Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Study Team (7th) of the Legal Affairs Office of the digitalization Working Group

Overview

  • Date and time: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 (2022) from 10:00 to 12:00
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Investigation of cases related to digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries
      2. Direction of law Data Disclosure Method and Advanced Utilization (Draft)
      3. Questions and Answers and Exchange of
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Provisional translation in English

This English version material is from the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Review Team (7th) of the digitalization Working Group Legal Affairs Office.

The material below is a provisional translation from the seventh meeting of the Working Team on Digitalization of Legislative Affairs (November 9, 2022).

Related Information

Minutes

Secretariat (Suga): In . It's time to open the meeting of the "digitalization Review Team (7th) for Legal Affairs".

My name is Hitoshi Digital Agency, and I will be your moderator.

Members and observers are invited to participate online today.

In addition, Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Okushi will participate in the session later due to his attendance at the National Assembly.

Today's agenda is as projected on the screen. I believe it will be the last meeting of the year.

I would like to ask for a 30-minute explanation from Gyosei Co., Ltd., which conducted the "Survey of Cases on digitalization of Legal Affairs in Foreign Countries" as Agenda (1). Thank you.

Gyousei Co., Ltd. (Mr. Ishizaki): This is Ishizaki of Gyousei Co., Ltd. Thank you for your time today. I look forward to working with you.

It is a report called "Investigation and Research on Prior Cases of digitalization of Legal Affairs in Foreign Countries".

Please show me page 2. In this survey, we conducted a literature survey and interviews with people concerned about projects in three organizations and countries: the EU, Germany, and Denmark. In addition to these three organizations, we also take up the situation in eight countries separately for comparative study. In the second half, we also report on previous cases of Rules as Code.

Please turn to page 3. The survey items are the five themes listed here. They are law's revision method, public announcement method, official law data, legislative support system, and separation from private sector law Shu.

Please show me page 4. From here, I would like to make a report on the contents of the survey. Regarding the revision method and public announcement method in law, I am comparing the four countries including Japan.

First of all, regarding the method of amendment, all four countries adopt the method of partial amendment. Partial amendment is an amendment method in which the amendment is made by specifying the part to be amended in the previous law. When we look at the method of amendment, "amendment" is written in parentheses next to "partial amendment," and this amendment method is adopted in four countries. The amendment method is a method in which the amendment is made in text, for example, by changing the phrase A to B by capturing the phrase and provision in the article to be amended. However, in the case of Japan, it is understood that partial amendment is made in the form of a comparative table of the old and new articles and public notice is made.

In the three organizations of the EU, Germany, and Denmark, public notice is also made in the form of a revised text in the Ministerial Ordinances. In addition to the four countries, a comparative survey was conducted in South Korea, France, Finland, and Estonia, and partial revisions were made in the form of a revised text.

Of course, it is not that there is no concept of a new / old comparison table in each country. In Denmark, it is attached to the draft of the bill as a reference. In addition, if you look at the French official law database, it has a function to generate a new / old comparison table and a comparison table.

During the Working Group's consideration, I heard that there was an argument that it would be very troublesome to integrate the revised text. This may be a little off the subject, but when I look at the revised text of each country, the basic rule is the same as in Japan, where A is revised to B, but the length of each sentence of the revised text is shorter than in Japan. If you look closely, there is only one verb in each sentence, "to revise" or "to postpone", which is related to the revision. In addition, I believe that the way of writing the date of enforcement is simple, which is a little different from Japan.

I believe that we will discuss the legislative support system later. I believe that it is easier for the countries of the European Union, Germany, and Denmark to process the creation and integration of amendments than for Japan. I have an opinion that if the legislative support system of these countries is used as a reference and applied to Japan, it may be necessary to review the rules for creating amendments.

Going back one line, in each country, public notice and promulgation are made by government agencies.

On the next line. As a media for public notice, there is official gazettes in all four organizations, and the electronic version is the original in the EU and Denmark. In the EU, the "Regulation on Electronic Publication in the official gazettes of the European Union", the "Basic Law of the Federation" in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the "official gazettes Law" in Denmark specify matters related to public notice in law. In Japan, the Supreme Court ruling in 1957, which is written here, is the basis. In Germany, in 2023, an amendment to the Basic Law of the Federation, which will make the electronic version the original next year, is being deliberated.

In addition, in countries other than those listed here, Estonia and Finland, the electronic version is said to have the same effect as the original copy, and in South Korea, the paper version and the electronic version have the same effect. In the EU and Estonia, there is a regulation that the paper version becomes the original copy instead of the electronic version in the event of a system failure from the viewpoint of BCP.

Next, please turn to page 5. It is about the maintenance, location, and organization of the official law Database. It is understood that the official law Database is the database of the current official gazettes, which was created by merging law published by law with the previous law. Government agencies in each country are the main actors in the maintenance of the official law Database. However, none of the official law Database is an original.

In the EU, in the "Regulation on Electronic Publishing in the official gazettes of the European Union," which I mentioned earlier, there is a provision that "only official gazettes is authentic and has legal force." In addition, the official gazettes of the EU is posted on the site operated by the EU Press, which is the same as the official law data, but the posting location is clearly separated into the official gazettes section and the law section. The law published in official gazettes, which is posted in the official gazettes section, is the original and has an electronic signature. The law with an insertion, which is posted in the law section, is positioned as a reference.

In addition, Article 82 of the Basic Law of the Federation states that "laws shall be promulgated in official gazettes as a Federal Law," and this is the original copy, so it is said that the merged version is not the original copy. Similarly, in Denmark, the Law of official gazettes states that "all laws and orders shall be published in official gazettes."

I checked to see if there are any other countries that publish the official law Database as an original. The Estonian "official gazettes Law" provides for the publication of an integrated text, including amendments, and it cannot be said that this is an original. However, even in the Estonian "official gazettes Law", there are provisions in the law that provide for the publication of the original text separately from the publication of the integrated text that has been merged, and there are provisions in the law for cases where there is an error, such as confirming an error if the merged text and the original text do not match. I assume that the revised law that has been published has higher authenticity.

In a hearing with the German Ministry of Justice, I asked about the authenticity of the document. One of the comments was that under the German Basic Federal Law, the law to be promulgated should be limited to one location.

Next, in the bottom line, the period until the official announcement is made is described. Please understand that this is the period from the announcement of official gazettes to the update of the official law date. If we look at it here, it is 26 calendar days for the EU, and it seems to take quite a long time, but I heard that the main reason is the language support for member countries.

In addition, on average, it is one day. The judicial bureau is responding with 19 staff members and support from companies in private sector. However, in the case of Germany, it is not that we work on it after it is promulgated, but I have heard that we conduct preparatory work in advance.

In Denmark, it is the day after the promulgation. In the "Implementer of the improvement" section of Denmark, it is written that "Those prepared by each ministry and agency will be posted." It is my understanding that the law of the integration in Denmark will be created as a reference material during the deliberation of the bill, just like the old and new comparison table. Therefore, the main body of the improvement will be the Civil Affairs Agency, and I have heard that the bill of the integration, materials related to the bill, guidelines, etc. will be posted by each ministry and agency or employees of the parliament.

