On 1/27/2021 12:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Apply S->I to Rule 1688, "Power". > Apply S->I to Rule 2438, "Ribbons".
In the next draft, can you write out in full the changes to R1688? I think seeing all the substantive changes together will be important. For example, the pre-rollback text of 1688 had: > An Instrument is an entity with positive Power. while the current version is: > A statute is a document with positive Power. so not only was the I->S change made, but the definition was limited to "documents" not "entities" as a whole. You don't change the "document" back to "entity" in your proto, so it's not a complete rollback. This in itself is not *necessarily* an issue - the document limitation seems sensible - but it's worth seeing in full to review the substantive changes like this that are being made (and R1688 is not that long after all, to write out in full). Obviously "Ribbons" is far less substantial a change, no worries on S->I there. And then the only other place you use S->I shorthand is for Rule 2140. That's a short rule, and honestly your amendment method of listing 3 changes is the same length and more confusing than just writing the whole new rule text out? So (given it's important to look for inconsistencies in the final text), it would be great, and not add much length, to drop the S->I defining shorthand entirely, and just write out the resulting substantive rules (and ribbons can still be handled by saying "replace 'statute' with 'instrument' in R2438)? -G.
