Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group Legal Affairs digitalization Study Team (3rd)

Overview

Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 (2022) from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Process and System for Confirmation of Compliance with law's Digital Principles
  2. Digitalization and BPR of legal affairs (including base registry development in law) and the ideal way of public-private sharing (including the utilization of legal tech)
  3. Exchange of opinions
3. Adjournment

Materials

Related Information

The third meeting of the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Study Team of the digitalization Working Group Legal Affairs Office was held.

Minutes

Secretariat (Suga): . On time, we would like to open the third meeting of the "Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group Legal Affairs digitalization Review Team".

I am Suga, Counselor of Digi-cho, and I will be serving as moderator.

Today, all members are participating completely online, but from this time on, we have decided to invite people from the National Printing Bureau to participate as observers. Mr. Shibuya, Counselor of the official gazettes Department of the Printing Bureau, Mr. Nakano, Group Leader of the base registry Preparatory Group of the official gazettes Department, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could give me a few words of greeting. Thank you.

The National Printing Bureau: This is Mr. Shibuya of the National Printing Bureau. I will participate as an observer from this study group.
The National Printing Bureau distributes the law, which has the function of promulgating the official gazettes, via the Internet based on a commission from the Cabinet Office. However, there are many paper and analog parts in the manufacturing process up to the promulgation of the law, such as the drafting of the official gazettes, examination by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, and Diet deliberations. I believe that we should eliminate such parts and implement the system from upstream to downstream in a digital manner.
We are working as the executive department of the current e-LAWS, so I am looking forward to the discussion because I think that we can create a system that matches the innovative social situation using the latest technology of this study group. Thank you.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Nice to meet you, Mr. Nakano.

The National Printing Bureau: This is Mr. Nakano of the National Printing Bureau. Nice to meet you.
As mentioned from Shibuya, I will be participating as an observer from this time, so I would appreciate it very much.
I am in charge of the digital cooperation between e-LAWS and the official gazettes system at the National Printing Bureau, so I would like to ask for your continued support.

Secretariat (Suga): , I would like to move on to the agenda.
I would like to project today's agenda on the screen. The first item on the agenda is "Process and System for Confirmation of Compliance with law's Digital Principles." We have already had a discussion last time, but based on what you said, I would like to have a discussion on the specific content of the report to the main body of the Working Group. So, first of all, Mr. Yagyu, Director of the Secretariat, will explain for about 10 minutes. Thank you.

Secretariat (Yagyu): Secretariat. Nice to meet you.
Regarding the process and system for confirmation of conformity, the materials I presented last time are at the beginning of the second round, but I would like you to reflect on page 5.
I have presented Issue (1) on whether specific guidelines should be established in advance, Issue (2) on whether it is necessary to institutionalize and process the rules when they are actually created, and Issue (3) on whether it is necessary to incorporate coordination with the parties concerned as a process for the actual execution stage. Today, I would like to explain in line with this by digging into the issues a little deeper.
First of all, I would like to ask you to go to page 7, and this is the material on Issue 1, whether specific guidelines should be presented in advance.
In the case of actually creating guidelines, who will create them? The first one, ○, is that it will be difficult for policy makers in each ministry and agency to keep track of technological trends. Considering that technological trends will change frequently, I believe it is appropriate for Digital Agency to formulate them and revise and maintain them.
In fact, at the Working Group, we are discussing the categorization and phases of the review. In addition, we are hearing about various technologies from private sector companies, and they are discussing whether it is necessary to organize a technology mapping, but I believe that such a thing itself will become a guide.
The third point is ○. On the other hand, when formulating guidelines, it is necessary to grasp technological trends, so the knowledge of various experts must be utilized, and it is necessary to formulate guidelines based on the requests of people, including the people and the business community.
In addition, it will serve as guidelines for each ministry to actually formulate policies, so it is necessary to discuss not only within Digital Agency, but also in public and in wide open settings, including in third party settings. These are the actual guidelines.
Next, in Issue 2, I would like to delve into the confirmation of new law, etc. The first two are omitted from what I have explained so far.
It is in the third place, ○. In fact, how should we confirm when creating a new law? This is the same as the previous guidelines, but considering that it is quite difficult for the officials in charge from each ministry to take into account the technology trend, I believe that it is necessary for Digital Agency to be widely involved in this as well.
However, on the other hand, if we consider matters including notices and notifications, there will be quite a large number of such cases, so there are questions as to whether Digital Agency can truly be seen alone. In light of this, I believe it is necessary to consider situations in which Digital Agency will focus more. In particular, I believe that Digital Agency should focus on draft laws and ordinances that will be decided by Cabinet Decision.
As indicated by ○ at the bottom, one way of thinking is that each ministry and agency should take the initiative to confirm the other ministerial ordinances based on the guidelines I explained earlier.
On the next page, I would like to continue with the confirmation of the new law. In fact, I would like to ask at what timing the confirmation will be made. Regarding the draft laws and ordinances, Digital Agency will focus on them. On the other hand, if the confirmation is made at the final stage, when the draft is almost finalized, it will take considerable effort, including reworking, so I believe it is important to enter the stage of considering the draft and in the middle of planning.
Therefore, as I have written in the materials, the preliminary examination by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau is conducted, and the draft laws and ordinances are confirmed in Digital Agency before being examined by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. I have written that it would be appropriate to take the step of confirming with Digital Agency what kind of policy measures we will take and what we would like to do.
As I explained earlier, the Ministerial Ordinance and subsequent ordinances will basically be confirmed mainly by each ministry and agency, so I am writing that the confirmation should be made by the Secretariat Department and the Coordinating Department, which are not the policy departments of each ministry and agency, before deciding on the Ministerial Ordinance and other ordinances. So far, we have talked about the new law.
Next is the review of the existing law. The existing law will be reviewed once at the stage of a new law in theory and in terms of organization, and the law that actually exists is being reviewed and inspected mainly by the Working Group, but since it has been reviewed, if we consider that it will be reviewed again, we are writing that it would be appropriate for the existing law to be reviewed by the Digital Agency because it would be appropriate for the process to be confirmed by the Digital Agency.
The circled area at the bottom is circled with a red dotted line, but we would like to receive your opinions and knowledge in particular. We are enclosing this as a scene for actual inspection and review, and we would like to receive various knowledge on what kind of opportunity is appropriate to conduct the inspection and review.
What we can think of is that as digital technology progresses, we may be able to do so based on technological progress. In addition, we may be able to receive requests from the people and the business community and what they want us to do. In addition, we may be able to expect ministries and agencies to periodically check ministerial ordinances and confirm new law operations. In such cases, we may be able to do so on a regular basis through follow-up. I believe there could be various patterns, and I would like to ask for your knowledge on the timing of the review of existing law operations, which may be a combination of these.
If you could turn to the next page, I would like to continue the inspection of the existing law. This will be the same as the guidelines I mentioned earlier, but when I think about how we will proceed based on the progress of digital technology and the requests of the people, it will not be done only within Digital Agency, but it will be necessary to conduct it based on public debate to some extent.
Currently, it is being held publicly at the Working Group on the Digital Consultation, so I am writing that the establishment of such a forum is necessary for the review to be effective. In fact, if the existing law is reviewed, I believe there will be a comprehensive response.
Next, on page 12, regarding Issue 3, I am writing about the issue of the process toward the execution stage at the end.
With regard to this, I would like to restate what I explained last time. Please take a look at ○ at the end. There are various guidelines such as the policies on the development of information systems established by Digital Agency. In the specific guidelines I explained earlier, I would like to write down how to proceed in accordance with the law actually established, and how the parties concerned will divide their roles in creating a system and creating a system for the execution stage. I would like to write down what I should write as a process. This is issue 3. This is an explanation of what you saw last time. I would like to add a little more meat to it.
Next, on page 13, I first drew a picture in the tentative plan for the time being, but I am writing a process plan. As circled by the red dotted line, regarding the confirmation of compliance with the Digital Principles, we are currently working on existing ones, but in particular, we are starting a new initiative for new ones, so I think it is quite difficult to start from scratch. When confirming a new law, among the bills and government ordinances that Digital Agency said it would focus on, we are working on bills that are considered to be particularly important, so I am writing this in a kind of agile way.
Actually, in terms of starting the drafting of laws in an agile manner, I believe that one option is to start gradually by making a selection, such as focusing on those that Digital Agency should be involved in to some extent, rather than preparing all the bills. I would like to hear your opinions on this.
The chart below shows an image of the process to a certain extent, but the outline will be determined by around summer. The detailed procedures, such as how to actually proceed, will be finalized by the end of this year. In order to do that, I believe Digital Agency will be the center, and we will firmly establish a system for that, and from fiscal 2023, we will be able to conduct the new confirmation process, particularly in law.
Therefore, although I have put it as a preliminary proposal, I would like to suggest that we start the process of confirming new law sites by extracting them from the bills to be submitted to the Ordinary Session of the Diet in fiscal 2024. I have written this process chart as a draft.
I am sorry to rush you, but that is all for the explanation of the process and system for compliance confirmation.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
I would like to take time for questions and answers and exchange of opinions at the end of the proceedings, so I will move on to the second part of the proceedings.
Regarding the "digitalization BPR and Public-Private Sharing of Legal Affairs," the Secretariat will first explain the materials for about 10 minutes, and then I would like to proceed in the order that Mr. Fujiwara will speak about the proposals from the members.
First of all, Mr. Okubo, please.