The German Ministry of Justice has an official law website called "Laws on the Internet," where you can refer to most of the federal laws and regulations. I heard from the hearing that the German Ministry of Justice is planning to post court precedents of the Federal Constitutional and Supreme Courts and the Federal Patent Court, which will develop meta information such as the revision history of law, and develop notifications of public authorities rules. If you look inside the German Ministry of Justice site "Laws on the Internet," it seems that some trials have already begun, and links to such information are posted.

Please move on to page 6. With regard to the legislative support system, I have looked at the EU, Germany, and Denmark. First of all, roughly speaking, the Issue in which the legislative support system was necessary is the digital completion of the number of parties involved, the complexity of the work, and the entire process. I believe that this Issue recognition is almost the same as the Japanese Issue.

Next, please turn to page 7. We are writing about the functional parts of the system. For example, we are discussing whether the editor method is word processing software or original development. Originally, it started with Microsoft Word-based software, but it has been converted to original development. However, it seems that the development Plan is to cooperate on materials made with Word in the past. In this regard, in Denmark, we have heard that "we can configure the service as we like without relying on private sector companies such as Microsoft Corporation."

In addition, the EU LEOS listed four reasons for its own development: it should be an online solution. Second, it is possible to edit a single document at the same time, multiple people can refer to the same document, and it is easy to cooperate. Third, it is possible to specify a format that conforms to the rules of legal affairs. Fourth, it is open source and can be used by anyone. These were mentioned as the advantages of its own development.

In addition, regarding the function of creating a bill using an editor, in the case of Denmark, as far as I can see from the manual, it is a method in which a fixed form of revised text is created by integrating and copying the original text from law and outside. In other words, I understand that it is a method in which a fixed form of revised text is edited and created, not by editing the integrated text.

As I said at the beginning, I think this is related to the simplicity of the formulation of revised texts in foreign countries. Denmark's system called Lex Dania has a detailed manual available, and if you look at it, it has a function to create a comparison table between the old and the new and a text to be integrated as a reference material for bills.

The EU, Germany, and Denmark are the member states of the EU that are conducting this development, but according to interviews with the three countries, there is no particular cooperation between the three projects.

In addition, as an initiative of "Rules as Code" in the background of development, in the EU, the "Interoperable private sector Project" is being promoted with the aim of enhancing digital interoperability in the public sector, with the promotion of use by European companies and citizens in mind. One of them is legislative support.

In addition, in 2019, the German government modernized the legislative process by issuing a study report on digitalization, "first the content, then the paragraphs," with the aim of supporting the establishment of a schedule and the adjustment of the approval process, reusing collected data, avoiding discontinuity and efforts to respond to it, and permanently recording and documenting the entire process and each step. The German system is under development, aiming for 2024.

When it is completed, we have in mind that it will be mandatory to use this legislative support system within government agencies, but the specific method of mandatory use and other matters have not been decided yet.

Denmark's legislative support system has already been completed. As an official evaluation, the Report of the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2021 evaluated the structure of Denmark's legislative database as follows.

Legislative and regulation information is published in a very systematic, machine-readable format. All binding legal acts are published in machine-readable xml format in the "Letsinformation" database.

In addition, with regard to Denmark, efforts are underway to disclose and reuse information through API.

Please take a look at the next page. It is about the division from the private sector law Collection. There is a private sector law Collection for each country. The difference between the private sector and the official information is that the private sector version provides additional information that is not available in the official version, such as explanations and past data. I think there is a difference in that the version provides necessary editing for legal experts, students, and users.

Please show me page 9. In addition to the three countries I just mentioned, for comparison, we are looking at an overview of countries such as the ROK, Estonia, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States on the web. For convenience, we have divided them into continental legal system and Anglo-American legal system. This way of saying may be a bit old, but we have divided them into those that adopt the principle of written law and those that adopt the principle of case law.

On page 10, I have written information on four countries, including the ROK and three other countries. These countries are called continental legal system, and I have stated that they have adopted a partial revision method as the revision method, that the government is responsible for public notice, and that the electronic version of the public notice media is ahead of others.

Next, on page 11, regarding the maintenance of the official law Database, it is disclosed as an official database, and regarding the authenticity of the merged version, I would like to add that the "official gazettes Act" has a disclosure rule as I mentioned earlier for Estonia.

The French official law site "Legifrance" is very useful for showing the revision history of law, showing the text comparison table, and preparing the API. In addition, the Finnish "FINLEX" is multilingual, but there is only one law that has been translated into Japanese, and the law "Finnish state of emergency measures Authority Law" has been published in Japanese.

Pages 12 and 13 contain materials.

On page 14, in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, the revision method of the addition method or the stacking method has been used. The law that came out later is added to the law that came out earlier. It is not that the law that came out earlier is specified and revised, but if there is a contradiction, the law that came out later takes precedence. Regarding these countries, if it is a media for public notice, it is not the official gazettes, but a collection of pamphlets of the law that was promulgated, called the Chronological law List, is made.

On the next page 15, the official law statistics of these countries are available on the websites of "legislation. gov. UK" in the United Kingdom, "Federal Register of Legislation" in Australia, "New Zealand Legislation" in New Zealand, and "United States Code" in the United States. These are available as official data. However, in the case of the United States of America, there is a note on the website saying that the official data is the printed one, and the official data of the court is the printed one.

On pages 16 and 17, I have written materials for each.

On page 18, when I checked the authenticity of the Fusion Edition law Database, I wrote a link about help and positioning of the official law Database of each country shown here as a place to describe. Please refer to it.

Next, please turn to page 19. We are conducting a survey on the trend of Rules as Code. First, regarding Rules as Code, we are investigating, analyzing, and summarizing information obtained on the Internet, which is Steps 1, 2, and 3. This time, I looked at the official page of the project published on the Internet and the webinar in which the researcher spoke.

There were also academic projects, but I would like you to understand that they were not peer-reviewed papers or objectively evaluated, but information that we said we were on our official websites.

Regarding the extraction of these projects, we searched for terms on the Internet and analyzed them while classifying them. From the perspective that the results, including the progress of the projects, are specifically published on the Internet, nine projects are listed on pages 20 and 21. We are looking at these nine projects by labeling them by area, whether the project is academic or country-led, and how far the implementation phase has advanced.

The French "OpenFisca" with ID1 on page 20 is a service that allows you to upgrade laws and regulations and understand how the regulations are applied to the situation of users. I heard that there are many use cases in Japan and overseas, but I think it is not that they are used nationwide, but that they are positioned as a use cases with achievements.

ID2 "Lex Dania" is a support system that aims to integrate the legislative process, which I just introduced in Denmark.

ID4's Finnish Interoperability platform seeks to reduce duplication and siloing of information between parties who share data and content.

Go to the next page, please. ID5, New Zealand-based "Better Rules," uses a methodology of modeling the interpretation and effects of laws and improving legislation to simulate the effects of regulation in advance by a team of involved parties.

ID8, Australia's "DataLex", generates rules in a machine-executable form. It seems to be used for interactive legal advisory services, compliance decision support, etc.

