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 Legal System Working Group (3rd) of the Digital Related System Reform Study Meeting

Overview

  • Date and time: April 18, 2024 (Wed) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Survey and demonstration projects on the Development and Utilization of digitalization and law Data for Legal Affairs
      2. Results of the law × Digital Workshop
      3. Fiscal 2024 Project on Legal Affairs digitalization, etc.
      4. Questions and Answers and Exchange of
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Related Meetings

Relevant policies

Minutes

Secretariat (Nakano): , it is time to open the third "Digital Legislation Working Group."

I am Nakano from Digital Agency. I will be your coordinator. I look forward to working with you again this fiscal year.

Members are also participating online today.

Next, before we begin the proceedings, Mr. Tomiyasu from Digital Agency, who is serving as the chief investigator of this working group, will give an address. Mr. Tomiyasu, Director-General, nice to meet you.

Director-General Tomiyasu: I am Tomiyasu from Digital Agency, . Please continue to support the Digital Legal Working Group this year.

Today, I would like to report on the survey and demonstration on the development and utilization of digitalization and law data of legal affairs conducted last year. The survey and demonstration will include various contents such as business analysis of legal affairs, prototyping and user testing of legal affairs editor, expansion of law data disclosure function, and survey and research on the present state and future of digital legislation. demonstration projects.

In addition, I would like to explain the results of the law and Digital Workshop held on the 8th of last month, as well as the development, investigation, and demonstration scheduled for this fiscal year.

Based on the Issue of legal affairs, desired editor functions, and technical Issue revealed through the survey and demonstration last year, we would like to finally conduct development for a new legal affairs system this fiscal year. So, I would like to hear your frank opinions today. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Nakano): .

Today's proceedings are as projected on the screen.

In addition, I would like to ask for your understanding in advance that I may videotape today's meeting to prepare the minutes.

Then, I would like to move on to agenda 1. Regarding the "Survey on the Development and Utilization of digitalization and law Database for Legal Affairs and demonstration projects," I would like to have a report from Daiichi Hoki Co., Ltd. and FRAIM Co., Ltd. in about 35 minutes.

Thank you very much.

Daiichi Horitsu Co., Ltd. (Mr. Umemaki): Thank you very much. My name is Umemaki of Daiichi Horitsu. Nice to meet you.

Thank you very much for setting up such a place today. First of all, I would like to explain about the analysis of legal affairs on page 5.

On page 6, we conducted a business analysis of legal affairs on the following two points. The first was a survey and analysis of the current workflow and ministries and agencies based on the Issue hearings. We conducted hearings from people with experience in legal affairs in ministries and agencies to tell us the status of the inefficiency and burden of the current affairs. The subjects of the hearings are the people from the five ministries and agencies shown.

The second is the survey and analysis of stakeholders. We regard the organizations involved in the processes from policy formulation to the passage of bills as stakeholders, and we asked for the opinions of each organization on the digitalization of legislative affairs. The subjects of the hearing were the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the Office of the Cabinet Secretary, the Legislative Bureau of the House of Representatives, and the Legislative Bureau of the House of Councilors.

Moving to page 7, as I reported at the first Working Group Meeting in October last year, this is a business flow diagram that reflects the working methods and tools used that were grasped through the ministries and agencies Hearings, from the consideration of the partial revision bill by the planning department to the submission to the National Assembly.

From page 8, we have listed the following five analyses of ministries and agencies in the current legal affairs that we have grasped through hearings in Issue.

First of all, regarding the first point you see, it is the confirmation of the consistency of the documents related to the revision by manual labor. It has been pointed out that there are cases where the revised text needs to be revised due to a change in the new / old comparison table being created, and it is necessary to manually revise both the new / old comparison table and the revised text, and in addition, confirmation work such as visual inspection is required to ensure the consistency of both, which leads to an increase in the burden on the operator.

Please move to page 9. The second is the confirmation of the Hane Amendment by visual inspection. It has been pointed out that the Hane Amendment is usually confirmed using functions such as e-LAWS, but it takes time to confirm the existence of the Hane Amendment because there is a Issue that the parts cited in the same provision and the parts such as "the preceding Article" and "the preceding two paragraphs" in the law are not output.

Please move to page 10. The third is the identification of the launch pad. It was pointed out that in the case of preparing a draft amendment in consideration of an amendment that has not yet come into effect, which is scheduled for the amended Act, it is burdensome to identify which version of the integration destination will be amended, and this may cause an error.

Please see page 11. The fourth is to confirm the examples. The topic of example search is often mentioned in hearings, and it is known to be of high importance in legal affairs. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the operation of the tool for example search and the search conditions themselves depend on the skill and experience of the planner, and it may take a long time to find an appropriate example.

It is page 12. The fifth item at the end is to check the use of terminology, the law number of the law to be cited, typos, typography, etc. You have pointed out that you expect support from digital technology for the use of appropriate terminology and the regular checking of expressions using typography.

From page 13, I will summarize the results of the analysis of the stakeholder survey that I introduced earlier. First, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which examines drafts of bills submitted by the Cabinet and draft cabinet orders, said that the work of checking the format of a huge amount of materials is a burden in the work of checking each material in visual inspection. From the perspective of digitalization, we have received opinions that there are expectations for a system that supplements inspection even if errors cannot be pointed out broadly, and that the burden of creating articles may be reduced by utilizing generative AI at the time of article culture.

In addition, the Office of the Cabinet Secretary for General Affairs, the Legislative Bureau of the House of Representatives, and the Legislative Bureau of the House of Councilors said that there is not much difference in the process of legislative work between the Cabinet Act and the Diet Act. In addition, you pointed out that digital technology is not particularly used as an error prevention measure. The Legislative Bureau of the House of Representatives said that it would like to continue to revise the law by the written method.

It is page 14. Here is an overview of business analysis related to other legal affairs. The first one is in the first row. It is a survey and analysis of problem cases such as errors in past law proposals. Regarding past error cases related to the law proposal, we have been considering proposals for editor functions to prevent law errors and improvement of business flow.

In the second row, we conducted a desktop simulation of the business efficiency using the new editor system based on the actual partially revised law.

In the third row, we examined measures to realize the Digital Legal Roadmap and respond to data and information needs related to law.

With regard to the fourth point, we have heard from officials of ministries and agencies who have actual experience in drafting notifications.

With regard to the fifth point, the actual situation of regulation planning, we conducted a survey and analyzed the situation for each prefecture, city, and town.

That's all from the business analysis.

Thank you for your continued support.

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano FRAIM. Nice to meet you. I would like to talk about the prototyping user testing of the Legal Affairs Editor.

Please turn to the next page. First, in this project, based on the results of the business analysis of legal affairs that you talked about earlier, we examined the functional requirements that should be provided as an editor system, and created an editor prototype. In addition, we conducted user testing using the prototype a total of three times, and obtained evaluation and feedback on the function of the editor prototype, the effectiveness of the error prevention function, and the operability. The image below is an editor prototype actually created in the project for reference.

Please take a look at the next page. I would like to give an overview of the functionality of the specific prototype. First, as a base, we provide an editing experience in which you can directly edit the text of the revised law in an invisible form. In addition, based on the invisible result of the actual editing, it is possible to automatically generate a revised text and a new / old comparison table on the system. The revised text is automatically generated on the right pane side of the screen in real time. In addition, by editing the automatically generated revised text, the edited content and the invisible content of the revised law are automatically reflected. Both ways are realized.

In addition, it is possible to output files in PDF and RTF formats of the revised law, so-called draft, and the new and old comparison tables. What you see below is an example of the actual screen.

Please take me to the next page. It is page 18. I would like to give you an overview of the consistency check function installed in the editor prototype. The main purpose of the function is to prevent errors. First, the function automatically checks the range of articles such as chapters and sections of the table of contents and the system of law structure. In addition, it can check official texts and scripts such as kana.