Office: This is Mr. Okubo from Digital Agency, .
I would like to explain in Material 1 "digitalization of Legal Affairs." Regarding this material, last time, the second review team introduced data maintenance's efforts on e-LAWS, and the members discussed this. Therefore, this material is a brief summary of the points raised in the second review.
Please go to the next page. This is a flow chart of the update of e-LAWS from fiscal 2022, which was also mentioned in the second round. With the cooperation of the Ministry of Justice and the National Printing Bureau, from the stage of the draft proposal before it is promulgated in official gazettes, in particular, the stage of the draft submitted to the Diet for laws, the promulgated official gazettes prepared in the law printing process will be converted into the structured XML format of e-LAWS. Furthermore, using this, the Ministry of Justice will start preparing for the creation of the penetration text, which will speed up the disclosure of the current e-LAWS and e-Gov, which may take several months, and create more accurate data, and a certain improvement is expected. Regarding the content of this, I summarized the issues discussed by the members at the second round and overlaid it.
I have listed each and every issue. First of all, regarding (1), it is desirable that manual data conversion is not involved as much as possible. To be specific, regarding the part written in red, which is to convert law into XML, I believe that there was an opinion that it is desirable that manual data conversion is not involved as much as possible in terms of speeding up and accuracy of the work to publish the data, because the main body is the part where data is converted from paper to XML for official gazettes.
Furthermore, in law, the partially revised Act will be written in the form of a revised text, and in order to actually make it public in e-Gov, the article to be incorporated will be created, but this is also a process in which a considerable amount of manpower is used to create the article to be incorporated, so as points (ii) and (iii), is it possible for the revised text to be automatically incorporated? Or, I believe you pointed out that it would be possible to automatically generate the revised text from the figure of the article in after amendment.
In addition, if I expand on these points (ii) and (iii), in the first place, the draft is currently written in the form of a revised text in a word processor file, but I recognize that the discussion has developed to the point where it is possible to write the text of after amendment itself in the form of some structured data, and this is described as Point (iv).
On the next page, I will briefly expand on each issue that I just summarized. First of all, as Issue 1, it is desirable that the conversion of the structured XML data from the printed data in official gazettes should be done without human intervention as much as possible. Currently, the original copy is only a draft for preparing official gazettes or official gazettes that will be issued on paper. In this regard, based on the flow of digitalization in official gazettes, I think it is possible to aim to unify the data format for law in official gazettes and the data format to be prepared with the structured XML data in e-LAWS as much as possible.
In that regard, full-scale cooperation will actually begin in fiscal 2022 for the data maintenance operation of e-LAWS, and based on that operation, I believe that the possibility of data sharing here may be considered.
Next, regarding points (ii) and (iii), the mutual conversion of the after amendment text and the revised text, or automatic generation, I believe that the important point here is that it is very important to recognize that there are actually complex patterns in the notation and logical structure of the revised text that are difficult to automate.
The revised text basically creates a new article from an old article, but in fact, it is not just the difference between the old and new articles, but also the way of change, for example, the revision of a part of the attached table or table, or the revision to which conditions such as application mutatis mutandis are attached, or the fact that the enforcement date is intricately divided, and in some cases, the partial revision is made again to express the complicated order of the enforcement date, is a part that has been revised as a kind of advantage and function of the revised text. Therefore, in considering structured data and automation, I believe that it is necessary to first conduct a fact-finding survey in which the revision methods and methods that have been accumulated so far are properly organized and examined, including unification in some cases.
In addition, with regard to (iv), which I will expand on this point, I would like to point out that it is originally sufficient to write the text of the after amendment itself. The main point here is that in the current system, when a partial revision is made, the revised text itself is the law, and the subject of promulgation and deliberation is the revised text, so it is of course related to such a system, and can such a thing be technically demonstrated? As I said earlier, it is necessary to write the text of the after amendment, including the method of change or the logic of the change, from a technical perspective.
In order to consider such matters, depending on the situation, it is necessary to take steps at a slightly abstract level, such as proof-of-concept (PoC) and proof of concept using a simple revision as a sample.
Regarding Document 2, although it is simple, it is all from me.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
Next, I would like to ask Mr. Fujiwara to explain about your proposal for about 10 minutes.