As "Rules as Code," we looked at projects that have published their results and identified these nine. In analyzing these, we referred to previous research and studies on technical views and technology applications. In this part, we introduce the materials that we referred to, but we omit them in this summary.

The nine projects you are currently looking at can be classified into two categories from the perspective of use cases, who will be the users, and how they will be used. The first is related to legislative support and legal document management, and the second is to improve the climate for law information digitalization to areas other than administrative organization.

However, what has actually been introduced and put into practical use as the mainstream of "Rules as Code" is the discussion on the technology to apply it to the promotion of machine readability and automation of legal affairs, such as "Lex Dania" in Denmark, which I introduced earlier.

As the next step, a project to develop environments in which laws and regulation can be written digitally, using laws and regulation as rule engines, such as the French project "OpenFisca," which I mentioned earlier, is being implemented, but it is not yet true that the entire country is developing law and regulation. What is being advanced now is legislative support and document management of legal information. In other words, it is presumed that legislative support will be developed and the next step will be the development of law information in digitalization.

That's all for my report. Thank you.

Secretariat (Suga): In , for your detailed report.

You may have a lot of questions, but this is also related to the next agenda, so I would like to have an exchange of opinions, questions and opinions at the end of the agenda.

Now, I would like to move on to Item (2). Mr. Yamauchi from the Secretariat will explain the "Direction of Advanced Disclosure and Utilization of law and Other Information (Draft)." Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Nice to meet you. I'm Yamauchi from the Secretariat.

This time, the Secretariat will make a proposal on how to disclose law and other data and the direction of advanced utilization. We would like to receive your frank opinions.

I would like to move on to page 2 of the document. At the beginning of the document, I summarized the status of consideration so far. At the previous 6th meeting, I proposed a draft of the requirements. In addition, I also proposed the data structures related to law Data, whose enforcement date has not been determined. This is the 7th meeting.

Moving to page 3, I would like to reiterate the purpose of the legal affairs system under design this time. It has three pillars: securing basic information, making it open data, and adapting legal affairs itself to digital principles.

Let's move to page 4. We have listed the requirements for the preliminary version again. The content of this is the same as that of the previous meeting materials. There are various perspectives such as data structure, workflow, and UI, but today, the asterisk is related to the requirements for data disclosure.

In the first half of the document, I would like to make a proposal on the development policies for the disclosure function to respond to the items related to this time, such as the announcement on the left, which can be immediately disclosed, including past periods, and the easy-to-use API in the middle row, which is below the announcement.

Now, regarding the disclosure method of law and other data. Please see page 6. We have described an overall image of design in the legal affairs system. Starting with the main database in the center, we have described how data flows consistently from the editing part on the left to the utilization part on the right. I believe that discussions on editors and data structures have progressed at the meetings so far. This time, I will take up the parts circled in yellow. I would like to discuss the disclosure part of law and other data, particularly those related to the public API.

Please see page 7. I would like to explain the current situation. Even now, there is a function to disclose law under the name of "law API." For example, the figure below is quoted from the actual API introduction page, but at present, APIs such as obtaining a list of law names, and obtaining law and text contents are provided.

Returning to the above explanation, at present, only the current regulations that have been enforced in law that are no lower than the ministerial ordinance are covered. In addition to the API, there is also a user interface called "e-Gov law Search," where law that have been promulgated but have not yet been enforced are also disclosed after considering a certain order of enforcement. In addition to these existing functions, it is necessary to respond to requirements such as data and notifications as of the past.

Let's go to page 8. Please look at the figure at the bottom. We have organized the existing items to be provided and the items to be added.

In the upper half, the functions are arranged. On the left side, we have already taken the document name, text, etc., and specified the date by the law number. In addition to this, on the right side, we have arranged that it is necessary to deal with the acquisition and specification of time series information.

I would like to move on to the lower side of the data. On the left side, we are currently posting data for the current regulations, which is no lower than the Ministerial Ordinance. In addition to this, on the right side, we have arranged that it is necessary to expand the data for the past and public notices.

Returning to the above explanation, I would like to propose that these extensions be advanced step by step, starting from what can be done, while taking into account compatibility and extensibility. In addition, when expanding data, it is necessary to continue to consider how to handle the degree of confirmation such as reliability and what kind of work flow will be used for the expansion.

Please see page 9. Although I said that we would proceed in stages, the policy of which order we would proceed in is organized and proposed here in the form of a medium-term roadmap.

First of all, we already know the law Standard XML data structure for data beyond the ministerial ordinance, so I think it would be easier to start with time series data beyond the ministerial ordinance. As you can see in the figure below, in the upper left part, in parallel with the development of the API in consideration of time series, if we proceed with the expansion of time series data beyond the ministerial ordinance, I think we can first realize the provision of past data beyond the ministerial ordinance.

Next, I would like to move on to the data in the notification. Unlike the Ministerial Ordinance and above, the standard data structure for the notification has not been determined at present. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an investigation and specify the data structure, so it will take a relatively long time. In addition, it is necessary to ensure a smooth working environment when adding data.

Finally, on the lower side, I believe it is a function to disclose the law Database in consideration of the undecided order of enforcement. As you discussed at the previous meeting, I believe that the treatment of the law Database, whose enforcement date has not been decided, requires considerable ingenuity, and I believe that development of data structures, databases, and editors will be necessary for that. Therefore, although I believe it will take the longest time, I would like to propose that we steadily realize such a technically difficult thing, rather than just ending it with difficulty.

I would like to move on to the second part of the above explanation. We would like to promote the early creation of private service and its utilization for administrative operations by starting the provision step by step from the range that we can. Also, we would like to advance these development sequentially from fiscal 2023 to next fiscal year.

Next, in the orange on the lower right, I wrote additional points. We have received opinions on the importance of KPIs in previous meetings. First of all, regarding the coverage rate and the degree of confirmation, we would like to define a method for measuring the degree of disclosure of data, and consider using this method for KPIs.

Second, for API design, we are thinking about doing design with data users. As a result, we can consider the utilization part at the same time as API prototyping, so in addition to absorbing needs, we can promote the creation of new services.

The above is your proposal on how to disclose law and other information.

Next, in the second half, I would like to talk about the direction and future vision of advanced utilization of law and other data.

Please see page 11. In the first half, I proposed the function of development in the medium term. However, these functions are not only short-term benefits, but also a foundation for future sophistication. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to consider them so that they can be connected to responses to future utilization needs.

By advanced utilization of law and other data, it is expected to utilize not only reading law but also development of various value-added services and fair, equitable, and efficient administrative management. Therefore, we would like to investigate utilization needs in the future for further data maintenance and functional advancement in the future.

We will conduct surveys on these needs in the future, but at the bottom of this document, there are examples of possible utilization needs. For example, when the law on the upper left is changed, there is an automatic alert that can be updated in a timely manner. And below that, I think we can consider a service that analyzes historical trends and predicts the law that is likely to need to be reviewed.

I believe that these services will be used by private sector companies and people in charge of law to provide high-value-added services, but I also believe that they will be useful not only for that, but also for public authorities's fair, equitable, and efficient administrative management.