In addition, it will be possible to automatically check the citation relationship in the law and the impact on the other law, such as the necessity of a line revision in which the other law must be revised together when a deviation occurs.

The lower screen shows the actual results of the consistency check, and the lower right screen shows a list of the results of automatic identification of the impact on other law in the form of the check of the Hane Amendment.

Please move on to page 19. This is the last explanation of the function, but it is an outline of the function to confirm the content of the amendments that have not yet been implemented. In short, the purpose is to prevent revision errors from occurring, such as the future unimplemented law not being integrated by the proposed revision. While editing the provision to be revised, if there is a state in which the revision is floating in the future with respect to the testing that is actually edited, or if there is a revision that has not yet reached the date of implementation, the content of the revision is automatically displayed. By doing so, it is possible to confirm whether the future will not be integrated correctly depending on the results of your editing. In this way, we actually created a prototype and implemented a user revision.

Please turn to the next page. In this way, we conducted user testing using a prototype with various functions. I would like to briefly introduce the results. First, I would like to introduce four main functions that were confirmed to have business improvement effects and error prevention effects in actual user testing.

The first is the function to automatically generate a revised text and a new / old comparison table reflecting the contents of the revision being planned. As a result of the actual implementation of user testing, feedback has been obtained that this is effective in restoring the work cost of creating materials.

Second, it is an automatic output function that outputs the revised text reflecting the contents of the revision under planning and the word file of the new and old comparison table. Regarding this, for example, even if there is a work that is difficult to complete on the system, if the word file can be output, it may be possible to quickly and flexibly work from there. We have received feedback.

The third is the function of confirming the law structure system, etc., the automatic detection function of the Hane Amendment, and the function of displaying the content of the amendments that have not yet been implemented in the articles that are being drafted, as I briefly explained on the screen earlier. These are areas where there are many errors, or important areas where checks must be made so as not to make errors, so we have received feedback that this will lead to the efficiency of self-check work and the prevention of errors.

Fourth, the prototype I mentioned earlier has a UI that can be operated entirely on a web browser, and it has a function that can centrally manage the data under planning for the revised law and the revised law on the cloud. It has been evaluated that it can be shared by multiple people and that it can prevent the data under planning from being degraded. It has been said that if you edit it in a local file at hand, there will be conflicts and de-grees when you merge it, so cloud computing will be effective as a solution to this. This is also said by Issue.

Regarding these contents, we believe that it is desirable to conduct implementation for actual development and continue detailed technical validation from the next fiscal year onwards.

Then, I would like to ask you to do the following. I will continue to talk about this, but I have just given feedback on the results of user testing to the editor of the Legal Affairs Office. We are also doing more advanced technology validation. Among them, I would like to pick up and introduce only two.

First of all, the support function on the system related to the revision by the N-stage rocket method was examined in detail, but when we conducted interviews with users, we found that there was no strong need for system support specialized for the revision work of the N-stage rocket. For this reason, the priority of aiming for implementation of this function is low, and the view is that development of the support function corresponding to the work of the basic Partial Revision Act should be prioritized.

Please move to the next page. Page 23 is about the support function on the system for the partial revision of the Partial Revision Act. It is also in a state where it has not been passed to User testing as a prototype, and it has been examined as a Technical validation. First, for the implementation of the function, it is the view that it has been confirmed that the technical hurdles are high because it requires a technology to automatically generate the final text after merging for each pattern in order of multiple enforcement dates that needs to be created along with the partial revision of the Partial Revision Act, a technology to accurately and automatically merge the revised text, a technology to merge the revised text of the partial revision that has been revised by the partial revision of the partial revision, and a detailed design of the data management method of the revised text, and it has been revealed that development is not easy, including the size of development. Based on this, I would like to write my view that the support function for the basic work on the Partial Revision Act should be prioritized for development.

So far, we have reported the results of user testing and technical validation in the editor part.

I would like to continue with this part, this time on the design and prototyping of architectural data structures.

This is the first part of the discussion on architecture and data structures. As stated in the title, we are considering version management in consideration of pending implementation dates. The reason for such attention is that if the correctness of the old text in the new / old comparison table is wrong, it will directly lead to a law error. Therefore, we are working on the purpose of correct text management. For this reason, we are considering the order of the pending implementation dates, considering the way of holding law data and the mechanism of version management, and conducting design.

Please take a look at the next page. On the right side, it is shown as an image of the class, but it will be a little detailed, so I will omit the explanation here. First of all, what kind of data structures were investigated and examined. Although it overlaps with the previous explanation, we are considering data structures for version management of law data in consideration of the pending enforcement date. In addition to the revision provisions, it is assumed that the order of enforcement considered at the time of drafting the revised law will be managed as data.

In addition, regarding the architecture part, since it is assumed that ministries and agencies edit data and cooperate with each other, the mechanism and workflow for data synchronization are organized. In addition, for the purpose of consistently aggregating data edited asynchronously and distributedly by ministries and agencies, the mechanism of "Git", which is widely used for distributed management of source code in software development, was applied.

Please show me the next page 27. Here, I simulated the version management considering the actual undecided enforcement date, and I would like to talk about the results and the continued Issue.

First of all, it became clear from this simulation that we were able to explicitly manage the data based on the order of the date of enforcement, which has the possibility of multiple replacements.

On the other hand, there are several patterns in terms of who will ultimately manage the order of the date of enforcement, but the point that requires consideration and Issue in terms of workflow in terms of management is also clear.

In addition, in the case that there are multiple amendments that have not yet been implemented, it is necessary to create the post-integration text of each revision in the middle stage, in other words, in the case that there are multiple pending amendments and they are replaced, what kind of post-integration text will be used in each place, in order to immediately disclose the post-integration text. However, we are not considering the automatic creation of the text from this perspective, but we are conducting design from the perspective of whether we can manage the manual creation, so I think it will be useful to consider the support mechanism for the automatic creation in the future.

Next, I would like to talk about the use of Git. This time, data management was performed on Git. In order to manage data on Git, various information is managed in text files, XML files, and the like, but metadata is also managed as text files. Although this is expected from the beginning, when searching or retrieving data by associating files, it is not possible to retrieve data by using only SQL. Therefore, implementation is required for this part. In such a case, the efficiency of development and the Issue of maintenance are caused by file management. Therefore, in the actual implementation phase, it is necessary to consider a more maintainable data management method.

Regarding the continued Issue, I would like to make it simple, but first of all, it is necessary to automatically check whether the old text in the new / old comparison table is consistent with the merged text of the revision target, and to support the management of the enforcement date. I believe that the management mechanism and workflow need to be examined.

In addition, regarding the scenario for the revision simulated this time, comparing the scale of work that will actually be carried out simultaneously by all ministries and agencies, it will be limited, so I believe that validation on the actual scale of work will be necessary.

Please turn to the next page. Up to this point, we have been working on architecture and version management. At the end, I have also worked on design, a data structure such as law, so I would like to finish my part by briefly introducing only that.

First of all, for the purpose of improving the machine-readability of the current e-Gov law search and the law database handled by e-LAWS, we are conducting a design of figures and formats currently handled in images and a design for provision IDs, while referring to cases in other countries. In addition, as I will explain in detail on the next page, we are also conducting a specific data design for notifications for which a unified database does not exist. In addition, we are conducting a survey on the degree of disclosure and reliability of the e-Gov law search.

This is an outline of the design of the notification. I will omit the details due to the time limitation, but first, we actually investigated, analyzed, and patterned the number of data described here. Then, we made a design of the response to the notification in the form of a schema extension to the law standard XML. In addition, based on the fact that the current law standard XML is compatible with Akoma Ntoso, we made a design of maintaining compatibility with Akoma Ntoso even after the schema extension. Since we did not make a trial for all the notifications, we believe that it is necessary to continue to conduct investigations for the notification, and to make a trial for the editing method of the notification XML, the data connections method, and the data management method.

That's all for the data part.

