On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:12 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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)?
Sure, I can do most of that. I don't think I can write the whole rule text out for Rule 2140; people tend to get grouchy if I do that and it's not a total rewrite. If you care a lot I could put the text in a comment? -Aris
