risk monitoring, increasingly my machine/code. These layers translate more or less to: | There are at least three layers of meaning, which equate with audiences: (a) business: what practically is the deal I have to do; (b) litigation: if worst came to worst what would a court say about this (c) risk monitoring, increasingly my machine/code. These layers translate more or less to: | ||
*'''The term sheet'': these are the [[cocktail napkin]] terms; merchants assume the particular articulation of things that “go without saying” can be left to the legal layer. | *'''The term sheet''': these are the [[cocktail napkin]] terms; merchants assume the particular articulation of things that “go without saying” can be left to the legal layer. | ||
*'''The legal layer''': written in legal text (which may be more or less legalese) but which is designed to articulate with sufficient clarity those things that ''ought to'' “go without saying” in fact ''do''. Here the objective is not “to convince a judge” so much as put quotidian matters beyond [[doubt]] so that ''there is no point referring them to a judge''. A [[piece of paper]] is a poor risk management tool, except as far as it discourages vexatious or wilful interpretations. | *'''The legal layer''': written in legal text (which may be more or less legalese) but which is designed to articulate with sufficient clarity those things that ''ought to'' “go without saying” in fact ''do''. Here the objective is not “to convince a judge” so much as put quotidian matters beyond [[doubt]] so that ''there is no point referring them to a judge''. A [[piece of paper]] is a poor risk management tool, except as far as it discourages vexatious or wilful interpretations. | ||
*'''The code layer''': The legal terms (be they | *'''The code layer''': The legal terms (be they term sheet or [[boilerplate]] terms) rendered in some kind of propositional or elementary form that reveals their fundamental logical structure. | ||
===Other work in this space=== | ===Other work in this space=== | ||
*Note the encyclopaedia of forms and precedents whereby you could call standardised templates very quickly. | *Note the encyclopaedia of forms and precedents whereby you could call standardised templates very quickly. Could we borrow some of that? | ||
*Note the work Ken Adams has done to codify the constituent parts of legal contracts. | *Note the work Ken Adams has done to codify the constituent parts of legal contracts. | ||
===Ask=== | ===Ask=== | ||
I think ask at this stage is to identify the basic elemental building blocks of commercial contracts. It strikes me there are two ways of achieving this: firstly, to identify and parameterise a limited number of canonical contractual propositions: obligations, discretions, rights, definitions, conditions precedent, representations. The objective here is to see if there is a small, manageable number of basic propositions which most contractual provisions can conform | I think the ask at this stage is to identify the basic elemental building blocks of commercial contracts. It strikes me there are two ways of achieving this: firstly, to identify and parameterise a limited number of canonical contractual propositions: obligations, discretions, rights, definitions, conditions precedent, representations. The objective here is to see if there is a small, manageable number of basic propositions to which most contractual provisions can conform. | ||
My hunch is that there is, and the apparently infinite complexity of legal drafting in fact subsists at a lower, syntactical level. For example, the “object” proposition is: | |||
{{subtable|{{red|[[code obligation|obligation]] [}} | {{subtable|{{red|[[code obligation|obligation]] [}} | ||
:{{de|label}} {{{label}}} | :{{de|label}} {{{label}}} | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
{{aligntop}} | {{aligntop}} | ||
| | | | ||
:{{isdaprov|2(a)(ii)}} Payments under this {{isdaprov|Agreement}} will be made on the due date for value on that date in the place of | :{{isdaprov|2(a)(ii)}} Payments under this {{isdaprov|Agreement}} will be made on the due date for value on that date in the place of the account specified in the relevant {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} or otherwise pursuant to this {{isdaprov|Agreement}}, in freely transferable funds and in the manner customary for payments in the required currency. <br> | ||
|{{c-obligation|template=ISDA 2002 2(a)(ii)1|format=pr}} | |{{c-obligation|template=ISDA 2002 2(a)(ii)1|format=pr}} | ||
{{tablebottom}} | {{tablebottom}} | ||
I also suspect there are some | |||