Daiichi Hoki Co., Ltd. (Mr. Tanji): Next, I will explain about the disclosure function of law Data from Tanji.

On the next page, we will discuss the law Data Disclosure Function. This is a general directional talk. The first purpose is to conduct design and study with data users. The second purpose is to let many people know about the existence of the law Data Disclosure Function and the current efforts. In addition, I would like to omit reading out the current services because everyone knows them, but the purpose of this project was to promote consideration with the aim of providing functions equal to or greater than those of these current services. In addition, although it is in the United States and India, this project used e-LAWS data snaps as of August 2, 2023.

Please go to the next page. Next, I would like to explain the prototype. First of all, the law API prototype. In this prototype, the functions have been extended from the current law API version 1 as follows, and I would like to list seven. I would like to introduce some examples. First, we have realized the search and acquisition of law data for the past by specifying a point in time. In addition, we have provided a second keyword search API that realizes a search that is unprecedented. Third and fourth, we have significantly improved the user experience and provision by using Open API. Fifth, we have tried to support JSON in addition to XML as a response format. Last, I would like to refer to U.S. Seal. We have advanced this development based on user needs based on a needs survey.

Please go to the next page. Next is the law API Prototype Usage Sample. Even if only the API was provided, users would not be able to catch up with it. Therefore, we actually used the law API prototype and prototyped the sample web application at the same time as the reference design. Of course, we provided the sample with the testing API prototype at User development and the law Trial Event. We also provided the source code to users and showed them how to use the API.

In addition, while development is using Open API, a software development kit called SDK, which is very useful for using API, was automatically generated and development was performed. This law API prototype usage sample was also efficiently development, and Issue extraction and improvement were achieved by actually combining with API, which is a very efficient development, I think.

Please take a look at the next page. For your reference, I will write an explanation of Open API, which I have been talking about. It is a little difficult to introduce everything, so I will omit it. There is a screen UI at the bottom of the screen. This time, there is a function called Try it out, which allows you to actually try and run the API from the web screen. As far as I heard the results of the questionnaire and the voices of the users, it was very easy to get familiar with it, and I had the impression that many people wanted to use it.

Please take a look at the next page. Next, I would like to explain our activities. There are three introductions. The first is User law, which is related to the disclosure function of testing and other data. We are implementing User testing, which allows users to actually touch the two prototypes I introduced earlier, APIs and usage samples. User testing is implemented in two stages, first a closed testing and a public testing. In particular, as described in the description, the closed testing is described as cooperating parties such as legal tech-related companies, law firms, and researchers. We have selected the so-called main users of law data and requested their cooperation. Through such User testing, we received reports of defects in the explanatory text of the API specifications and bugs in the prototype, particularly at the closed testing stage. I believe that it was very useful to improve the quality of the prototype for the public testing.

In addition, we have received various opinions in this POC, and since we are not able to comprehensively respond to Issue, we would be grateful if you could continue to promote law toward the expansion of the functions of development API, which we aim to achieve in fiscal 2024.

Please turn to the next page. The second point is that we held a law trial event called the development API Hackathon. I would like to omit the details, but I would like to once again thank the members of this working group for their cooperation as judges. Thank you very much.

Then, please take a look at the next page. Let me briefly introduce the API Hackathon Report. I think it was an event that achieved both the promotion with data users and the public relations purpose. We provided a prototype that was actually made, and the participants made a service using it. What is written in the middle row is an introduction of the award-winning works transcribed into Japanese. I will not read it aloud, but the works were really completed by all the teams, and we were able to glimpse various extracts of law in the use cases API prototype of this POC. I received the impression that the satisfaction level was high.

In addition, I would like to report that the specifications of the API prototype were provided by the Swagger UI of Open API, which I introduced earlier, and that the law API prototype usage sample and its source code were provided, which were highly praised by the participants from SNS and the questionnaire of this event. In addition, it seems that there are requests for holding the hackathon again next time, so please continue to consider it in the future.

In any case, I believe that holding a hackathon event has proven to be extremely beneficial.

Next, please. Third and last, we held another event, a workshop and seminar-style event called law × Digital Workshop. I think Digital Agency will explain this in today's Agenda 2, so I would like to omit it here.

That's all for the disclosure function.

Dai-ichi Hoki Co., Ltd. (Mr. Muraki): Thank you, Next, Mr. Muraki of Daiichi Horitsu will report on the survey and research on the current status and future of digital legislation.

Regarding this survey, we have been conducting an attempt to refine the Digital Legal Roadmap, which has been under consideration since the time of the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group, the predecessor of the Digital Legal Working Group. The digital legal roadmap shown on page 42 of the document starts with phase 0, shows the technologies and knowledge to be provided in each phase, and shows the policy that by collecting them, we can move on to the next phase. We will start by investigating cases of digital legislation and data utilization in Japan and overseas to determine whether such a roadmap is feasible and what impact it will have on society if it is realized, and then we will compile a report on the results of our analysis from technical and legal perspectives with the cooperation of experts.

Please take a look at the next page. First of all, from a technical perspective, while the feasibility of Phases 1 and 2 can be seen at this point, the difficulty of Phases 3, 4, and 5 can be seen in comparison. I have summarized these contents in this document. As stated at the bottom of this document, I believe that as the phases advance, the possibilities for data analysis and technology development using knowledge in specialized fields such as natural language processing will expand. In addition, for that purpose, we have reached the view that it is important to identify fields that can be promoted to the next phase.

Please turn to the next page. Next, from a legal perspective, we asked our collaborators who are familiar with the Constitution and administrative laws to participate in the analysis. As law data is accumulated and utilization is promoted, there is a possibility that society will advance to a situation where not only information provision but also legal interpretation can be performed. In this case, assuming the dynamic nature of law interpretation, we have reached the view that it is important to promote the roadmap in actual operation and technical progress under the mutual relationship with users who can use the system.

In addition to the survey on the road map described above, we conducted interviews with the five legal tech companies shown on the next page to investigate the needs and expectations of each legal tech company in the event that such technological progress is actually made. I will omit the details of the results of the interviews, but I heard that the initiatives and services shown in the materials have already been implemented. After this, I received comments that expressed expectations that law companies would be able to make such efforts if private sector and other related data became easy to use. On page 46, I have picked up on what I would like to do, but due to time constraints, I will omit them here.

Please take a look at the next page. On pages 47 and 48 of the material, at the end of this material, examples of initiatives related to digital legislation and data utilization in foreign countries are shown. As I mentioned at the beginning, as the first trigger of this survey, we conducted a wide range of searches and surveys on digital legislation and data utilization in Japan and overseas. After that, additional surveys were conducted on several representative countries on page 47.

In addition to these, in the main body of the report, we are introducing our efforts in Denmark and our research on digital legislation at universities in Northern Europe, with the cooperation of graduate students who have experience as visiting researchers at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

That's all I have to report. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

Regarding agenda 1, I would like to set aside about 45 minutes for Q & A and an exchange of views, until around 4:25 p.m. If you have any questions or comments, please raise your hand.

Then, Mr. Yasuno, please start.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, 's presentation. It was very well organized and I understood it well.

In addition, I would like to ask some questions. First, in relation to the fact that I actually made a user testing of the editor and obtained feedback, I would like to ask about the feeling of the parts that were not listed in the material. I think it would be good because the resolution would be improved. However, I would like to ask if the people who actually used the editor wanted to use it tomorrow if there was such an editor, or if not, if I went to such a place, I would like to use it. I would like to ask if there were any conversations or feelings.

The second comment is that there are already data systems that support legislation overseas in Denmark, the EU, and Germany-and I thought that would be quite useful at the data structure level. Therefore, if there is a chance in the future, I would like to hear about the data structure and its contents, and since it is an operating system, I think it is highly likely that we have already hit a Issue that we will hit in the future. In particular, it is difficult to go back on the data structure, so I thought that it would be good to hear about it.