Going back to the third part of the above explanation, in order to realize these needs, advanced data that is not limited to law data maintenance, for example, provision ID, or more advanced data such as the meaning and content of law terms, is required, so technical development is required.

Please see page 12. There are also ideas for advanced law and other data utilization. On this page, examples in Japan and overseas are introduced. As mentioned in the survey on foreign countries that Mr. Gyosei gave earlier, advanced base registry and other data utilization that goes beyond law law development, research on regulatory reform and policy making using this is being conducted in Japan and overseas, and some of them are implementation.

Among them, there are concepts such as Rules as Code, which attempt efficient institutional law by expressing implementation in a machine-executable form. If you put it this way, it sounds like a future technology, but it is considered to be relatively easy to introduce rules targeting numerical values. For example, as introduced in the foreign countries survey earlier, implementation targeting taxes and benefits, such as OpenFisca, which is on the lower left of this page, is being conducted.

Returning to the second part of the explanation above. In recent years, research on legal tech using machine learning technology has been progressing. By accumulating law and other data, it is expected to be used for advanced technology development, service creation, and effective administrative management.

In order to realize such advanced policy formulation, we believe that it is necessary not only to develop highly reliable law datasets, but also to build a technical development and database infrastructure such as the mutual relationship between law documents, the semantic structure of law terminology, and the mechanical analysis of law. By being aware of these steps of sophistication, we believe that we can constructively and steadily discuss technologies that seem to be of the future, such as Rules as Code.

Please see page 13. Based on this awareness, I would like to propose a future vision called the "Digital Legislation Roadmap." With this long-term roadmap, I would like to organize traffic as a future technology image, and lead to steady discussions toward the realization of advanced private service creation through legal tech, flexible and effective institutional law based on digital technology and design data, and fair, equitable, and efficient administrative management.

I would like to briefly explain the figure below. We have organized the phases from 0 to 5. We are aware of the cycle of development of technologies and foundations and development of new technologies through their utilization, and the methodology is common to each phase.

First of all, we are in Phase 0. Since there is not necessarily a reliable law database, as you have discussed in previous meetings, we will build a reliable law database, law base registry.

Once the legal and administrative system that you have been discussing is realized through development, we believe that we will be able to reach Phase 1. Going to Phase 1, we believe that analysis and cross-reference of law data will progress. If data, including peripheral information other than law, is interconnected, we believe that the next Phase 2, "Connected Data," will be realized.

By connecting the data in Phase 2, semantic analysis will progress. When this technology is established, it will lead to the next Phase 3, "law Ontology." At this point, it will be possible to automatically identify the review of analog regulation, which is currently being worked on by human-wave tactics.

Law terminology is a part of law, so the idea is to combine them. If we proceed with the analysis of combining them, we will see the law static analysis of Phase 4. Since the logical structure of law can be analyzed, problems such as law inconsistency and duplication can be automatically identified.

Also, for example, in terms of disciplines that specify procedures, this information can be found in the database, so it does not need to be included in attached documents. I believe that things that can be found in the text can be automatically analyzed. In addition, based on the structure of regulation, I believe that we can propose the optimal use of technology with high convenience.

As the technology of Phase 4 advances, it will lead to technology that will not only analyze the text but also simulate it. If this can be done, the "institutional digital twin" of Phase 5 will be realized. The effect of law will be automatically analyzed, and changes in reality will be linked to create a flexible and effective institutional design. In addition, it will be possible to automatically propose fair and equitable systems that will change so that people like these will not be troubled by such changes.

In this way, through the gradual upgrading cycle of technology development, infrastructure development using technology, and system development, I propose that advanced services and system design can be realized sequentially.

Pages 14 to 16 of the materials are further written down and reasoned about the concept of the Digital Legal Roadmap on page 13, which I just proposed. I will use these materials as a reference, and I will omit the oral explanation.

The above is our proposal on the direction and future vision of the advanced use of law and other data.

That's all for the explanation on Material 2.

Secretariat (Suga): In Thank you very much.

Then, I would like to start with (1) and (2) of the agenda and set aside about one hour for questions and answers and an exchange of opinions. If you have any questions or opinions, please raise your hand.

Mr. Yagita is raising his hand, so after Mr. Yagita said it, I received a comment in advance from Commissioner Yasuno, who was suddenly absent today, and I would like Mr. Yamauchi to introduce the matter.

Then, Mr. Yagita, please.

Yagita Member: My name is Yagita . Thank you very much for calling.

First of all, thank you very much for the survey of overseas cases of Gyosei and for organizing Mr. Yamauchi's Material 2 in a very easy-to-understand manner.

I would like to make a comment on page 13 of Handout 2, which is being shared on the screen. I believe that this is a very good roadmap, and I would like to make a comment to the effect that it is truly amazing.

I understand that the simulation of law in the virtual space of Phase 5 of the Digital Legal Roadmap has been given in advance, and that we would like to aim for this as a whole. I think that this part tends to end up being difficult the more we know about the technology. If we actually put this into the roadmap, it is now Phase 0. If we break down by cutting 1, 2, 3, and 4 from there, I am sure it will be like this.

First of all, I am very satisfied with the use of colors, and the yellow part is the current state, and there is no proper data. In the blue part, we will develop the basic data, and at first, we will do only the law data, but after that, we will do the other data, and the explicit reference relationship will be connected. The difficult part is in the purple part, we will go into the so-called Rules as Code, and we will do the semantics of law, but I understand that in the ontology, we will first identify the usage of terms at the beginning of the semantics, perform semantic analysis, and finally create a digital twin. Although the problem is too big, I think we can actually break down to this structure, and I feel that it is a wonderful arrangement.

In that sense, if I may venture to point out one thing, I believe that the scope of the Medium-term Road Map on page 9 of Document 2 is the part of Phase 1 on page 13.

I believe that this will be done for the time being, but on the other hand, I believe that it is important to be able to quickly complete not only Phase 1 but also Phase 2. I believe that the blue part is a cluster, and the purple part will be created if all of the information related to law, not only law, is connected.

This time, as an example of other countries, Mr. Ishizaki mentioned that some countries have already advanced the purple part under the leadership of the national government. In order to catch up with such countries and make the purple part possible, I think it would be good if we could make the gap between Phase 1 and Phase 2 as small as possible.

That's all. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

Then, with your answers, Mr. Yamauchi, please.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you very much for your very encouraging words of support.

As you pointed out, I believe that it is necessary to proceed from what can be done based on future phases, rather than stopping once in Phase 1.

For example, we will create an API mechanism this time. If similar APIs are used in other parts, I believe that efforts to accumulate data for Phase 2 will advance while aiming for Phase 1. I would like to be aware of a mechanism to advance to a new phase while creating a mechanism to collect such data. Thank you.

Secretariat (Suga): In Next, may I ask Mr. Yasuno's comments?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Now, I have received comments on this material from Member Yasuno, who is absent today, so I would like to read them out and introduce them.

First of all, I received comments on page 6. It is assumed that there are needs for original indexing in search services in private sector, so it would be good if you could prepare an API that can synchronize the latest data in bulk. For example, I think an endpoint that can obtain a list of changes reflected after a certain time is given is an example. In addition, if the government prepares a search system, it may be good to disclose the endpoint for the search.