FUJIWARA Member: I'm FUJIWARA.
From my side, I would like to explain the content of the members' proposal.
My proposal is based not only on the discussions at the previous meeting, but also I believe that there were about two weeks after that, and during that time, I included the contents of the discussions between the members on an online basis. However, since time is also very limited, many parts are subject to future consideration, and I believe that there are things that the members actually wanted to include but have not yet included, so I would like you to talk about them during the discussion later.
Let's get down to business.
First of all, the location of the problem. I think this is almost the same as what you just said, so I will briefly explain. In the first place, there was no latest text database in law. The reason why this happened was that the revised text was difficult to understand and it was difficult to create it, but it was not only difficult to create it, but also extremely difficult to integrate it into the final text. Therefore, there was a time lag. That was the problem. So, how can we change this? Basically, we are talking about systematization, but first of all, I think it is important to review the data and review the workflow. With this awareness, we thought about whether we could make a proposal.
Please take the next page.
With regard to the concept at that time, of course, the major goal is to provide digital data of law in a format and content that is easy for the people to use in a timely manner. I have organized the concept for achieving this goal.
The first point is, of course, from the conventional way of thinking, if we want to do it in a timely manner, we will have to spend a lot of people and work hard together, but this will be a painful situation in which the people of government agency will die, so let's stop doing that and basically use digital and IT. That is my first point.
However, regarding the method of utilization, there is DX that is popular in various places, but if we systemize the existing operations and procedures as they are, it will not work at all. It will be more difficult or create a system that is not used. Therefore, we should optimize the division of roles between humans and computers. First, we should review the workflow, and check whether the existing procedures are correct, or change the order, or use a different work method.
The way to think about it is to think about how to use digital / IT as efficiently as possible. As a result, we are thinking about reducing human work, especially simple work, so that you can focus on more substantial things, so let's aim for that.
In addition, it is natural that the system was based on paper, so it will be reviewed. In the end, it is not about converting paper into PDF and putting it on the PDF. It is the same with HTML, but it is not about maintaining the format. I think we should think about what would happen if we wanted to go back to the original purpose and do the same thing.
That's the basic concept.
Please take the next page.
Regarding the outline of the proposal we are considering based on the current concept, there are three conclusions.
The first is as mentioned in Mr. Ohkubo's material earlier, but basically it is better to always edit the text data directly after the passage and the integration of after amendment. The reason is that, when considering the capability of the current natural language processing technology, apart from the revised text and other methods, the system to directly integrate the content of the revised bill into the text seems to be quite difficult. In that case, manpower will always come in, and it will always be a time lag, so it is based on the idea that it is better for humans to directly create the final product.
My second question is, aside from that, even if you just look at the completed bill, you don't know what will change if there are no differences. Therefore, it is necessary to state that the revised bill will change in what and how. In addition to being easy for humans to read, the form of the revised bill is not difficult to create, and it is important to be able to express the necessary information. As Mr. Okubo said earlier, if you study the revised bill carefully, it will not be a simple difference, and there will be various conditions, so I think it must be a bill that can properly express those conditions.
Third, I would like to consider the form of such a revised bill from now on, and I would like to automate it as much as possible. If we create text data and have the current state and after amendment, we can still automatically compare the change history of two Word files from the differences, but I don't think there is a possibility that we can make a proper one. I think this is also a limitation of natural language processing technology. I think that human assistance is always necessary. Including that, if a system is used, and a human performs the assistance work, it may be possible to make it look good to some extent. This is my third proposal.
I have some remarks below. One is that when I want to do something like this, it is actually very important to structure text data. In that sense, I was not sure if I should write it in the conclusion. However, I wanted to put more emphasis on the process in this proposal, so I have written it on the premise. If the XML format is structured very cleanly, it should be possible to achieve a large part of the goal, although it is not half of the goal. I think I need to think about this very carefully.
Second, as for the format of the bill, as a result of mixed discussions on whether the new / old comparison table is good, whether the revised text should be maintained, or whether it should be eliminated, no conclusion has been reached at present. The reason for this is that the new / old comparison table is very easy for readers to understand, but as I said earlier, it is not enough. In particular, the conditions around the date of enforcement are difficult, and we must seriously consider how to incorporate them, so I am thinking of considering it a little more.
The third point is that we are saying that we will create such a text directly, and automatically adjust the differences. However, it is not so much a matter of saying that we can create it with existing words or Ichitaro Yamazaki, so I think we have no choice but to create an editor like this.
Another point is to create the first direct edit and the last difference. If you create all the text data first and then create the difference at the end, there is a possibility that there will be a time lag. If possible, for example, if you create an editor that can work on the left and right side by side and can be fixed on the spot, the time lag will be reduced. So, I am writing with the intention of doing it at the same time.
The above is the outline of the proposal.
Please take the next page.
It will be immediately apparent that there are a large number of items remaining to be investigated and examined in the future, but I will talk about them one by one.
As I mentioned earlier, the format of the text data is very important. At the beginning, there are many items listed in no particular order, such as the date of enforcement, supplementary provisions, etc. There are basically two types of points in this document. The date of enforcement, supplementary provisions, the format of the text, the transition to horizontal writing, and the appended tables are important from the perspective of the proposals I am talking about today, such as how to create differences mechanically and cleanly, and how to make the revised bill easy to use. The date of enforcement is quite important because the order in which amendments occur changes and various problems occur, so how to keep data around this point is quite important. This is the story below that, such as the interruption enforcement.
When I was listening to you, I heard that when drafting an amended law, there are actually very few laws in which it is enough to tamper with the text of only one law, and there are overwhelmingly many laws that are related to more than one law. If that is the case, I must think about this at first.
If we try to use this kind of DX to digitalization all cases, or use IT, it is almost impossible, and we must make sure to drop the really exceptional parts to people. In this case, I understand that simultaneous revision of more than one law is not an exception, but rather close to the principles, so I think we must make it possible.
Going back, the other cluster of individual points, such as definition words, delegation relations, and articles to be applied mutatis mutandis, is more of an issue of ease of use, and I have not placed them in the main part of this proposal. For example, definition words in law appear in the middle of laws, and are applied only to specific chapters, and there are quite difficult and easy-to-overlook things, but they are already decided, and they are absolutely the same when anyone reads them, so it is quite difficult to flag them so that they can be understood, or to delegate delegation relations to a government ordinance, or what the government ordinance is. Of course, I understand that there are companies in the world that already provide services that can be followed, but since they have been decided in the first place, I think that the government may prepare for them. Such points for ease of understanding are also related to the format of data, so I think that it is better to consider them. That is the first issue, the format of text data.
Next, regarding the format of the revised bill, I have already talked about it a lot, so I would like to repeat it. The more I think about it, the more I understand that the revised text is used, and it is very excellent if it is paper-based, and the number of characters is small, and it is possible to write everything logically. However, when it comes to digital data, the number of characters is not important, and if it is actually only logical, it may be possible to write it digitally and write logic so that a computer can understand it. In that sense, there are quite a few points that were very important when it was paper-based. Of course, it is not all of them, and I think there is a possibility that it will be maintained, but I think there are such points.
On the other hand, it is my understanding that the new and existing comparative tables, which are generally made together, are not bills themselves. It is easy to understand, but it is difficult to present complicated matters such as the date of enforcement and transitional provisions. Therefore, I feel that it will not work if all the revised bills are presented in the new and existing comparative tables. I believe that we must consider how to achieve both at the same time from now on.
I don't think there is a zero possibility of a completely different format, but I don't think there are very many. In any case, the format must be decided after considerable consideration. In addition, although it is not mentioned here, there is a possibility that the format that is easy for computers to automatically generate will be allowed to a certain extent, or that the format of the table will be the same as before because the table has been like this until now. If possible, I would like to see a compromise in terms of the ease of automatic generation. I think that is what we need to consider.
With regard to the third official gazettes format, basically, the revised bill will be submitted in accordance with digitalization. At present, it is convenient to submit a PDF version of the digitalization. However, there are various aspects of PDF that are not very good in terms of searchability. Therefore, if you want to create XML in a form that is easy to search, you can directly submit XML or do such a thing. In addition, I do not think that Rule as Code can be created immediately. However, I do not know if the content of the law text will actually be programmed and will be known by running it, but I believe that it is not impossible in the future. Therefore, I think it is better not to start over from the beginning when I want to do such a thing. That is what I am writing.
These three are about formats, and I think the discussion will end when we consider formats. The fourth is about the difficulty of automation, which is a slightly different perspective. I have already repeated this point many times, but there are places where computers are good at, where they can be done, and where they are not good at. In that sense, there are parts that are done by humans, but where and how to automate the work of humans is completely different depending on the place where automation is done. So, when we always systemize it, I think we must think about letting computers do it because they are good at it, and letting them stop doing it because they are not good at it.
The following points are similar, but they often happen. In particular, people who are familiar with the industry, the work, or the field say that there are such difficult cases and it is dangerous. If it is only once a year, even if you try to systemize it, the time will not be reduced at all. I think it is better to reduce the number of simple tasks that are performed by many people as much as possible, so I think it is necessary to look at whether it is correct to systemize them by changing the order.
Finally, I would like to consider the above. I understand that other countries are definitely thinking about the same thing, and that the Republic of Korea is quite advanced in that regard, but I think it is necessary to refer to such things, so it is necessary to conduct a fact-finding survey in other countries.
There is a peculiarity of the Japanese language, and it is easy to separate words with spaces in European and American languages. Unfortunately, this is not the case, so I think there are aspects that cannot be used as a reference, but I think it is still useful, and I think that kind of survey must be conducted.
That's all for me. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
As you just mentioned, I would like to entrust Gyousei with the case study on digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries, which I consulted with you a little last time, and I would like to conduct the study in the form shown in Reference 4. I would like to refer to such systems for reference in making decisions on the points you have just indicated. I would like to make an interim report again somewhere.
Regarding agenda items (1) and (2), a substantial presentation continued, but we would like to set aside a maximum of 80 minutes for questions and answers and an exchange of opinions. If you have any questions or opinions, please raise your hand.
Mr. Tsunoda, please.