First of all, those two.

Secretariat (Nakano): .

In that case, first of all, Mr. Daiichi Hoki and Mr. FRAIM, could you please give us your comments on the questions and opinions of the current Yasuno members?

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano , we will answer from Miyasaka of FRAIM in the editor part.

I think it was a story about how the actual user testing felt, but there were opinions that differed depending on the person. Many young people said that they would like to use it as soon as it is systematized. They are not so tied to the existing method, and it is rather difficult to learn to edit by Ichitaro Yamazaki under the current situation, so it is very good that it can be completed by the system without that. And the fact that the revised sentence is automatically generated is very good, even if it does not mean that the visual check is completely unnecessary. I have a very positive opinion.

On the other hand, if you have more business experience, the key point is whether you can complete the entire business through this system. For example, one of the big steps is the examination phase by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, and there are submissions required there, but the question is, for example, can I submit them as automatic output from this system? In a sense, if the rules of the business flow do not change, no matter how much the system is made, it will be necessary to insert a normal business flow such as making a new one in a perfect format, printing it again, and handing it over. Even if the efficiency is made in the middle of the process, if it is caught at a point in the middle of the process, the system cannot be used as a whole. How to break through this point, I felt as a sense of Issue that it is difficult to say that everything is okay because the system has been created unless we make improvements, including the establishment of rules and with related stakeholders.

This is largely based on the actual situation, but the expectations are quite high. We heard that various check functions automatically check consistency and other matters, and that it is usually difficult to detect the revision of the fuse. We also heard that we hope to be able to automate to this extent in the future. We also heard from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau that we have high expectations for automatic checks around the examination process. We actually received feedback on the expectations based on the content of the user testing.

If the answer is insufficient, it is that, but what do you think?

Yasuno Member: Thank you, . It was a very tangible answer and very helpful.

I think it is very interesting that there was a person who was concerned about, for example, whether it would be possible to output all the sets to be sent to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. In that sense, what did you point out about the point that seems to be critically difficult to actually introduce in the future?

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano , I think the most critical point is exactly the Cabinet Legislation Bureau examination. So, for example, there is a way of thinking that the system will be used to efficiency the work before that, and after that, it will be done as before. However, if we do not break through this at the end of the system, when the master data created in the system as a database is not a Ichitaro Yamazaki file but a law Display XML, the editing will be completed on the system to the end. It is important that the master exists in the system, but I think there was a lot of feedback that the current work does not match with that, and the biggest Issue was the Cabinet Legislation Bureau examination phase.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

This is a comment, but I think it is a very big suggestion that the interface of phased introduction can be divided, so I thought it was very good to know that.

I asked a further question in the first question, but I would like you to go to the second question.

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka) .

What should we do about the second point?

Dai-ichi Hoki Co., Ltd. (Mr. Muraki): Thank you, .

Regarding the second point you mentioned in your comment, I would like to tell you about the sensitivity we found in this survey. While investigating cases in other countries, I believe that Denmark, the EU, and Germany were investigated in detail even in the fiscal year prior to our survey. As you said in your comment, the more we analyze the systems that are ahead in each country, the more useful they are. We have mentioned this in our report.

However, in terms of data structures, our survey did not go so far as to include whether or not data from this country would be useful as a reference in terms of the data concept. As you commented, I think it would be good to consider whether or not data from this country would be useful as a reference for Japan, including the backgrounds of each country, before proceeding with hearings. I apologize for my impression, but I feel that way.

That's all.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

When you do system development at a startup, if you know the data structures of similar services in advance, you will know that you actually need such data at such a place in the future, so in many cases, you will want to check them as much as possible in advance. In that sense, I think it is good to do the parts that can be used as a reference.

That's all.

Secretariat (Nakano): , Mr. Miyasaka of FRAIM, and the people of Dai-ichi Hoki, thank you for your response.

I would like to add that the editor is as Mr. Miyasaka said, and I think it is similar to writing a program. In short, there are cases where so-called low-code tools are less efficient than writing code by yourself, so it is faster to write the text by yourself if you are a familiar staff member. I think there are some similarities in the world of law. On the other hand, as the name of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau was mentioned, there are cases where it is misunderstood that certain rules concerning legal affairs are decided by some organization, especially among employees who do not have much experience in legal affairs, but I think that each ministry and agency is doing it according to its own rules. In addition, I also actually print some of the conference materials today, but I think that there are a certain number of people who really want to see them on paper when reading the text. Is this a matter of familiarity? In the first place, I have seen a study that shows that what the brain recognizes is a little different between screens and paper. Is there such a problem? I have a feeling that it is quite difficult to do everything in digital completion right away. However, I would like to continue to consider this. I will also explain the data structure later, but I would like to continue to investigate it in this fiscal year's initiative. Thank you for your thought-provoking comments.

Next, Mr. Watanabe, please.

Watanabe Member: Thank you very much. Once again, I would like to ask for your continued support this fiscal year. I am Watabe, an attorney at Airbnb.

I have three large chunks, and after making comments in 1 and 2, if possible, I would be grateful if you could give your opinions to Mr. Digital Agency and Mr. Cabinet Legislation Bureau, who is participating today, in 3.

First of all, I think that these materials by Mr. Daiichi Hoki and Mr. FRAIM are very wonderful. I myself, due to my work, have been studying the Cabinet Legislation Bureau Materials very well through requests for disclosure of administrative documents. As stated in the survey by Mr. FRAIM and Mr. Daiichi Hoki, I think that the fact that Japan's laws are firmly consistent from corner to corner is probably the result of the invisible blood and sweat of not only those in charge of planning but also Mr. Cabinet Legislation Bureau who is here today, and I respect them very much.

My second question is, Mr. Nakano. If possible, could you please show me page 7?

Thank you very much. I believe page 7 of the slide is currently shown. One of the problems I mentioned earlier is that even if the editor works well, I will probably print out the materials I have prepared, put them in a cardboard box and bring them to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. Then, I will listen to the comments again, make a note of them, and return to my department to do the manual work. I think this tool will make it much easier for me to edit the materials. On the other hand, if the system does not work well with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which reviews the materials that have been actually corrected, which is a bigger burden, I think that one big pain point will be to copy the materials on paper and bring them back after listening to them.

The reason why I felt this is that, for example, at Airbnb, which is a foreign-owned company that I belong to, 10 to 20 lawyers from around the world work together on the cloud at the same time on one document to be submitted to the general counsel, and they complete their work quickly by checking the comments on the cloud. If this tool can also be used on one cloud for Cabinet Legislation Bureau reviews, comments on reviews, and responses to comments, I think it will be a very big key.

Now, the third question I would like to ask you, Mr. Digital Agency, is how you will utilize this tool in the way of working of the bureaucracy by development this fiscal year and in fiscal 2024. I would like to have your knowledge on this.

Also, Mr. Cabinet Legislation Bureau, I am sorry for my lack of study, but at present, it is not a matter of, for example, making comments on the same document online on the cloud. I think it is a somewhat analog process in which you take paper materials, scrutinize them, and tell them in the form of an interview, which may be a web interview, and reflect them again. If there are any errors, please let me know. It will be very helpful. Thank you.

Secretariat (Nakano): , thank you for your very valuable opinions.

If you don't mind, first of all, if there are any comments from FRAIM, I would like to respond to them. Finally, if there is anyone from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau who can make a statement, I would like to ask if there are any comments from FRAIM, I would like to ask if there are any comments from FRAIM, I would like to ask if there are any comments from FRAIM, I would like to ask if there are any comments from FRAIM, I would like to ask if there are any comments from FRAIM, I would like to ask if there are any comments from FRAIM

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano FRAIM. Thank you.

Our company actually operates a system that completes the process from document creation to review on the cloud. From that perspective, I would like to briefly talk about what we have learned by digging deeper into legal affairs in this project. If I were to speak about it, I would say that the ideal point is, as Mr. Watanabe says, the completion on the cloud is definitely an important point. Therefore, we would like to provide comments and feedback on the same system as development.