Next, I received comments on page 12. Although it is not listed as an example on this page, methods such as law analysis and question answering using a neural-based method have appeared, and I think there is a possibility that they will rapidly advance in the future, so I think it would be good to watch them. If such methods develop, I imagine that it is possible to partially perform automatic correction point presentation and correction proposal presentation as described in Phase 4 on page 16 before the development of the law ontology.

If I were to comment on your comments, first of all, regarding API, I believe that it is a proposal based on the needs for data utilization, so I would like to advance API design together with such needs.

Next, with regard to my second comment, regarding neural-based methods, I was unable to include specific examples in the materials because the survey was not completed in time this time, but as you pointed out, this is a field in which rapid progress is expected in the future, so I would like to keep a watch on this. In addition, I would like to be aware of how to proceed in this field so that it can be connected to initiatives that are ahead of the phase.

That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

Mr. Fujiwara, please.

FUJIWARA Member: FUJIWARA.

Thank you very much for your explanation of the two materials. I have a few comments on each of them, so I would like to talk about them in order. First of all, I would like to say that Mr. Gyosei's materials are really useful and I am truly grateful for them. To be honest, I did not imagine that such a great thing would come out when I first proposed that we conduct a survey of foreign countries, but I was surprised that I could make a great thing that far exceeded my imagination, and I would like to say that I am truly grateful.

In addition, I think that we have been conducting abstract discussions based on the situation in Japan without conducting a survey in the beginning, but as a result of the survey, I wonder if we can feel safe in a sense that it is the policy of each country. For example, it was not wrong to center on an xml editor. On the other hand, there are aspects that are not consistent, and I think that such aspects need to be revised. However, I think it is necessary to analyze why they were different and make a judgment rather than simply copying them.

Of course, precedents and examples from other countries are not intended to be copied, but are for reference only, and technological progress may follow. Based on this, I believe that the best and better choice should be made.

In that sense, in relation to what Mr. Gyosei has already said, when we proposed in March, we said that the completed text should be revised, but in fact, such a thing is not done in other countries. When I think about why, in the end, the basis of our discussion was that it was very difficult to integrate the revised text, and it started from the point that it would not be good to have a machine do this. Why other countries do not have such a problem is that, as Mr. Gyosei said, the format of the revised text seems to be slightly different from that of Japan. In this way, the machine can be easily integrated, so it is not difficult, and there are many good things in the revised text, so I imagine that is why it is like this. However, if we further analyze the details, there are many new findings in such a way, so I thought that it would be good to change the policy accordingly. This is my comment on Mr. Gyosei's survey. It is like my impression.

Also, with regard to Mr. Yamauchi's materials, I have the same impression as Mr. Yagita, and I think that the phase coloring on page 13 is very easy to understand. I think that blue and purple are really quite different in difficulty, so it is very difficult to go to purple. So I would like to make a comment on one point, not from the technical aspect but from the legal aspect. I think that the significance of law terminology is that people who write program code feel that one word has one meaning, but it is not like that. I think that there are various characters, and I think that it is better to divide it into three or so, so I would like to talk about it.

I have already talked with Mr. Yamauchi about this in advance, so I understand that the details have already been decided with your understanding. However, if I tell you about it, the easiest thing is that there are terms that are defined in law, and it is clear because they are simply defined. However, from the user's side, there are really various patterns in the definitions in the law, and there are many things that are difficult to discover. The entire law has such a definition, but there are some terms that are said to be the same in this chapter and have different meanings only in this chapter. This is naturally determined technically and is absolutely the same, but there are cases where it is not noticed when you are looking at the text normally. People are likely to make mistakes in such cases, so I think it is better to tag them from the beginning so that they can be sure.

In that sense, I think it is necessary or should be done to make the definition in law into a database so that it can be understood to some extent at the beginning. Otherwise, we will end up making mistakes at the end, so I think it is better to do it.

Apart from that, I believe that it would be better to divide the terms that have not been defined into two types. One is the arrangement of terms at the stage before they are legislated. I believe that the people in charge of drafting administrative agencies have such precedents in the past and that is why they are arranged in such a way. I believe that this is very important.

Depending on the precedent, I believe it is necessary to classify them as being the same and different. However, I believe that there are similar words that are different or the same, so it is necessary to make efforts to classify them, and I believe that this is mainly done in terms of the significance and logical relationship of law terminology in Phase 3. I believe that this is important, but this is truly a legislative work, so I believe that it is necessary to ask an external company or the administration to do this, but in any case, I believe it is necessary to create it as soon as possible.

Finally, there is one more thing. This is the third type in total. After the enforcement of the law, the meaning of the terms in law will fly in a different direction from what the producers expected, and there is a possibility that the courts will say different things. In that sense, the meaning of the terms cannot be understood in the true sense unless they are connected to the data on the status of precedents. It will be more difficult to organize this, so it is probably impossible to do it within the government, and I think that external vendors will have to collect such information. On the contrary, when it comes to Phase 5, I think that it will not be possible to do it correctly without this information. In that sense, external vendors will have to work hard to talk about the meaning of the terms based on precedents and practical trends after the enforcement. I think this is the most difficult part.

It's been a long time, but my comment is over.

Secretariat (Suga): In Thank you very much.

Yamauchi-san, would you like to make a comment?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In particular, the meaning of terms is technically difficult, but I think it is a part that has a considerable effect and impact, so I would like to devise it.

As you said, I believe that there are things that can be clearly understood from the text, and for those who create the text, when writing, it is necessary to be aware that it must be decided based on this definition, so I believe that such support can be provided from an early stage.

In addition, I believe that the arrangement of terms before legislation is something like so-called legal terms, but there is metadata such as how to write law, such as the law Terminology Dictionary, that cannot be understood from such texts, so I believe that research including such metadata is necessary.

I would like to consider the interpretation in connection with the third case, but I believe that in a world where a wide variety of data is connected in Phase 2 connected data, it will be easier to conduct analysis, and I would like to consider how this can be smoothly connected to Phase 3 semantics.

That's all. Thank you.

FUJIWARA Member: Thank you very much. I understand very well.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

Then, Mr. Tsunoda, thank you very much.

Tsunoda Member: Mr. Gyosei and Mr. Yamauchi, thank you very much. The materials received from the two parties were very easy to understand. The explanation was also easy to understand and very informative. Thank you very much.

I would like to make a comment in order. First of all, I could largely agree with the points that Gyousei examined in the materials, and I thought that the fact that the Japanese way of writing amendments is a little different may have affected quite a few things. In the course of my analysis so far, as you said, there were some parts where the rules for writing amendments could be kept as they are if the rules for writing amendments were a little more organized. However, this is quite difficult, and when I analyzed it, even if the rules for writing amendments could be firmly established in the rules of legislation, I think it is difficult to respond when it causes competition between several rules. For example, there is a way of writing that the words are revised at once for the entire subject law by one rule sentence that revises all the terms in this law. If the rules for pointing out them article by article coexist as they are now, what is the priority of those rules? There are cases where it is necessary to write them well in the first place so that they do not contradict each other or such a thing does not happen. In the Japanese way, there are many detailed rules, so there is a part where the degree of freedom is too large, contrary to the formality at first glance, and it is an obstacle to mechanization. Therefore, I once again felt that it would be difficult to systemize the intention of the conventional way of writing amendments unless the current rules are organized. I would like to make a comment on this point. I would like to say that it is not enough to simply save the form of the amendment. I have an idea that the intention of using the amendment should be kept, but I have reconfirmed that there are still problems. The content of the comment to Gyousei was very easy to understand, so this is all.