Tsunoda Member: question, or rather, in Mr. Fujiwara's talk at the end, there was something I overlooked during the preparation and consideration of this meeting, so let me confirm it.
This is about the law data format. For example, there is a format that has already been adopted by e-LAWS, and it has been years since it was published as an XML schema. It is actually similar to the law English Translation System of the Ministry of Justice. It is well developed so that it is compatible with such systems as the national regulation database system that we have been providing for more than 10 years. In addition, the Akoma Ntoso format, which is becoming the global standard for law data, needs to be modified a little, such as by changing the names of tags, but it is already known that it is basically compatible. Therefore, when creating the law data format, if we create a completely new format and make it different from the previous global standard or flow, it will be difficult to exchange data in various aspects. If there is no conflict with the thoughts of Dr. Fujiwara and other members, I would like to add this. This is the first point I would like to confirm.
Another point is also about the data format. During the preliminary examination process, when creating a new sentence, there was a problem of how much to recognize the word when there was a compound word. This is a problem that with a simple morphological analysis method, it is divided into individual words, so compound words and law names that have a single meaning are divided. In order to eliminate this, for example, it seems that there was a proposal to put in tags. Therefore, if necessary, should we consider tags that are easy to recognize morphemes, or if we do not consider them, I thought it would be necessary to create a separate Issue that can be used for law in the form of a law term dictionary. If that is included, I would like to ask questions, confirm, or hear your thoughts on these two points.
That's all.

FUJIWARA Member: I'm I am not sure if I am in a position to answer the questions. As you said, I do not strongly believe that the current data format in e-Gov must be completely changed. However, I also believe that the current format does not cover all the questions. In that sense, I do not particularly believe that a major change must be made.
Of course, compatibility is very important, and if you change what you have, you won't be able to use the existing one. So, I think compatibility in that sense is also very important. So, of course, I'm going to consider it. I didn't write that much, but that's what I meant.
Just as you said, we are discussing the word separately. We are going to tag it, and since there is only one word, for example, the name of law or the name of law should not be cut off. I think it is possible to create a new tag to deal with this. However, it is difficult or impossible to completely create a thesaurus and tag all the words, and I thought that manual work would be required in the end. In that sense, I am thinking that it will be necessary to correct the word on the spot when I think it is not like this while looking at the editor.

Tsunoda Member: I see. That's one of the places where manual labor is required.

FUJIWARA Member: I'm I wonder if some of them will be like that. It is impossible to make everything perfect, and I would rather ask engineers about this, but I have the impression that it is quite difficult, and I think it will be impossible.

Tsunoda Member: I think that's right. So I thought it would be troublesome if I put it in here, so I think it matches Mr. Fujiwara's idea. It was a confirmation. I'm sorry.

Secretariat (Suga): No way. Thank you very much.
The engineering team was also invited, but are there any additional comments you could make?
Mr. Yagita, how are you?

Yagita Member: Thank you, .
First of all, I believe that Mr. Tsunoda's concerns are quite true. Basically, it may not be necessary to change the existing format of the text data. However, if there is insufficient data, I think it is necessary to prepare another XML and have a total of data that can be used to express various texts. In other words, the existing data can be left as it is, but it may be necessary to have something positive. I think it is necessary to determine what kind of data will be positive by exploring the use cases of how the text will be displayed and edited in the first place. That is my intention.
As you mentioned in the latter part, the recognition of annotations and tagging is the same, and I feel that it seems to be quite difficult.
So, in terms of the output image, I think there is also the extent to which we aim, but if we try to do it perfectly, we will surely have people.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Mr. Tsunoda gave me a "Like" mark in the middle.
How are you, Yasuno?

Yasuno Member: Thank you, Thank you very much. For some reason, the video is broken, and I am sorry for the sound only.
I completely agreed with Mr. Tsunoda's suggestion that it would be better not to create a new XML format. I think there is an existing XML format, so I thought it would be a partial extension of it.
I think there are some points that should be expanded. For example, as Mr. Fujiwara mentioned earlier, it seems possible to add a correspondence relationship that points to this article, or to add metadata of the date of enforcement, so that it does not interfere with what we have now. If we make it well, it seems possible to remove unnecessary tags in the original format from the expanded format by mechanical processing.
In terms of whether it is possible to completely eliminate human resources, which was mentioned in the latter part, I feel that it is quite difficult to apply XX, and I believe that there are parts that can be done mechanically, but I completely agree that it is not 100%.

Secretariat (Suga): .
How about Mr. Horiguchi?

Member Horiguchi: As you pointed out this time, I am not familiar with the technical details, but I have heard that there have been many practical systems that have been operated in accordance with the use of all kinds of XML data. I have heard that such systems are also in the private sector system.
Based on the background of how such a system has been operated, I believe that it is necessary to continuously investigate the perspective of whether the current XML format should be maintained or whether there is room for additional efforts in digitalization.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Thank you for arranging the hearing. In addition, I received a "like" mark from Mr. Tsunoda.
Mr. Yoneda, if you could give us your impressions and comments.

Mr. Yoneda: Once the current flow of digitalization, including the .
I am sorry that I did not participate in the preliminary discussions very much. As for the direction and technology, I have nothing to oppose, and the main point is that I will do my best for digitalization.
However, since I am a student of sociology, what I am very interested in is the impact that humans will be affected by the introduction of digital technology. Given this, I think it is important to consider how to care for the changes in abilities required.
At present, we are trying to make it as close as possible to what we have been using until now, but there is a limit because of the characteristics of digital. But if we have to make it digital, what will happen is that what I am most afraid of is that my abilities to write law will decline. I am very worried that my writing abilities will decline.
For example, the fact that we are creating a revised text means that when we discuss which terms to replace with which terms in the process, we are communicating the know-how, the way of thinking when creating policies, and the relationship with other systems. I think that education is being carried out. At that time, the interpretation of each word of law and the relationship with other laws and policies are being conveyed, so that we finally have the current capacity to create law. Even so, compared to the past, if we accept the way of saying by our seniors, due to the progress of daily digitalization, we do not have enough understanding of each word and consideration for various relationships, so we can copy and paste them on the Internet. Like the other day, there will be accidents that will trigger our discussion. I think that it is also very important to pay attention to preventing such accidents from occurring.
This will have an impact on how bureaucrats have acquired the abilities to write law, so when a new system is introduced next time, it will be a system in which good law can be written properly, a system in which you can check it a certain way, a system in which you can check it many times, and a system in which you can discuss it with other people. In that sense, I have a slight fear that it may not be efficiency at all, but I think that part needs to be fully considered.
However, the resistance forces in digitalization generally exaggerate that. I think it is probably true that the required abilities and senses change. So, how can we say that it is better to incorporate this and install a system? Can we explain how we can appeal that it is so useful? In this case, there are many technical aspects to be discussed, so I feel that we have not yet been able to discuss the appeal. How to convey that it is useful to the users?
Now, we are transmitting what Dr. Tsunoda has created, and I am in a position to listen directly to the voices of users. However, we are not using what we want people to use, and everyone at the site has a slightly different perspective. We need to catch up at an early stage on the gap between what we thought we had made convenient and what we did not, and let everyone do it. At the same time, we need to do our best not to lower our current abilities to plan and interpret law, and not to create the misunderstanding that we have lowered our abilities.
What I am interested in is that if you do a comparison table of old and new, you can write more and more compositions directly. You can write the same article with completely unrelated content, or you can overwrite more and more unrelated articles. However, if you write a new article, it becomes an argument to change this word to this word, and there is always a problem of interpretation. I am very worried that such education effect is included in this. Moreover, I trust the wisdom of the Japanese authors of law, so I hope to create a system and process that will prevent this from declining. For now, it is a technical issue, so I didn't think it was necessary to say that strongly, but I was given the opportunity to do so.

Secretariat (Suga): Exactly what you said is important. When deciding where to focus on using human resources, I think the overall concept is to be able to devote more effort to the logic you just mentioned, rather than to the work of correcting the format. I would like to thoroughly organize that. I think you are right that it is not just technically possible. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yoneda: Once the current flow of digitalization, including the When they come in, they are unconsciously blown away. That's what's scary.

Secretariat (Suga): format, but in fact, the content is getting boring. I understand it well.
Finally, Mr. Watanabe, if you could give me a comment, please do so.