On the other hand, the examination work is extremely difficult, and I have heard about various difficulties even when I read through the documents. I myself do not know in detail how much the Cabinet Legislation Bureau is struggling, but I feel that it is probably extremely difficult considering that even the drafter is struggling to check and is making more accurate checks. However, the goodness of paper is actually there, and it may be a human ability that can be made more accurate because it is checked by placing the paper on the desk when checking. I think that such a perspective cannot be ignored. However, from the perspective of overall optimization, I think that it is a difficult point because we should aim for cloud completion. I do not yet have a clear answer to the question of what exactly should be done, but I would like to talk about my impression.

Secretariat (Nakano): .

Next, I would like to make a comment. This is rather from my experience as a person who is drafting bills in Digital Agency. First of all, as we are promoting in Digital Agency, there is a service called GSS (Government Solution Service), which is a foundation for national government employees to do their daily work. Among them, we are actually already working by sharing Word files on the cloud in the form of so-called SharePoint. In drafting law, at least among the employees, such work can be done in the process of preparing materials to be brought to the Legislative Bureau.

However, one issue here is, for example, whether online editors can express the same as Word, and that is deeply related to what kind of editor will be created in development this fiscal year. On the other hand, if I have a wrong understanding, I would like to ask the Legislative Bureau to correct it later. However, each ministry and agency is making a transition to GSS step by step, and I understand that the Legislative Bureau has not made a transition yet, so I believe that it is not yet possible to share Word files on the cloud.

In addition, I believe that this has changed considerably since I joined the Ministry, but I believe that it has become quite common for people to receive examinations while viewing documents sent online by e-mail, rather than bringing paper documents to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau every time they undergo an examination. I do not have any statistics, but my experience shows that they are doing so.

In addition, I think one thing that needs to be considered is that in the workflow, it says "until submission to the National Assembly," but in the end, the bill will be submitted to the National Assembly. If my understanding is wrong, I would like to ask the Cabinet Legislation Bureau to correct this. However, some bills are submitted on paper, so in the end, there is always a need to submit bills on paper somewhere in the current workflow, and I think we need to keep this in mind when making a development.

The above is not a direct response, but on top of that, how to cooperate with the system that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has on this system is exactly what Issue is advocating, and we would like to continue to work on this.

In addition, if there are any comments from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, please do so.

Cabinet Legislation Bureau (Kitamura): My name is Kitamura from Cabinet Legislation Bureau, .

I have a feeling that what Mr. Nakano of Digital Agency has just said is all, but I would like to reiterate that not all examinations are conducted by bringing paper into the country. In particular, I have heard that online examinations have increased significantly in recent years.

In addition, the final output will be on paper, which will be submitted to the Diet and approved by the Cabinet, so I understand that the final check will have to be made on paper.

That's all.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

Dr. Watanabe, can you please share with us your comments and answers?

Watanabe Member: . I could understand very well.

I would like to ask you one follow-up question. Regarding the so-called system integration that you mentioned earlier, for example, if there is any milestone that can be used as a standard, such as during twenty twenty-five, could you tell me about it? If it is still under consideration, that would be fine. Please tell me about it.

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

In conclusion, to be honest, I recognize that we are not in the position of considering dividing the period. First of all, the official gazettes Submission System is operated by the Printing Bureau, but we are still cooperating with it, and consideration is being made to continue to use the law XML format. However, regarding how to cooperate with the law Examination Support System of the Legislative Bureau, it is embarrassing to say that our system is not actually used so much in editing bills, so it is quite difficult to cooperate with what is not used. We are also planning to work on actual development and implementation from this fiscal year, and I think that basically national government employees will be the center, but first of all, we will focus on promoting a system that users think is convenient and want to use as soon as possible, but on the other hand, cooperation and integration with the law Examination Support System is listed as Issue, so it is quite difficult to cooperate with what is not used. In conclusion, the period has not been divided at present.

Watanabe Member: I understand. All priorities are trade-offs, so you are exactly right, and I don't feel strange about that policy, so I would like to continue to provide strong support. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We look forward to your continued support.

Then, Mr. Fujiwara, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting, but thank you in advance.

FUJIWARA Member: Hello, I'm Fujiwara. Nice to meet you.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I was listening to you thinking that it was really going in a good direction, thinking that it must have been very difficult to visit.

I have two relatively detailed questions. The first is, around pages 22 and 23, I think you talked about the functions that were removed as a result of the technical validation. I think it is very wonderful that such functions that are technically difficult or that the needs are not strong should be removed, but I just wanted to confirm how much it is. I don't understand what kind of work is necessary for the partial revision of the Partial Revision Act for N-stage rockets, etc., so I don't know much about it. I wanted to ask you what will happen if I remove this support function. In other words, it is a little inconvenient because there is no support function, but will the work be finished on the editor after all, or will I suddenly go to the world of Word or Ichitaro Yamazaki?

The other point is about data structures on page 28. I believe this has often been mentioned before, but there is a story that there are things that are not well understood because they are dealt with in the images. It says that design of machine-readable data is being conducted for this. In the end, is it possible to solve all the image problems, or is there something left to be solved? What is your sense of this?

These are the two points. Thank you.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

First law, Mr. FRAIM, how is it?

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano FRAIM. If you have any questions, please let me know.

First of all, I would like to talk about the degree of partial revision of the N-stage launch vehicle. If there is no such revision, what will happen at the time of the current prototype is that as a scope, it is possible to directly edit the revised law, so if you write such content there, it will be possible to realize it. However, to support this, it is possible to automatically generate and create a revised sentence from the invisible part, or if it is a partial revision of the Partial Revision Act, it is possible to display the Partial Revision Act on an editor and edit it, so it is possible to create a revised sentence of the Partial Revision Act without permission. Support functions such as shortcut functions have not been provided, so it is necessary to create them in analog.

However, I think it is possible to make an analog version on either the editor or the system depending on the design of the system. However, if a partial revision is made at that time, what was originally a merged article will be fixed by the partial revision, and the state will change. What should be done is that it may be possible to manually edit and register it on the system, but it may be possible to bring it to a state where there is no support for the automatic function to shortcut it. This is my first answer.

Next, with regard to machine-readable images, the main scope of this project is to convert images into text. Therefore, for example, by linking and managing text information of format data pasted as images as data, for example, full-text search can be performed in text. If there is such text information, similar searches can be performed by recent technologies such as natural language processing, so it can be used in such places or text analysis can be performed.

The other is that the mathematical formula is also pasted in the image, but this time, it is included as design to the extent that it can be reused by having a form that expresses the mathematical formula in text, which is called a lateef.

Therefore, what has been mainly solved is that the searchability is improved by having text, and the reusability is improved by having base text data before becoming images, which I think can be solved to a certain extent in design.

However, there is quite a bit of a limit to machine readability. For example, in terms of the scope that has not been completed yet, when you want to revise a part of the form, this time, it is not the law of a structured form data such as design Display XML. Therefore, by editing a part of the form to be revised with an editor, it is possible to automatically generate a revised sentence for the form. This is a further development, but I do not think it has gone so far. I think the scope of this project is to improve the ease of retrieval and the reusability of data.

Have you answered?

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

I think that the last point will also be considered after making it into a text for the time being, so I think it is fine. Thank you very much.

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano .

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

I would like to make a supplementary comment on this. One of the difficulties with the N-stage rockets and the partial revision of the Partial Revision Act that you pointed out at the beginning is that basically, we will draft the revised draft of law that has been promulgated, but the two stage rockets will be revised again after the revision that is being drafted has been incorporated, and the Partial Revision Act will also handle the Partial Revision Act before the partial revision has been incorporated. If the version of law that is the target of the revision, which is often called the launch pad, is wrong, the revised text itself may be wrong. In short, the Partial Revision Act has been promulgated, so it has been finalized, but when we are revising what we do not usually handle as so-called integrated data, there is actually no difference in the content of work if it is done by people, but when it is edited on the system, there is another issue of how to manage the law data to be edited. Technically, there is no difference in the difficulty from ordinary revisions if it is done by people, but there is a possibility that the difficulty of the system will be significantly increased. In addition, as Mr. Miyasaka said, for example, if the functions are to make the differences new and old, to make the differences on the integrated base new and old, or to spit out the revised text, I believe that this can be done by either the partial revision of the Partial Revision Act or the two stage rockets, so it is inevitable that all of them will be analog. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Next, Mr. Yagita, please.

Yagita Member: .

This slide deck is very comprehensive and easy to understand, so thank you very much for putting it together.

I would like to ask only two questions. One is technical. I would like to ask about Git on page 26 of Handout 1. After that, I would like to ask about the whole picture.

First of all, I would like to ask you about the confirmation of page 26 of Material 1. In the past, at the timing of the meeting about one or two meetings ago, it was said that it is very difficult to manage versions in consideration of the undecided enforcement date. In that meeting, I believe that there was a discussion on whether or not to adopt Git. Looking at the content you wrote on page 26 this time, I think it is in "(Reference)". I understand that it is written that whether or not Git can be used to manage well by adopting such a data structure. Therefore, I have received a proposal that it is generally okay to proceed with the use of Git in the future. I would like to ask you if that is correct.

Secretariat (Nakano): Should I answer with the first one?

Yagita Member: Please do so.

Secretariat (Nakano): Certainly.

First of all, Mr. FRAIM, Mr. Daiichi Hoki, what do you think?

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano . I would like to reply from Miyasaka of FRAIM.

First of all, I would like to say that I do not think that Git is the best thing for the final implementation of systemization, but as a result of various validation, I have reached the point at the moment.

This time, in terms of how Git was used, from the perspective that it can be integrated as a certified ETL and managed by distributing data to each ministry, this point has already been implementation with Git, and from the perspective that there is no need to development again, Git has been adopted and built.

In addition, with this data structure, it is possible to express it on Git, but within the scope of this simulation, it is validation that it is made of that. In that sense, from the perspective of whether or not it is feasible to use Git, I think that it is possible to say that it is feasible within the current scope.

On the other hand, it is difficult to say that Git is not the best, but I can at least say that it is not the best. For example, the benefits that can be obtained by adopting a database such as RDB or NoSQL are efficiency in system design and efficiency in data acquisition. Data processing is not necessarily completed just by retrieving a single file. Considering this, at least from the perspective of development man-hours and processing speed, it is not realistic for each process on the system to directly call and complete the process of a file managed on Git.

Therefore, in that case, while the main data is managed by Git, it is possible to have one layer above it, for example, RDB, which is optimal for processing, and in a sense, manage it as a single layer for high-speed processing. In terms of data management itself, design is quite abstract and has been broken down from a conceptual point, so design can be applied not to Git but to RDB as a conceptual level design. Therefore, I think it is possible to use RDB or a NoSQL database for data management from the beginning.

I answered as my current view.

Yagita Member: Thank you very much for your understanding.

I'm sorry, but the reason I ask this point every time is probably because you think that what can be realized by the thing you are trying to create, or the limit of expressibility, will be specified to a certain extent. Therefore, I think that how to select technology and how to design around this area is extremely important, so I asked you. Thank you very much.

I think it is a little time consuming, so I would like to ask you briefly about the second point. The second point is on page 20 of Material 1. I think this is a little close to what will happen if you remove this function, as Dr. Fujiwara said earlier. On page 20, for example, you said that the business improvement effect and the error prevention effect were confirmed. I would be happy if I could ask you about the sense of temperature or the weighting of how much improvement was observed in each important part of the whole.

In other words, for example, on page 7 of Handout 1, I believe that the entire operation is shown in a very easy-to-understand diagram. There are extremely difficult elements in each process. In other words, it takes a lot of man-hours, and there are various things that are prone to errors. I thought it would be very easy to understand if the prototype you made this time for POC could show the before and after of the parts such as whether the man-hours here, which are very important and require a lot of man-hours, were reduced by 90%, or whether the part where the error rate was very high was almost zero. Perhaps this will be a survey item for this fiscal year rather than last fiscal year, so I think there will be no particular problem with that. If there is anything about that at this point, I would like to ask you.

Secretariat (Nakano): If you don't mind, I would like to speak with you first.

I would like to go back to Professor Fujiwara's question earlier. In the case of the N-stage launch vehicle and the partial revision of the Partial Revision Act, which you proposed to be low-priority, to be honest, it is difficult to calculate the percentage, but when we look at the law statistics, we cannot say exactly what it is, but we are estimating that the number of occurrences is probably several percent. On the other hand, regarding the function that I wrote on page 20, for example, the function of automatically generating the first revised text and the new / old comparison table will cover the creation of the new / old comparison table and the draft of the main rule mentioned on page 7, which Professor Yagita pointed out, and in some cases, the draft of the supplementary provisions. The reason why I wrote the function of outputting word files, etc., is that if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, it cannot be handled, so if we do not use the editor from the beginning, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, we cannot handle it, so if we do not use the editor from the beginning, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, we cannot handle it, so if we do not use the editor from the beginning, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, we cannot handle it, so if we do not use the editor from the beginning, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, we cannot handle it, so if we do not use the editor from the beginning, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as I mentioned earlier, the system will not develop very much. For example, if there is a revision form that cannot be completed on the editor, as If you have any, thank you in advance. business improvement implementation

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano .

If I speak briefly from Miyasaka of FRAIM, I would like to say that the sense of implementation of user testing is quite different depending on users and ministries. It may be possible to look at the average of all users, but it is completely different. For example, there are many complicated revisions of tables, so it is very difficult to create a comparison table between the old and new tables. Some ministries are very pleased with the automatic detection of revisions. In fact, in our revision, the pattern is decided every year, and we know the target of the revision, so some ministries do not think about it so much in Issue. In other words, it may depend on the characteristics of the law to be revised, but depending on such characteristics, there may be a tendency in which business is particularly burdensome.

Therefore, it may be difficult to quantify all of them, but in the case of such a tendency, I feel that the first step is to classify them well in this way from the perspective of user testing.

If anyone has any follow-up.

Dai-ichi Hoki Co., Ltd. (Mr. Yoshida): In the uniform part that Mr. Tsunoda As is common to the discussion of Git earlier, since it is technically impossible to integrate 100% of the revised text, the revised law will be version-controlled by Git. However, if the special revised law, which cannot be automatically revised, is eliminated, the revised law can be technically made into a form close to 100%, or if the revised text method itself is eliminated as follows from the Ministerial Ordinance, it is not impossible to make it 100%.

So, is it going to be on the technology side? In the first place, it will be a harmful effect of such legislation, and there will be trade-offs in business operations up to now. We are not going to go into that much here. In that sense, it is about Git, or there will be talks about how it would be good if it were removed from the subject of hearings.

However, on the premise that the current revision method will be maintained, it is the existing business that testing is saying is comprehensive, so I was aware that there are quite a few trade-offs.

It was a slight supplement.

Yagita Member: .

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

Then, Mr. Tsunoda, please come next.

Tsunoda Member: Hello. Nice to meet you.

First of all, as you all said, I was very impressed with this report, and I read it as a very good report. In particular, I had an impression of sincerity and honesty. For example, in the description of the multistage rockets, which was discussed this time, you honestly wrote what you could and could not do. If I had to say anything, I would be even more pleased if there were more parts that could be quantitatively reported as Mr. Yagita said, but in the first place, there are qualitative aspects to the subject of this report, and I think that such parts may have been difficult to quantify at this point.