I would like to comment on the relationship between the ontology part of Phase 3 and the Yasuno analysis part of Phase 4, which was presented by Mr. Yamauchi and the phase of the 13th slide that you are also discussing, as Mr. Fujihara and Mr. law members talked about earlier. Mr. Fujihara also pointed out that the meaning actually changes in the judicial arena, or a state in which it is defined in several meanings occurs. The problem here is that in the world of linguistics and semiotics from the past, there are fields of syntax, semantics, and pragmatism, and in the current situation, it seems that the story will move toward semantics.

If the ontology construction phase comes first, there are parts of meaning, and by assembling them, law can be created. This is the way of thinking when assembling a machine. Mr. Fujihara said earlier that it is better to look at precedents for what is basically done in law. I think it is difficult to realize it realistically unless it is pragmatic, that is, if the field and context are determined in the way words are used, what seems to be meaning will come out dynamically.

Laws have many difficult parts, so it is really only in a limited part of the law that the meaning of the words that are the components of the articles can be fixed first and the whole meaning can be composed of the parts. I think it is possible to clearly organize the reference relationship in the formal part of where and how what is defined in the law is defined, or the relationship with various data, and make it into data. However, it seems difficult to handle the true meaning included in the definition of words.

Technically speaking, it is called Open Texture, and I have referred to it many times in my papers and lectures. The definition of words in the text of a law is not self-contained in the end, but is defined by connecting them in a way that depends on the interpretation and daily use of everyday language by ordinary people. Therefore, it is inevitable to avoid the trouble pointed out in the theory of ordinary linguistics that it is strictly determined by the context.

In that case, what is important is that in order to let the people of private sector decide the meaning of various words according to each case, it is better to decide the meaning of this word instead of deciding the meaning in advance, or that this word is connected in this way, so that it can be objectively shared in places that will be of interest to everyone's discussion. I strongly felt that Mr. Digital Agency would first sort out what seems to be formal, and that there is a way to make the usage and the way of giving semantics in that field dependent on others. I thought it would be better to focus on making the points that can be followed formally accurate, such as which word should be decided in the end, or that this term has a definition or is connected to other laws.

In that case, I think there will be a back-and-forth between Phase 3 and Phase 4. The word "preemption" has been mentioned since a while ago, but as it often appears in the story when the project of this study group started, I strongly thought that going agile would be effective rather than going in a waterfall form. The relationship diagram of this phase is clear and easy to understand as a stage, so I would like to maintain this diagram, but in reality, it is not like going through one phase strictly in a waterfall. The first half of the phase may be advanced in a relatively waterfall, but in the second half, it will be advanced to agile. I felt that this would highlight the correct semantics in the true sense.

It's been a little long, but I talked about it because it's my specialty.

One more point at the end. In the part that was briefly touched on, there is a figure on page 8 showing how the data will be developed in the future. In the expansion of the data, there is a description of public notice data, etc. at the lower right. It is very grateful that the public notice is included in the concept. I think that if you could somehow proceed with the law, it would be possible to proceed in a relatively clean form. Government and ministerial ordinances are also done with awareness by central government ministries and agencies, so it is fine. However, I would like to see rules and standardization for how public notice data should be compiled. It is not necessary to follow all rules and standards, but for example, it is easier to integrate such data, so if you have the freedom, it is better to have it in this form. I think it is important to indicate at least a standard direction.

As I may have mentioned in the past, Mr. National Institute of Health Sciences and others have implemented notifications in each laboratory in the form of creating a database system and presenting it with their own ingenuity, devising a form, and summarizing it in writing. The notifications are actually influential because people in the industry, for example, in the cosmetics industry and the food industry, read each word carefully so as not to make a mistake when they development new products, and of course, they accurately recognize chemical formulas and minute numerical values, and are engaged in the development and work of each company. However, the present situation is that the methods and forms of such notifications are diverse, and the people who prepare the notifications are not legal experts or law graduates, but ordinary chemists. Therefore, if we can show standard forms and provide tools that can be used in these areas, we will be able to provide convenient services not only to the researchers and employees, but also to the general public, and I think we will be able to prevent various confusion. If chemical researchers can use their power in their own fields and do not need to use too much power in the writing of notifications, I think we will be able to contribute to the quality and efficiency of national administration. In that sense, I understand that it is not easy, but I would like to emphasize the expansion of the notification data, and if it can be advanced, I would be grateful if you could list something that you would like to advance or that shows your intention to advance. National Institute of Health Sciences

I'm sorry it's been a long time, but those are my comments. Excuse me.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

Yamauchi-san, please give us your comments.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you very much. I think you gave us two very valuable opinions.

Regarding the first topic, semantic meaning, I understand that it is very important to discuss this in depth with experts. As you said, in the arrangement on page 13 this time, there are meanings of terms, and I organized the concept with a story that makes the whole law in the syntax. In fact, I think that back-and-forth or agile development is required.

In particular, as you said, there are many terms used by law whose meanings are determined by the context. For example, I think it is necessary to consider modeling in which the meaning of a symbol is not fixed in advance, but has a range of meanings, and more than that is determined by the context. I think it would be better to create a model by discussing it with experts' opinions.

In addition, I believe there are some fields that are easy to advance, so I think it would be good to consider what kind of form is desirable by advancing trials in fields where it is easy to introduce such areas.

Regarding my second question, I received a comment on page 8. I received a message of support for the significance of expanding the scope of the Notice. There has been no attempt to standardize or integrate the Notice, but I often use the Notice in my work, and I am aware of the problem that it is difficult to find the latest Notice. I believe that there is Issue in terms of fairness and equity, for example, we can make it easier to refer to and analyze it, and I hope that we can create an easy-to-use data disclosure mechanism such as an API and spread it so that everyone can use it.

That's all.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

Thank you, Mr. Yoneda.

Yoneda Member: .

First of all, I was very relieved to learn that Mr. Gyosei's survey was very detailed and careful, and that we were able to confirm that there was no mistake in terms of the goal and the direction in which we were working, and that everything was about this level.

In that sense, I strongly felt that we should work together with other countries, and at the same time, we should have a sense of competition, and we should do our best not to be defeated.

I would like to comment on Mr. Yamauchi's materials. Page 13 of the materials this time is the place I am interested in. I feel that everyone can clearly understand what to do until Phase 1 or Phase 2. What to do specifically and what can be newly done are clearly visible. From the point of Phase 3, it is like a story of engineers, and I feel a sense of great leap forward.