WATANABE Member: Thank you for your cooperation. I am Attorney Watanabe.
I am also very excited that a person from the National Printing Bureau has joined us from this time, and I would like to consider various things together again.
First of all, speaking of Professor Fujiwara's materials, there are two. First, what is often seen in the introduction of DX is that when a new system is installed, the initial work efficiency inevitably decreases. If so, I think that bureaucrats who use the current paper method for articles will respond at first that "After the system was installed, it became difficult to use."
However, in general, after that, the curve of work efficiency will recover and efficiency will increase rapidly, so when introducing the system, it is important to have a period of time to get used to it at first. Although work efficiency will decrease, I think it is necessary for the Study Group to firmly convey the base value that it will be beneficial for Japan in the future.
The first point is that if this is missing, it will be a strange misunderstanding that a new system has come down from above, but it is difficult to use. Therefore, it is necessary for all parties concerned to convey that this is a matter of digitalization of laws over a period of 100 years.
Regarding material 1, Mr. Yagyu, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule. I agree with all the materials. One thing that I think we need to discuss at this review meeting is that we need to decide at what timing we will see whether the laws that will be newly born in the future are in compliance with the digital principles.
In particular, if we continue to study the legislative work, the bureaucrats are also in a situation where they need to prepare draft materials and talk to the Legislative Bureau in an extremely tight time before submitting them to the Diet. Therefore, we need to carefully coordinate where we need to negotiate with Digital Agency and where we need to confirm in the tight schedule. On the contrary, if we have to do another late-night work due to the inclusion of this process, it would be putting the cart before the horse, so I thought it would be necessary to consider how to integrate it with the existing system.
In order not to make the opening longer, I once made two comments. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much.
We have just received calls to the Secretariat and the National Printing Bureau, so I would like to hear their comments.
Mr. Yagyu, I think you are submitting the materials because you have something to suggest about the timing of the new law check. Could you please do so?

Secretariat (Yagyu): said is indeed an important point. After all, I believe that it is absolutely necessary for Digital Agency and each ministry to talk about what they want to do, and then start creating rules such as laws and ordinances after determining what they want to do. That is why it is necessary to issue guidelines first, and I believe that it is important for Digital Agency to be involved at an early stage in having each ministry think based on the guidelines.
One of the proposals made in this document is that before the Cabinet Legislation Bureau examines laws and ordinances, writes down the articles, and writes down the rules of what the government wants to do, the government should coordinate what it wants to do with Digital Agency. This is the shortest way to go back. I am making a proposal at a time when I think we can realize what we want to do.
However, this issue will continue to be discussed in the future, including discussions by various ministries and agencies. We recognize that the awareness of the issue that Mr. Watanabe has mentioned is extremely important, and the matters that Issue has mentioned this time are based on that. I would like to continue to receive various knowledge and opinions. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): National Printing Bureau, I would like to ask if you could give us your comments on the digitalization in official gazettes, which was one of the proposals made by the members.

The National Printing Bureau: official gazettes has the function of promulgating law, and as you said earlier, it is currently distributed in PDF. However, from the history up to now, the data structures were premised on the condition of composition and being viewed on paper, so as a digitalization of official gazettes, as described in this document, I think it is necessary to create a data flow that can be used as secondary information and tertiary information in the XML system.
However, at the time of the promulgation of law, I believe it is extremely important as primary information. For example, historians and jurists sometimes look back on how private sector was changed at a certain point in time, which is fictitious in legal terms, and how it was at that point in time, so I think that is important. I also think that secondary and tertiary information are arranged in various ways by Okinawa companies and provided to the people, so I think it is necessary to make both available.
Another point is that paper and analog are used in the manufacturing flow. We are preparing a bill. We have submitted it to the National Assembly, and before and after that, we are communicating with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau on paper. In official gazettes, there are still manufacturing processes using paper. We have spent decades establishing partial optimization as part of the manufacturing flow, but this time, we are very happy and excited that the whole optimization, from upstream to downstream, will be discussed in this review meeting.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your very encouraging comments.
Mr. Yoneda has raised his hand.

Mr. Yoneda: Once the current flow of digitalization, including the scholar, just recently, when I followed the process of the revision of the Act on Cooperation between the education of Law Schools and the National Bar Examination, I keenly felt how convenient the revised text was.
If we just compare the articles, we cannot understand systematically how and where they have changed. When there are many minor changes, if they are new and old, we cannot see the whole picture or individual parts at all. It is really difficult to understand. In this way, it is true that we do not know what is important at all. So, as the National Printing Bureau said, I do not know whether private sector should issue something that historians and researchers can follow, or whether law should do it or the national government should do it, but I think it would be better to have it properly supported somewhere. I think DX has a part to create new knowledge. New rules will be established using new Tokyo, and a new society will be created. At the same time, in terms of learning from the past, the wisdom of historians and jurists has been accumulated in the past, so I would like you to leave the data well so that it does not collapse.

Secretariat (Suga): . I think your comments are very balanced.
I believe Mr. Ochiai, Mr. Masashima, and Mr. Inadani are in attendance, and I would like to ask for your comments.

Member of the Inadani Working Group: . I did not think that I would be rejected by you, and I cannot say anything tactful. However, as I am listening to you now, I am wondering which way to interpret it. To be frank, I feel that the ability to interpret and to organize the existing concepts in detail is important if the area of human law enforcement remains largely.
However, on the other hand, in digitalization, I believe that in the future, there will be an increasing number of cases in which automatic law enforcement and the achievement of legal objectives are completed in regulation through architecture, databases, applications, and cyberspace.
In that case, I think it would be a good idea to separate the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from the part on making the legal system more user-friendly from
In other words, from the perspective of promoting the digitalization of legal affairs, it is more of a future-oriented approach. In that case, when checking how the effects of past legislation have been reflected in the revision, I think it is also necessary to make it easier to collect evidence and data, and to change the form of law itself in a way that is suitable for such work.
Therefore, I think that it is exactly right to organize them in a way that can be used whichever way you go, including which way is better. On the other hand, I thought that it is important to firmly create the parts that can be used in the future, considering that the area to be completed by digital will expand in the future.
I may have said something unorganized and impossible because I was suddenly dumped, but thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): No way. Thank you very much.
Since the law is the infrastructure of society, I believe that preparations will be made so that it can be widely used by various people, even if it costs a little.
How are you, Mr. Masujima and Mr. Ochiai?

Ochiai Working Group Member: Thank you, . I am sorry that I could not make much comment because I did not expect it, but in fact, we are working on law itself, and as the Working Group is discussing it, it is also related to various notifications and office communications under the Cabinet and Ministerial Ordinances. As for the actual work, in the sense of firmly advancing digitalization, I think there is also how to manage it. The members of the Legislative Bureau's Working Group are considering law itself, and I do not have any additional opinions about advancing it in that direction, but I would like you to discuss how we can create an architecture that can provide continuity when expanding it to notifications and so on. I would like you to discuss how to make the entire work easier by considering scalability. I believe that it will lead to the burden on the workers and the actual power of the digitalization function.
I'm sorry. It may be a little off the scope, but please.

Secretariat (Suga): .
I believe that we are now at the point where it is impossible or impossible to comply with the Ministerial Ordinance. If law, rules, and discipline as a whole, including the future, are necessary, I believe that this discussion is all the more important.
Dr. Masujima, please.

Member of the Working Group, Masashima: If it is important to say that it is necessary for the study of history by .
It is understandable that there is a position that the revised text is important when it is discussed, but on the other hand, for example, Cabinet Orders, Ministerial Ordinances, and Enforcement Regulations are not revised much. What is going on around here? Is it always done?

Secretariat (Yagyu): law and government ordinance level is basically done in the form of revised text.

Member of the Working Group, Masashima: If it is important to say that it is necessary for the study of history by Government Ordinance. That's why there are no ministerial ordinances and regulations. There are no ministerial ordinances and regulations.

Secretariat (Yagyu): Ministerial level has recently introduced new and old methods since around 2015.

Secretariat (Suga): It has been decided that the old and new can be used.