First of all, I would like to state that I am pleased with your report. When considering the future system, I do not want you to aim only for completeness. It is fine to aim for it as an ideal for the future. However, if something amazing is to be created every year or two to three years in the future, there are concerns that it will not be used in the end and that the analysis of the current situation will be sloppy. Therefore, I would like to ask you to continue to carefully analyze the current situation as you did this time.

In addition, I would like to talk about several things in the future, in the order in which I came up with them in this report. First of all, I have talked about the work of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau several times. The way of working on legislation differs considerably from ministry to ministry and from department to department, so I believe that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has taken this into consideration in its organization. Rather than standardizing it in the system, for example, it could be handled by each ministry and agency by attaching it externally in the form of a style sheet, or it could be attached and detached as an option as a function. Rather than unifying it, I think it would be good to build it based on the most common part. However, I strongly hope that you will not aim for too much completeness and that some departments will change the way of working.

From the perspective of reducing such unreasonable parts as much as possible, there may be an opinion that it is OK to impose some unreasonable parts because this series of activities is DX. However, for example, there is the law examination system that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has been using for a long time, and there is an opinion that it is not so strict in terms of cooperation with it, but it is not good to have the same system for the examiner and the recipient. If you want to unify the system, it is fine to be objective, such as adjusting the data format, but I also think that it is not necessary to unify the system too much, including the parts related to judgment and interpretation.

Next, you mentioned paper. In the ROK and other countries, electronic bills were submitted to the Diet more than 10 years ago, so I think there is such a digitalization. However, on the contrary, I think there are people who want to use paper when reviewing in the process of examination and creation. They may say that everything can be done digitally, but even many young people in their 20s, not many elderly people, say that it is easier to work if you print it out and check it, for example. At present, the advantages of working on paper are considerable, and it is good if virtual reality will develop greatly in the metaverse and so on, and you can use digital data as if you were working on paper. However, when working on monitors in today's poor digital environment, there is only one mouse, so you can use paper with both hands. Even so, I think it is still good to keep the convenience of paper in mind. These are the points I wanted to comment on after hearing today's talk.

Also, in the past, I had the opportunity to hear various stories from officials who prepare data for notifications. You mentioned mathematical formulas. There are ministries and agencies that use chemical formulas and other such notifications, and there are national organizations that issue such notifications. In such departments, there is something like standardization of notification data. Even if Digital Agency does not prepare a database from the beginning, if the standard of data format is shown, there are a certain number of people who are interested in such things in each department and are promoting database creation. If such people follow the standard, I thought that we will move toward unification in the future. Therefore, I thought that the proposal of the LaTeX format earlier was quite good. I think that the people who are drafting the notification may internally use the LaTeX format when writing the formula in the text of the notification.

Finally, there is one point. In the hearings from the professors of administrative law, they reported on the direction of legal interpretation, but I don't think it is necessary to discuss it in detail here because it is still in the future, but I would like to say it. First of all, when it comes to legal interpretation, there are three parties, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, and legal interpretation tends to be complex in this order. Once a law is enforced, the judicial side applies it to a variety of cases, so the diversity of interpretation becomes large and the legal interpretation becomes complex. On the other hand, the legislative body is relatively easy to interpret because it is made based on the assumption from the beginning of the intention of the legislator to induce the target who is trying to focus on the legal system in the first place. In addition, the executive government, which is mostly related to administrative laws, assumes that it will be sued, responds to it by operation, and considers various possible interpretations in detail on the ground, so the complexity is only in the middle of the three parties, but I feel a little reluctant to discuss the legal interpretation of the three parties with such aspects. Academically, it is tempting to think of a more general and universal theory, and in the field of law, legislative response is, so to speak, a secret move, and there is a tendency to aim to be able to use interpretation theory as much as possible. Therefore, based on legal interpretation theory, when IT and AI are introduced into legal interpretation in the future, there is a possibility that it will move toward the problem setting of the judiciary, and if so, it may suddenly face the difficulty of interpretation in the judiciary. Therefore, even if I touch on the interpretation problem, I thought that I would like it to be done from the legislative side at first.

It's a bit long, but that's all my comments.

Secretariat (Nakano): , thank you very much for your very diverse and extremely important comments. We will take all of them seriously.

Dear FRAIM, First Law, if you have any comments, please let me know quickly.

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano .

The point you just mentioned is that there are many very important points, and it is easy to make mistakes. When systematization is done, perfection is required, and unification is required too much, so it cannot be used. On the contrary, I think you mentioned an important point. Thank you very much.

Dai-ichi Hoki Co., Ltd. (Mr. Yoshida): In the uniform part that Mr. Tsunoda just gave me advice, is it OK to use one method for system check? This was a topic of conversation several times in this project. If the creator and the checker check the same thing with the same logic, all of them will be missed if the system is wrong. Therefore, if the checker checks the same logic, for example, the logic of the system that makes the fuse revision is the same, there was a debate about whether mistakes would be made in the end or whether system bugs would be the result as they are, but the fact is that there was a lot of chasing with one logic.

To be honest, I would like to tell you that there has been some discussion about the uniformity, but we have not been able to do it.

Tsunoda Member: I am very relieved by your very sincere response. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

Mr. Yoneda, how are you?

Mr. Yoneda: There seems to be no other speaker than .

I am glad that we had a very productive discussion because you have said a lot. As Mr. Tsunoda said, the content of the report clearly shows the intention to clearly show what can and cannot be done, so I believe that you have provided us with reference or important information when moving on to the next step.

What is now becoming Issue is to show how far each result has been achieved. In that regard, I thought it would be good if the resolution could be improved a little more. I think it has become clear that a new line will be drawn between what can be done digitally and what must be done manually for the people who actually use it. I think it will be the next Issue to clarify that. I would like to confirm whether this recognition is correct.

Secretariat (Nakano): .

First of all, is there anything at FRAIM?

FRAIM Co., Ltd. (Mr. Miyasaka): Thank you, Mr. Nakano .

I would like to answer from Miyasaka of FRAIM, who was mainly working on the editor part. I think you are right. In conclusion, it is exactly like that. However, everything will not be digital from the beginning, and everything will not be perfect on the system. I think the point is how to conduct conventional business through the transition phase. So, I think it is as you said. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yoneda: There seems to be no other speaker than I think the most important point is how specific you can show that when spreading the system itself or making a manual, so I think it is necessary to focus on that and provide information at some stage or at the stage of implementation.

That's all.

Secretariat (Nakano): .

Exactly as Dr. Yoneda said, we have built a prototype this time. I am keenly aware that the more we try to incorporate various functions and the more we try to respond to various use cases, the more complex it will be. I believe that there are idealism and ideal images for the final form of the system, but I believe that where to start and where to leave human hands will be the key to development in the future. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Then, I am sorry that I do not have enough time, but I would like the secretariat to explain the remaining two agenda items in about five minutes in total, and after that, I would like to receive your questions and opinions in a little more than 10 minutes.

Thank you very much.

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

I would like to report on the results of the law × Digital Workshop held last month. The materials and atmosphere are also available on the Digital Agency website, . In addition, there are some materials to be announced and prepared. Please take a look at them for details.

This is an overview. It is held as an event in which you can learn about the mechanism of law and law API. In terms of background, participants of the law API Hackathon said that basic information for engineers about law Documents and law Database has not been disclosed. I think this information is necessary for development using law Database and law API, so it was held as an opportunity to provide information about such basic law mechanism and the actual situation of legal affairs. It was a hybrid of a face-to-face venue and an online venue, and a total of more than 200 participants, including engineers, legal professionals, legal tech professionals, and researchers, participated.

The individual contents of the program are on the following pages. In the first part, I introduced law × Digital's efforts. This is a publication. In Part 2, we held a panel discussion to introduce the actual situation of legal affairs. Using the actual legal affairs documents shown on the right, I explained that this is where we are in trouble. In Part 3 and later, we explained how law works, including law data and how to use law APIs. We performed a demonstration of development using sample code, and at the end, we held a workshop in which participants actually did development using the law API prototype and the law API currently provided.