The reason for this is that until Phase 2, it is probably written in a way that it is rather conscious of support, but in Phases 3, 4, and 5, it becomes diluted, and it is called simulation, but in the end, it becomes ambiguous whether what we are trying to achieve through discussion is to create rules or reference information. As Mr. Tsunoda said earlier, in the end, laws are interpreted on the ground and used in accordance with the context of the ground, so the way words are used after that is always affected by it. It must be fed back to us, and we must change it as new data, and we must allow the meaning of the words themselves to change.

For example, if the meanings and logical relationships of natural terms are fixed in ontology, there is a possibility that the rules will be very difficult to use in daily life. Therefore, in that sense, what we create is not to provide such hard information at this level, but to create new and possible vocabularies that are easy to use as reference information with our law's mind, but also to be able to use languages created by machines. I think we need to humbly accept this.

On the other hand, in order for us to create a new society, the vocabulary that humans have created until now is not enough. There is a limit to our imagination, and there is also an overflowing amount of cumulative power that cannot be stored in our memory. Therefore, we have to advance law and store the overflowing amount of digitalization information in our hands. I think this is a realistic reason why we must consider it here. In that sense as well, the image I received from this figure and explanation was that it is desirable to have a discussion that supports us in dealing with the law and ultimately shares the image that people who use the law are easy to use on the ground.

Other members talked about the technology, where we are now, and the trend of research in detail, so I would like to proceed to the next step without losing my perspective on what kind of position we will have in society when we finally have such a thing. The worst thing is that when it does not turn out as I expected, I feel a sense of failure and somehow stop there, or I excessively negative label the way I do it and withdraw. This is a direction in which I should never withdraw, and I think it is necessary to consider the role of the system conservatively in order to be able to work hard no matter what in various situations after this.

That's all. I'm sorry for being abstract.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

Mr. Yamauchi, please.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you for your opinion.

I believe that you pointed out that there are places where we are still lacking in thought and that we must devise ways forward. What we must aim for in this Digital Legal Roadmap is to ultimately aim for flexible, effective, fair, and just laws that have benefits in various areas, and I believe that there are various considerations, such as not being bound by the meaning of machines. I hope that discussions will be advanced while studying such concerns in the course of advancing discussions, and various discussions will be held in Rules as Code in foreign countries.

I hope that the opinions and discussions I have just received will be revitalized by this way of proceeding toward the future, so I would like to continue to receive your opinions.

That's all.

Yoneda Member: .

Secretariat (Suga): In Next, Mr. Watanabe, please.

Watanabe, Member: Thank you very much for . I am Attorney Watanabe.

First of all, Mr. Gyosei and everyone in the secretariat, I think it was really difficult to compile these materials this time. First of all, I would like to express my great appreciation and gratitude for the wonderful content.

I have two comments. First, the materials by Mr. Gyosei. As other professors have already commented, if you go back six months, the parts that no one knew well will be sorted out clearly, and I think they are really wonderful materials. From now on, while referring to the situation in other countries both academically and practically, I think they will probably be starting points and will always be reviewed. I think it is a great effort not only by those who are participating today, but also by those who actually studied them.

Second, I would appreciate it if you could show me page 11 of Mr. Yamauchi's materials. First of all, the materials as a whole are very easy to understand this time, and in what form our project will contribute to the digitalization of the Japanese nation, are arranged, and I think this is also a really good material.

In talking with the Secretariat in advance, in the lower right corner, I also think this is an interesting idea, so please let me highlight it a little. For example, IT is being used in civil trials, but since the Meiji era, it has been customary for us lawyers and administrative officers to quote the text of a law, for example, in the form of Article, Paragraph, Item, and Number of the Civil Code. This method of writing can be considered a system. In the era when there was no IT or the Internet, if you wrote in this way, everyone could return to paper books and draw the text, so I think that way of writing, the way of writing official documents today, was possible.

Therefore, after the establishment of such a national database, I believe that the way of writing the articles, which is taken for granted by all of us judges and administrative officers, can be updated from the state of being locked in.

For example, when a first year employee of a lawyer's office quotes various articles such as the Civil Code, the Companies Act, and the Act on Financial Instruments and Exchange, he or she assigns and writes the provision ID after writing the articles (e.g., Article 0: CVL005 of the Civil Code). By changing the analog rules, so-called digital information will actually be accumulated from both directions. So, I think it is very significant to consider the rules of official documents and how to write the articles in order to change the analog aspect.

Those are the two points from me. Thank you again.

Secretariat (Suga): In .

What do you think, Mr. Yamauchi?

Secretariat (Yamauchi): .

We discussed it in the preliminary explanation, and I think we have received very valuable opinions. Not only in the aspect of creating a system like you said, but also in the case of actually using official documents, I think the use of provision ID is a very advantageous method because if we can do this, the mechanism for naturally collecting information can be collected from where we can before we systematize all the data. It is necessary to create easy-to-use IDs and identifiers based on the direction that we can use them together because they are convenient. I would like to proceed while thinking about it. Thank you very much.

Watanabe, Member: Thank you very much for .

Secretariat (Suga): In , if possible, I would also like to have comments from members Ochiai and Horiguchi. Which would you prefer?

Mr. Horiguchi, please.

Horiguchi Member: Thank you, Hello, I'm Horiguchi.

Thank you for the materials this time.

I have seen various places where we have received information, and I feel that it is very convenient to be able to receive information in a timely manner, including the use of information, by referring to provision IDs as shown in Material 2.

In addition, I understand that it is a very significant initiative to work on both the utilization of digital data for legal affairs and the efficiency of the work of administrative officials in the future, but I would like to ask if there is any consideration on the priority of the utilization of both the utilization of law data and the efficiency of the way people in Kasumigaseki work, or if there is any consideration on whether they will be implemented in parallel.

Secretariat (Yamauchi):

If you look at page 3 of the document again, it is organized in terms of the purpose of the legal affairs system. In addition to the base registry mentioned here, the development of a reliable database, and the utilization of open data, it is necessary to ensure the usability of legal affairs itself, which is about employees, and to reform it into a sound workflow. Otherwise, it will not be a sustainable system. So, in terms of priorities, I think we must all be the same, or we must think about it carefully.

When we consider the aspect of utilization, it will be a problem if we tend to overlook or forget it, so we are very grateful for the points you pointed out, and for example, we need to provide support to prevent necessary errors in the editor, and we need to develop an easy-to-use system, so we would like to proceed in that way.

That's all.

Horiguchi Member: Thank you, .

I understand very well that you are pursuing the convenience of both administrative users and general users. I understand that this pursuit of both requires a lot of trial and error, but I think that it is difficult to see some of the effects temporarily during the trial and error, but I understand that it would be good to proceed through trial and error, including that.

Secretariat (Nakano): Senior Vice-Minister Thank you for your comments.

The moderator will be Mr. Nakano from Digital Agency. Mr. Ochiai, if you have any comments, please let me know.

Ochiai Working Group Member: Thank you, Thank you very much. I also have some items.

One is the work within the administration as Dr. Horiguchi pointed out earlier, and I think the part of the creation process that contributes to business efficiency is also an extremely important perspective. The fact that the Digital Legislation Bureau process is included in the process itself, sometimes when I talk to people from other ministries and agencies who do not know much about the content, it may be said that there will be more work. In short, I think there is a concern that it will be more difficult if there is another examination from various places such as the Administrative Management Bureau. I believe that you have already talked about what you will be working on, so I don't think you need to explain the same content again.