Member of the Working Group, Masashima: If it is important to say that it is necessary for the study of history by scholars, why have the Ministerial Ordinances and Rules been improved? I can assume that the answer is that the weight is different, but when we try to change the past in a new way, it is common for there to be a discussion about how important the past way is, but in fact, it has changed from time to time, and we have seen quite a lot until now that we think about things based on the method after change. If we look at what kind of inconvenience and inconvenience actually occurred due to the fact that the revised text was actually lost in the Ministerial Ordinances and Rules, there may be a certain prediction about the impact of stopping the revised text.
The other thing is that if there is a story like the law is heavy at the headquarters, which I am now revising, I think that it is what Mr. Fujihara said earlier that we should explore a good way. So, I asked you while wondering if there is enough idea to actually try from the lower law, find a good way, and spread it horizontally, and finally reach the law.
It is not necessarily the case that the lower law is better, but if there is a position that the law is more important, it may be a good idea to start the experiment from the lower law, development the good method, and then develop it horizontally. While doing so, you may get used to the new method, so I thought that the learning effect over time would work well.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): . This is a very down-to-earth comment, typical of Mr. Masushima, who has been working on reform for a long time.
I would like to ask Mr. Fujiwara and Mr. Watanabe to make their respective statements. First of all, may I speak to Mr. Watanabe?

WATANABE Member: .
First of all, I believe that the points that Dr. Masushima and Dr. Ochiai pointed out from the flow of the main body of the Working Group are extremely important.
One more point I would like to emphasize in the slides by Professor Fujihara is that when creating new things and revising existing things, as I mentioned at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference as "lock-in," existing systems, including human beings, form various ideas and beliefs, including so-called systems, abilities, and special skills, so I think that everyone who thinks existing things are good is probably like that.
However, what we are aiming for this time is a national 100-year plan to create a digital base registry that has not changed for a long time, so as Dr. Fujihara and, in particular, Dr. Masushima said, I think it is important to think from a zero base of new things.
As I pointed out earlier, zero based does not mean that all formats should be renewed. It is important to discuss from the perspective of how to create a Japanese base registry 100 years from now, starting from the new format, although I and others are influenced by the old format.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga):
.
Mr. Fujiwara, please.

FUJIWARA Member: I'm FUJIWARA.
I listened to this conference because I thought it was a very good conference, but first of all, I think it is very correct to start with a part. In relation to that, in the story of Material 1, it is exactly true that we can see laws and government ordinances in Digital Agency and can't see down from there, and I think that is the case from the beginning. There are important situations such as ministerial ordinances and notifications, and in particular, the situation where the story of agile governance is actually applied, it is meaningless unless we look at them, or what to do about them is the point, so in some cases, flags are set, and it is decided that this is where agile governance is actually done, so I feel that this part will not work well unless we look at it or do it in a small way, so I thought I would point out that part.
In addition, I think that there are naturally places where the history can be understood by the revised text that has just come out, and this kind of story has been common in other fields for a long time. Even in the case of contracts, when forms and templates are made, everyone copies and copies them, so they are not understood. There was a reason for this article to be like this, but if you write it in handwriting, you will understand it. That is what we are talking about. When the number of data that can be searched increases greatly, new data beyond that can be found. In addition, I think that it is not necessary for people who are working in particular to do the same thing as they did from scratch in the old days when precedents could not be searched. They have to build on the wisdom of their predecessors and go further. Therefore, I think that when this system is installed, some kind of search system should be added. In fact, I heard that example-based search is also used quite a lot in e-LAWS. In the same way, a related database search should be added somewhere, or external. That is important, and I think that it is better to consider that early in order to have people use it. I think that this is another system that is connected to the side of what I talked about this time, so I think that it is not directly related to this proposal, but I think that it is quite important, so I have just mentioned it.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. In addition, I received a "like" from Mr. Tsunoda.
Mr. Yoneda, please.

Mr. Yoneda: Once the current flow of digitalization, including the , I myself think that when we enter a new era, there will be various gaps. I wanted to call attention to how we can overcome these gaps, and that if we do not overcome them well, our efforts may end up in nothing. So, I have been talking a little bit backward. In that sense, as Mr. Fujiwara said earlier, I think it is very important to start small.
If you broaden your perspective, when the country looks to the right, all of local government looks to the right. Now, I am working in regulation, so especially when I hear from people in local government, there are many who say that this is how the Cabinet Legislation Bureau is doing, so they are making a revised statement.
In that case, I do not think we will stop writing all at once, but I do not know how quickly the local government will change when the policy is changed, but I think it is necessary to be aware of the first down that will occur at that time, as Dr. Watanabe said, and how small it can be.
Another point is that I think they are more aware of the Cabinet Law than the Legislative Bureau, but I am very concerned about how Diet members' legislation is considered. If you look at the number of cases, it depends on the year, but there are times when there are more Diet members' legislation than Diet members' legislation, so how is this considered in the discussions?

Secretariat (Suga):
If I were to answer your question, it would be strange for the Government of Japan to intervene to the extent of the digitalization of court procedures or the digitalization of parliamentary procedures. In that case, I would like to see the three powers refer to what they are doing, learn from each other, and virtually align their positions. In fact, the Digital Ad Hoc Liaison Office has been asked to provide information on what they are doing. While we will not be in charge of the entire process, I believe that we will closely monitor what precedents will emerge.
If you have any follow-up from Mr. Yagyu.

Secretariat (Yagyu): In particular, with regard to the bill, I believe there is a relationship with the Diet. Since the government is only submitting the bill, the legislative branch is supposed to enact the law. Therefore, the legislative branch and the Diet will make decisions on what the amended law should be, whether it should be in the form of a revised bill or in the form of a new bill or a revised bill. I believe that how the Diet will make decisions on this matter will inevitably be incidental in the end.
Therefore, I believe that there are places where we can finally aim for such a final big place by trying new and old methods, such as ministerial ordinances, from the very small place that you proposed earlier, and by accumulating such good things that have actually happened and are working well. I have explained earlier that we should try PoC, but there are such places, so I believe that major adjustments will be necessary when the timing comes for actual changes, including relations with the Diet.

Mr. Yoneda: Once the current flow of digitalization, including the Then, for us, the people, it is the same bill, so it is a process in which a law is created. Frankly speaking, it is one thing. It is not separate. In that case, while the Diet is also providing information, in order to share such information so that the people can participate in the discussion, will the Diet, to put it bluntly, ask all of you, politicians or lawmakers, to do your best?

Secretariat (Yagyu): I believe that will be the case in the end. However, the detailed work is basically being done by the Government, and there are many legislative drafts, so I believe that it is important for the Government to properly present these matters, including evidence.

Mr. Yoneda: Once the current flow of digitalization, including the local government, begins, it will be impossible to go back, and I think the effect will be completely different depending on how much the same thing is spreading, so I would like to work on it with sufficient consideration for horizontal development or cooperation.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you for your important point.
Mr. Horiguchi and Mr. Ochiai are raising their hands, so could you please take this order?

Member Horiguchi: digitalization. In this regard, I believe that we should work on the digitalization by sorting out the objectives.
I believe that there have been discussions on various amendments this time, but I understand that one of the particularly important purposes is to reduce the burden on the staff of Kasumigaseki, and in that context, among the systems necessary for load reduction, it is not necessarily just data mechanisms, but non-functional requirements, which are user-friendly, easy-to-use, and contribute to load reduction, will be necessary for users to use development, and I believe that this will be one of the extremely important discussions going forward, starting from the point that has not yet been mentioned.
In Exhibit 3, there is also the point of development of XML editor, so I would like to tell you from my experience in development of document editing systems on the web, including editors, that these are new initiatives in particular, initiatives to replace existing ones such as word processing software, so ease of use, performance, how fast it works, and how fast it works, are particularly required in the market, and I believe that the same requirements as those in the market will be important in public systems.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): . I would like to conduct a PoC from a lower law like a ministerial ordinance. I feel like I want you to make an editor.
Mr. Ochiai, you are raising your hand.

