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 10: | Line 10: | ||
*Note the encyclopaedia of forms and precedents whereby you could call standardised templates very quickly. Could we borrow some of that? | *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. | ||
===Behavioural/incentive issues=== | |||
User acceptance and “changing habits of a lifetime” are important behavioural points to overcome. However it strikes me that lawyers have forgotten the benefit of separating commercial terms from the legal layer: that is the basic architecture of the encyclopaedia of forms and precedents and for that matter, the ISDA master agreement: hardcode boilerplate; export key commercial terms and bespoke modifications. | |||
===Opensource vs IP=== | |||
I think it is vital to recognise that this project should be a free, open source, public utility. The “drift to complicatedness” the information revolution has enabled has been accompanied by a view that legal technology in itself is proprietary when in fact it is better regarded as a common API between market participants. Contract technology should not ''proprietary'', that is to say; rather contracts — agreements made out of contract technology — may be ''confidential''. To confuse a contractual ''confidence'' with a proprietary right in [[intellectual property]] is to make a category error. No-one should extract [[rent]] from boilerplate. | |||
Therefore the model should be open architecture, open-source, freeware. GitHub or MediaWiki, not ISDA. | |||
===Ask=== | ===Ask=== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 49: | ||
I also suspect there are some standard form provisions that are worth rending as standard objects (rather than constructing them out of canonical forms) — basically “boilerplate” clauses which are semantically complex, but unitary in the context of a contract (for example, the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999|Third Party Rights]] clause). | I also suspect there are some standard form provisions that are worth rending as standard objects (rather than constructing them out of canonical forms) — basically “boilerplate” clauses which are semantically complex, but unitary in the context of a contract (for example, the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999|Third Party Rights]] clause). | ||
===Goal=== | |||
The theory is to start lawyers thinking about code in | |||