However, I think that it is generally difficult for the people within the administration to voluntarily advance the perspective that it will be difficult for the people to become comfortable unless some people say so, or it is difficult to voluntarily say that it will be easier for us to become comfortable in terms of explanations to the people. For this reason, I am almost the same, but I would like to tell you the point I have just made.

Second, I believe that what will be important in the future use of digital regulatory reform is the arrangement of notifications and the parts below them. I believe that they will be developed to the extent that they can be used in Phase 2.

The law items mentioned in the Digital regulatory reform are not necessarily written in regulatory reform itself, as was the case with the written seal of the previous law Conference. I believe that 1 to 2% or 10% of them are clearly written in law itself. As an actual work, I think there are quite many documents at the level of notification or lower.

In advancing various works and conducting discussions appropriately, some ministries and agencies do not disclose information in an appropriate manner. I think it is very difficult to link them technically and consider the meaning and interpretation pointed out by Dr. Fujihara. However, in terms of the use of digital regulatory reform, if there is a place where it can be seen in the disclosure first, it will be beneficial to the efforts made in the digital consultation.

I believe that technically difficult parts will be difficult and will require more time. On the other hand, there are few technical problems, and I believe that there are things that can be done if you carry out certain work. If you have the scope to do so, I would like you to consider moving up the deadline.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you very much. As you said, I received several points. Regarding the first point, the perspective of the staff, it is difficult for the staff to express their opinions, and I think it is very grateful that they can speak for us and support us. In the figure on page 3 of the document, we also have an editor at the lower left of the figure on page 6, including the editor and the examiner. We also have a check function at the upper left. We would like to consider how we can support them.

Second, you pointed out that there is actually discipline in the operation of notifications and circulars. As you said, I believe there is a Issue where it has been quite difficult to see the data. On page 13, I wrote about the future vision, but I believe that when peripheral information such as notifications and circulars, which had been difficult to see as data, can be seen here, for example, it will be possible to see the status of review, what technologies are used in the operation, and whether they are updated.

As you mentioned earlier, rather than waiting for Phase 1 and then Phase 2, we would like to quickly create a mechanism to collect data, including surrounding information, as is done in Phase 2. Once we are able to collect such information, we believe that we will be able to review the operation, including notifications and notifications. Therefore, we would like to create an environment in which we can start from where we can and advance proactive efforts.

That's all.

Ochiai Working Group Member: Thank you, Thank you very much. I would appreciate it if you could proceed in that way.

In terms of details, there were some articles that were written as article-by-article explanations in the collection. In particular, in the process of the revision, I think it is useful to understand how the reports of the related councils and the Interim Report were made in relation to the law. This is not a mechanical examination, but rather an advantage for readers, general users, and examiners, but I think it is useful if it is in a form that can be quickly drawn. I think it will be endless if you link even very detailed materials, but I think it would be good if you could see the reports and summaries of the councils that are directly related to the revision together.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): .

We are on the side of the officials to a great extent. For example, when we review laws or revise ministerial ordinances, we refer to a lot of past articles and articles such as the Council's Report, so I believe you are right. What you pointed out is probably listed in the lower right corner of page 14, and I believe you have also referred to that. When such information is collected, I believe there is considerable merit in using it within the administration, not just referring to it externally, so I would like to make efforts so that such information can be properly used from the perspective of efficiency for policy formulation.

That's all.

Ochiai Working Group Member: Thank you, .

Secretariat (Nakano): Senior Vice-Minister .

Then, Mr. Yoneda, please go ahead.

Yoneda Member: Thank you for giving me another chance.

As Professor Ochiai has just mentioned, on-site stories are also very important. In addition, I would like to make a comment because I tend to forget about them. So far, I have focused on stories close to the database for editing on page 6. What is particularly worrisome to me is that in the end, it is important for people who use this database, at least government officials, to properly use the database for editing and to efficiently insert law information into the main database. In addition, they must be able to properly refer to the information they have disclosed and to the feedback they have received.

We need to work humbly to provide something that is easy to do and to have people use it, but there is no point in not doing so. We need to make this widely known, and in the practical part of the future, we need to create a specific picture of what practices will be included in the legislative work and the work of the law system. Within this, we need to create a solid image of how to use law and other sites that have been made public, and publicize it, and at least we need to present a picture of the goal in the process of creating all law, including the creation of a notification.

Right now, we are working hard to draw a picture of the system in terms of how to create the actual system, but I thought it would be necessary to work on improving the predictability of what kind of practices will be required from now on for those who will specifically use it, so I made a comment. It is a matter of how to create the image, not the content of the discussion, but I think this is a very important part in realizing the direction we are discussing here.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yamauchi): Thank you for your very valuable opinions.

As we proceed with our discussions, for example, if there is something that we seem to have forgotten about in the comments by the staff earlier, we can proceed so that we do not forget about it by receiving such comments, so I think it is a very grateful point.

As you said, the original purpose cannot be achieved unless it is thoroughly used by those who are in charge of editing law. Therefore, you proposed that the specific pictures be made known to the public and that their predictability be enhanced. I believe that is exactly what you said.

In the future, for example, we will advance initiatives such as POC, surveys, and development, but in such situations, we would like to create a mechanism to create and design products that are easy to use together, rather than just sharing them, so in such a way, we would like to create design so that the working environment of our employees is sound.

That's all.

Yoneda Member: Now, we are in an environment where we have to learn various new ways such as reskilling of work, so it is very important to increase such predictability. Since I am in university, I think that the picture will be very useful in providing what kind of work we will do in the future in education.

That's all. Thank you.

Secretariat (Nakano): Senior Vice-Minister .

Does anyone else have any questions or comments? Is that okay?

Thank you very much for your very active discussion today. I explained in advance and received many points that we were not aware of, but I would like to thank you very much for your extremely valuable points from each point of view today.

Finally, I would like to ask Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Okushi, who is the chairman of this study team, to give a closing address. Senior Vice-Minister, nice to meet you.

Senior Vice-Minister Okushi: My name is Okushi, and I am Senior Vice-Minister Digital. Thank you very much for your active discussions today.

Today, Gyousei Co., Ltd., which has been requesting a survey on digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries, presented a survey and research on precedent cases on digitalization of legal affairs in foreign countries, which was very well received by everyone.

In addition, including the comments on the method of disclosure and the direction of advanced utilization of law, etc. explained by the Secretariat, the members gave us very valuable suggestions for the future digitalization of legal affairs. Thank you very much.

In considering the digitalization of legal affairs, it is necessary to consider so that the benefits will spread not only within the administration but also to society as a whole, including the people and business operators. Therefore, we would appreciate if you could continue to provide guidance to those who have a wide range of specialized fields.

Once again, thank you very much for your time today.

Secretariat (Nakano): Senior Vice-Minister , thank you very much.

That's all for today's agenda. If there are no objections, we will prepare the minutes of today's meeting, and after everyone has checked them, we will make them public. All materials will also be made public.

That concludes today's meeting. Thank you very much for joining us today.