Ochiai Working Group Member: Thank you, .
There were several points that were discussed, so I would like to make three comments.
First of all, you mentioned local government. In relation to local government, the method has not necessarily been decided by law, and I do not think it is necessary to immediately adjust the method just because it has been renewed. In that sense, I believe that there is a considerable possibility that the same method will not be implemented immediately based on the cases I have been involved in in other digitalization.
For example, in one initiative undertaken by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, there was talk of the introduction of cashless payment at the counter. If you interpret the Civil Code, you should immediately know whether to issue receipts or not. However, even if there was a legal department in local government, it was not organized, and local government repeatedly asked us whether we had to issue receipts uniformly everywhere for the time being, and we created a written procedure. I think we should be aware that we are not in a situation where we are suddenly forced to change, and we should implement it while taking into account the possibility that we will change several times along the way.
In fact, when we ask local government to proceed with regulation, there is a sense that they will not work on it without guidance on how to use it. I think that large local government is different, but small prefectures are difficult, so I assume that we will actually create guidance and expand it.
As for the relationship with the Diet, I would like to trace back to Mr. Masushima's discussion earlier, but the Ministerial Ordinance was relatively easy to change because it was not reviewed by the Legislative Bureau. On the other hand, the Cabinet Order was reviewed by the Legislative Bureau, so I thought that only the Ministerial Ordinance was being revised.
All of the Cabinet Orders are supposed to be created by the administrative side, so I think that changing all of the Cabinet Orders will be the first thing that can be done. In relation to the bills to be submitted to the Diet, there are bills to be submitted by the members of the Diet, so for example, we will change the method by changing the Cabinet Order or the bills to be submitted to the Diet by the administrative side, and we will show that such good things have happened as evidence, and we will obtain the understanding of the members of the Diet. Through this process, it will be more efficient to be able to make it in the same format as a whole, and we will discuss it while explaining this.
Finally, with regard to the revised text, I believe that the revised text is not only for reducing the burden on officials. For example, immediately after the revision of the law, if you look at the bills submitted by each ministry and agency to the Diet, the old and new comparison tables are long, and supplementary provisions are included, so all of them are not immediately visible, and I think it is difficult to understand the content from the perspective of private sector, which is trying to respond to it. For this reason, I think not only officials but also the people of law will be able to understand the revision of private sector quickly. With the current e-LAWS, I think it is possible that it will be updated just before the revision, so I think it is safe to say that it will be beneficial not only for the administration but also for Okinawa.
In such a case, if you think about how to make it possible to make a comparison, I think that people who are engaged in legal affairs with current word software and the like often use the comparison function. In the end, if you make sure to store a certain version and a certain version accurately, I think that there will be parts that can be compared with word processing software or other software for comparison that I have used in the past. If such things are done, I think that if you record each and every thing carefully and make sure that it is not difficult to compare when comparing, such as indenting and carefully waving tags, I think that the changed parts will appear to be obvious to a certain extent from the level of technology of the present age.
In the past, there was no such thing as a revised text, so I think it is also a technology, but I think it is a technology that was implemented by writing, but I think it is better to think that it can be replaced by digital technology.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. I understand that there is a Legislative Bureau examination up to the cabinet order, and that is where the line is drawn.
Mr. Yasuno, you are raising your hand. Nice to meet you.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .
I would like to make some comments.
First of all, I think there was some discussion about whether it should be a revised text or a comparative table of the old and the new. The proposal that Mr. Fujiwara summarized is, to my understanding, whether the revised text should be abolished or not.
As Mr. Tsunoda said, I understand that there are areas that cannot be represented mechanically in the revised text. However, since I do not have a high resolution, I would like Mr. Tsunoda to point out if I am wrong, but I think that many areas can be automatically converted.
In that sense, if we use something like the XML editor proposed this time, we can output it to the new / old comparison table and the revised text. However, I believe that some parts in a format that cannot be output will remain, so I think the essence of the issue is whether we should flexibly allow such parts that are difficult to convert automatically.
In that sense, I understand that the current supplementary provisions and tables are being discussed in the Diet in a mixture of the old and new tables, and I was asking if there is a possibility that it could be applied without such a major change in the policy.
Second, I believe that what Dr. Yoneda, Dr. Watanabe, and Mr. Horiguchi talked about is very important, and Mr. Horiguchi said that the purpose should be clearly stated after understanding that it is difficult to use for those who are familiar with the new system, and that there is a downside to getting used to the new system at first, but this is exactly the same. Going one step further, I would like to think in advance what KPI should be followed as a result, and then monitor how the KPI has changed, for example, one year after the introduction.
As for my third question, I understand that it does not necessarily have the power to force new mechanisms such as Diet legislation and local government. However, as an initiative of Digital Agency and the NRA, if you create software for such an XML editor, you can make it public so that you can use it freely. The ideal theory is not to force you to use it, but to use it naturally through the software because it is convenient to use, and as a result, everyone is using it. I am listening to you thinking that this is a kind of ideal image.
I have made three comments.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. It is encouraging to hear that.
Mr. Tsunoda, could you give us your comments?

Tsunoda Member: Amendment, I have a feeling that there may be some misunderstandings in the premise and perspective in your remarks so far, and I think that there are many hints to resolve the misunderstanding in Mr. Yoneda's remarks earlier. There were talks in which it was okay to forget about the past, but there was a huge misunderstanding or confusion as an issue. Mr. Fujiwara and other members were aware of this, and it seemed that they had been divided during the discussion in the prior chat, but there was a flow of talks that were likely to be mixed, so I would like to speak again just in case.
I would like to give you an advantage of the revised text. For example, if you change the "Social welfare Law" to the "Social welfare Improvement Law", if you take only the difference, only the history in which the word "improvement" is added after "Social welfare" will be left. But what I wanted to do was to let people know that the name of the law has changed, so the text has been changed. How to keep such information. It is not necessary to write it in XML, or write it in a tag, or make it into a revised text, but it is better to add a mechanism that makes it easy to keep the purpose of such a change, for example, an external editor. I don't think it is sufficient to have the difference function of a word processor. It is true that the difference function is easy to use, and I think many people know it as a convenient function that allows you to follow the differences. The diff command for UNIX difference display was created more than 40 years ago, so many people know about that kind of function.
However, the issue of interest is not the difference itself, but how to accumulate the accompanying annotation information. However, I think the discussion is about whether it is not necessary to leave it in an XML form or in the form of a revised sentence, so if I mix it with what can be done with existing tools, I think the important issue will disappear.
In addition, it is said that old things are forgotten and learned by using new things. I think there are such situations, but there is also information that cannot be understood even if the history of each place is taken. In the legal field, I think it is important that additional annotation information is necessary for people who want to confirm the history for legal history and legal interpretation.
I don't think it's better to make it into a revised text at all, and I think it's definitely better to change it if it can be changed. Of course, it is important to take an accurate snapshot every time and leave accurate data at each stage because it will be the first evidence of everything. However, it is said that it is better to prepare a mechanism to follow up on what kind of reason was changed, even if it can be in a different form from the revised text.
What I would like to emphasize here is that people who have been involved in the creation of the revised text, many of whom are from central government ministries and agencies, are worried about the fact that they will not be able to accumulate important know-how and know-how. In addition, people who are implementing education in digitalization and people who are refuting digitalization are also concerned about this point, so I think it would be better to say that we will create a mechanism to support users from the user's side.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. During your chat until you made this proposal, there was a discussion about how to realize human readability and machine readability in the best way. For that purpose, I think it was the consensus of the members that PoC is the best way to understand what is necessary, such as tagging and dictionaries. I hope we can proceed with the discussion with a firm understanding of that.
Also, Dr. Inadani is raising his hand. What do you think?

Member of the Inadani Working Group: I was actually thinking of saying the same thing right now, and I think it is true that if there are no annotations in the end, there is a possibility that there will be some parts that will be difficult for people to interpret.
However, I think it is an important issue who will be the point of view at that time. In short, I think that the court will be the one who will have the authority to interpret and the concept of design at the end.
In other words, in the creation of law, the court has in mind the concept formation and the scope of the concept content, which is what kind of concept is coming out in what kind of form, and therefore what is the case this time. Japanese jurisprudence has basically come out from the perspective of refining the interpretation of law in the court, and I believe that this is also related to the love for the revised text. In that case, it will be important for those involved in this kind of law creation to have a format that does not pose a problem, in order to smoothly transition to the new method. To that end, as you have said, we will start with what seems to be unobjectionable. On top of that, we will clarify that it is better to retain the function of the revised text, and as you have said, we will substitute the function of the annotation in a more efficient way, different from the current revised text. In that case, I believe that it will not be a big problem if we arrange the method of revision and the main body of the law in a way that suits the digitalization, and if we finally arrange the function of the annotation so that it does not interfere with the law creation in the court. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): .
Mr. Yoneda has been clapping your hands since Mr. Yasuno's speech. Mr. Tsunoda also clapping his hands for Mr. Inadani's comment. Thank you very much.
Materials 2 and 3, I had a substantial discussion on the digitalization of legal affairs. If possible, I would like you to continue to stay with us until the PoC without losing your breath here.
Material 1 also proposes something new. The guidelines should be discussed in public. The new law inspector is basically asking each ministries and agencies to conduct a self-inspection in accordance with the guidelines before the preliminary examination by the Legislative Bureau for laws and government ordinances, and before policy decisions such as Pub Com for ministerial ordinances and others. After that, how can they detect when they are not able to do so? How can they grasp the requests from the people, including reporting the progress of technology? And should they periodically check the status of implementation? That is what I am indicating. Now, we are working on inspections during an ad-hoc intensive reform period in the Digital Policy Consultation, but in order to install this function in the government on a regular basis, the Digi Agency needs to develop a system, so it is necessary to make a firm request, including the budget and the number of members of the organization. In addition, I am now thinking of gradually starting to confirm the compatibility of the digital principles of the bills from fiscal 2024, but as you have pointed out earlier, it is more important than ever to establish rules and systems for ministerial ordinances and others at the enforcement stage. Therefore, I have proposed that the Digi Agency should not stop at checking the laws, but should call for a design of the enforcement process, and that a separate process for the parties concerned to gather and discuss is necessary. If you could give us comments on this area, what do you think?
Dr. Watanabe, please.

WATANABE Member:
Thank you very much. I'm Lawyer Watanabe.
From the perspective of business operators and the people, I think it is important to be able to challenge the system in a sound manner when new technology comes out. In short, I think it is necessary to have a system in which people can ask, "New technology has come out, but it is not mentioned in the current guidelines, but I think it conforms to it. What do you think?"
When I think about it, the most compatible existing system is not in the materials of the Secretariat, so I'm afraid it will be a surprise, but I think METI's gray zone elimination system is actually being used in this way. For example, in law, it is written in the government ordinance, but is it included in ICT in terms of interpretation? It is a challenge.
It is just an idea, but for example, in the gray zone elimination system, if it does not conform to the digital principles, or if it should be included as an interpretation from the viewpoint of the digital principles, for example, if the Digi-cho together with the competent authorities can be called upon in operation, I think we can change various parts that we do not notice to agile, so I would be happy if you could consider it.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. I would like to try it.
Also, Mr. Fujihara and Mr. Horiguchi are raising their hands. Is this order okay?

FUJIWARA Member: I'm FUJIWARA.
It is written here and there that it is assumed that the system will be used because it will be difficult for humans to carry out the compliance confirmation process as it is, but I think it is better to emphasize that the system will be used a little more, and if you notice it, it may be like people in Digital Agency are doing their best to search for words.
That said, at present, I believe that people are doing such things as trying out various search words. I cannot imagine what kind of system will be created with a certain level of know-how, but I think that it is necessary to create a system that can be understood to some extent by passing through a certain level of know-how. I feel that it is okay to write somewhere that we will do such a thing.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): In the process of converting law into XML, adding meanings, and tagging it, we originally wanted to make it easier for people to make proposals by using GitHub. It's a bit of a moonshot, but the Secretariat would like to reach that point in the end.
Thank you, Mr. Horiguchi.

Member Horiguchi: Although there are some points that overlap with the points I mentioned earlier, in advancing the roadmap and specific processes as shown in Material 1, we will start with what can be done and what can be done for systemization. I understand that there is advanced discussion on what kind of labor saving can be done and what kind of technology can be actually done, but in addition to this, I think it is one of the points that the usability, including the non-function, is not much talked about in your work.
Amidst this, I believe that it will be important to conduct hearings with existing efficiency operators from the perspective of what points can be maximized for private sector operations, whether the system is easy to use for general users, and in this case, whether there are any difficulties in creating an easy-to-use system.

Secretariat (Suga): Thank you very much. I would like to continue our efforts by organizing hearings. Thank you very much.
Did you give us your general opinion? If you have any issues, please raise your hand.
Mr. Tsunoda, please.

Tsunoda Member:

Secretariat (Suga): Digital Consultation is exactly a period of trial and error. When it comes to the stage of actually installing it as a function in the government, a certain level of model is naturally required so as not to cause inconvenience to each ministry and agency, but until then, I would like to make decisions while trying various approaches. I would like to have a proposal from this team.

Tsunoda Member:
Is it based on the assumption that we will be programming?

○Secretariat (Suga)
As the editor said, we are thinking of a process in which we take care of resources while giving us a broad framework for why we should make something like this.

Tsunoda Member: In other words, do you feel that there is a degree of freedom around that and it is possible to create an agile process?

Secretariat (Suga): Hai.

Tsunoda Member: I see. It is not like throwing a ball.

Secretariat (Suga): Of course.

Tsunoda Member: I understand. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): Would you like to speak with anyone else? The time is almost up.
Dr. Masushima, please give us your comments.

Member of the Working Group, Masashima: If it is important to say that it is necessary for the study of history by .
With regard to the system, as was the case with the sandbox system, it is said that it will not work well if the Cabinet Secretariat has the sandbox system itself, but each ministry and agency has a system in which discussions are made, and those people do not have a mind to promote innovation. We had a discussion about creating a system to create key people in each ministry and agency, and having them move forward positively. I think it is important to create rules in a creative way, not in the traditional way, such as compatibility with digital principles, public-private cooperation, and interoperability. Therefore, I don't think it is a matter of just bringing or copying the wording. In other words, I think it is a little different from the wording check that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau is doing. In that case, I think it is necessary to create people who can do such things.
Another working group is currently holding a session in which members of each ministry and agency are asked to present various ideas on what they are doing in accordance with the framework and digital principles, and we are discussing various things such as whether it would be more successful if we did it in this way. I think it is interesting that the people who actually bring it to the meeting are thinking about various things creatively, and there are many things that I can expect.
Therefore, I feel that each ministry and agency can do various creative things, or there will always be people who are interested in doing such things. Rather, from the perspective of young people playing an active role, in particular, I think that each ministry and agency is doing various things to give young people a chance to play an active role in order to prevent young people from being exhausted and losing their motivation and immediately going to private sector. I feel that if we put a digital agenda into such a place, it will have good effects in various ways.
What I wanted to say was that each ministry and agency has a very high potential, and I would like them to use it well to motivate young people, and I would like the Digi-cho to work together with them. Rather than saying that Digital Agency will review, or from the top, that this is not good, or something like that, I would like to see if we can create such a system. I thought that an engagement approach based on such a flat relationship is more digital, and I think it would be good.
That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): I really think so. Each ministry that has come to the Working Group to introduce advanced cases has taken various creative measures, and I think Issue's recognition is also very vivid, so I would like to consider a method in which the Digi-cho does not unilaterally examine the matter and use a one-way checklist.
I believe that formal examinations and inspections are still somewhat familiar with Digital Principle 1, but when it comes to Principles 3, 4, and 5, effective checks cannot be made unless we include comments such as "it is not easy to use," so I would like to consider such methods.

Member of the Working Group, Masashima: If it is important to say that it is necessary for the study of history by .
There are quite a few things that are not exactly at the level of being written into laws, and in the operation part, I would like to connect it with this system, or I would like to do this kind of thing as a policy with the people of private sector. Such parts will lead to the real usability and digital, so I thought it would be good if there were some elements of law examination, but in a creative form that is further away from that, we would like to have discussions rather than examinations, and let's all be good together.
Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): .
I would like to think about a system in which best practices and wisdom gather naturally. Mr. Yoneda, thank you for your applause.
Well, thank you very much for the productive exchange of views today. It is time, so I would like to conclude the Q & A and exchange of views around here.
Mr. Senior Vice-Minister, can I just go?

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Affairs Kobayashi: That's fine. I was able to organize my mind after a productive discussion.

Secretariat (Suga): Regarding today's proceedings, we will prepare the minutes and make them public after everyone checks them, and all materials will be made public.
I would also like to report to the Working Group on Material 1, "Process and System for Confirming the Conformity to the law Principles of Conformity," which you discussed today.
That concludes today's meeting. Thank you very much for joining us today.