Here are the reactions from the participants. They said that they understood the Issue of the law revision and that the digitalization of legal affairs would reduce the burden. They also realized that this could be done by using the law API. We also received positive opinions from participants who are familiar with law.

By transmitting necessary information and experiencing it in this way, it will be a trigger for future development. In addition, it was suggested that the effect of open discussion, such as knowing the existence of information and needs of legal affairs, which are not well known, and attracting interest, will be achieved. In the future, we will continue to disclose such information openly in order to connect it to Service development and Technology development, and we aim to improve the functions of law API this fiscal year, so we would like to advance this.

That's all for the explanation of the workshop.

Secretariat (Noguchi): Continuing on, my name is Noguchi from Digital Agency. With regard to the Legal Affairs digitalization, I would like to briefly explain the projects for fiscal 2024 and this fiscal year.

We are preparing for two projects, but we are currently in the final stage of procurement procedures, and we are advancing procurement procedures to start the project around next week. When the project starts, we will promptly adjust the implementation plan with the contractor. During this adjustment, we will detail the content of the project and explain it to the next WG. We would like to hear your opinions and advice. Now, I will give you a brief explanation.

The first is the implementation for the actual implementation of functions to e-LAWS. In today's WG, it was said that it would be divided at the interface and how it would contribute to the development. In the function sharing of e-LAWS, we would like to steadily advance the Reform of Working Practices so that we can provide a system that will be useful to people in the field of actual legal affairs at an early date.

In particular, as you can see on the left side of the materials, we would like to implement the minimum function of being able to edit relevant materials, the implementation function of being able to input and output Word files, as I explained today, and the official gazettes development of necessary functions with a view to the medium - to long-term flow of the submission of documents.

In addition, at the bottom of the document, ③ is the implementation of the alert function and various consistency check functions, and ④ is the development of the demonstration projects API, which was the implementation of last year's law. We would like to proceed with the of this function.

On the next page, this is the item on which we will continue to make demonstration projects. In today's explanation, you said that it is necessary to prioritize and conduct research by looking at the necessary functions. In addition, for example, as for ③, regarding the data structure of the notification, I think it is important to conduct prototyping by looking at the functional implementation after studying what data format is good, including the actual use status and needs. We would like to continue to receive various advice and opinions from the WG.

I would like to conclude my presentation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me questions.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

The development and the survey demonstration for this fiscal year that we are projecting now are picked up from the items in the specifications. We are now working on specific initiatives with the business operators who will be entrusted with the project. The details will be worked out in the future. If you have any questions or opinions, I am very sorry that I have only 10 minutes left, but I would appreciate it very much if you could raise your hand.

Mr. Yoneda, please.

Mr. Yoneda: There seems to be no other speaker than , so I would like to make a broader statement. I would like to see what kind of picture the so-called law's Digital Original Copy, which was discussed at the beginning of the work so far, has become at this stage, and I would like to see it shown as Issue for the next fiscal year. After this function is actually incorporated, what should be regarded as an original copy of the law from the viewpoint of the people is the Rokuho that has been sold so far, or the law search of e-Gov somehow, but I think it would be better to make it clearer what kind of form it will be.

The other is that various things have been brought here by hand, and the knowledge, such as skills, know-how, and knowledge, which have been made into rules, are systematized. Naturally, it is a social phenomenon that the number of people who know this is decreasing, and I think that the problem of not knowing why this is happening over time will inevitably follow. At the same time, the know-how built into the system itself is also the same. I think it is important that the work that has been done so far can retain something to some extent, so it will be a back-office work during the creation of the system, and it is difficult to be positive, but I think it is necessary to take a form that can firmly retain such records.

I'm sorry for the impression, but if there is anything, I would appreciate it.

Secretariat (Nakano): Yoneda.

In the first place, the law has been promulgated in official gazettes, and the Cabinet Office, which you are attending today, has led the passage of a law that will make the official gazettes itself a digital original. Although it has not been enforced yet, there have been such major changes in circumstances, and I thought it would be a big assignment to decide how to organize it at this point, but I would like to hear your opinions after clarifying it. Thank you for your extremely important comments.

In addition, regarding know-how, although it is omitted from the power points in this year's development, in the first place, I have been asked to summarize what kind of work we are doing in legal affairs, and this is being scrutinized for publication. There is an enormous amount, and we are currently conducting final scrutiny, but I have never seen anything made at this granularity by hearing from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau or the Legislative Bureau of the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors, so I would like to make this public in detail. I would like to organize our know-how on how our legal affairs are conducted in digital form, and I have shown some parts to the world in the law × Digital Workshop earlier, but I would like to make public what I can, so I would like to respond so that such know-how will not be completely lost and our abilities as planners will not be lowered in the end. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Next, Mr. Yasuno, please.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

I would like to make one comment. I understand that next fiscal year, we will enter the actual function development, but in a sense, the worst scenario is that the function is development, but no one is using it. I would like you to aim for the target that it will actually be used and start to produce results. At that time, I think it would be good if you could set a certain KPI and show how much it has been used or what percentage of the work has been effective when the next fiscal year is over.

Furthermore, I think that it is easier to connect to the actual operation if you narrow down the target business and target users at first, so I think it is okay to narrow it down quite boldly. At first, for example, I thought it would be good to achieve visible results from a place that is easy to reach, such as 100% penetration of the business of editing laws in Digital Agency, so I made a comment.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

You are right about the quantitative indicators of KPI. In fact, we are incorporating the fact that such logs can be properly obtained in the detailed parts of the specifications. In fact, we were deeply aware of the point that it is better to narrow down the targets and business operations through the POC last year. In fact, we will discuss with business operators in Digital Agency once the contract is concluded. First of all, we would like to make it something that can be used so that they will recognize it as a really convenient thing. In addition, we do not aim to make a perfect thing in 10 years. For example, we think that something can be effective immediately and implementation is relatively easy. We are discussing what should be done to narrow down the business operations and targets. We would like to proceed with the specifics based on the points made by members today. Thank you very much for your valuable points.

Yasuno Member: Thank you, .

When software starts to be used, it will be polished more and more, but if it is not used, it will end up being meaningless. So, my comment was that it is quite important to start using it. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Actually, Mr. Masushima is also in attendance today, so if you are unable to respond, I would like to ask you to leave it on mute. If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know.

Member of the Masujima Review Committee: That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you for your very active discussion.

What you are doing is taking advantage of the various activities you have been doing, and the members of the Committee who have just given their opinions have also given us comments at an extremely high level, and I was very pleased to see that this is definitely moving forward.

I myself felt that I was no longer in a position to say anything at this time, but I was very heartened to hear that. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much for your valuable opinions. We would be grateful if you could continue to support us from a broad perspective. We look forward to your continued support.

In that case, although it is a little early, it is only three minutes away. Thank you very much for your valuable comments and opinions today. I would like to discuss this year's development Demonstration and initiatives in detail based on the comments you made today, and I would like to hear your comments.

Then, at the end of the meeting, Mr. Hasui, Deputy Director General, would like to say a few words. Mr. Hasui, Deputy Director General, nice to meet you.

Mr. Hasui: Mr. , thank you very much for taking the time to attend today. I am Mr. Hasui, Deputy Director-General.

Thank you very much for your open discussion today. In particular, regarding last year's survey and demonstration, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and related ministries and agencies, who are participating as observers today, cooperated with us on User testing and other occasions. I believe that there may be the results of that, but I believe that we received various high evaluations from you today. Thank you very much. I would like to take this opportunity to once again express my gratitude for your cooperation.

Regarding the workshop in law, many participants have learned about legal affairs, and there have been suggestions that will be helpful in development in the future. We would like to continue to open information as much as possible, and promote tool / service development and technology development by many people in industry and academia who are not confined in public authorities.

In addition, we will start surveys and demonstrations with development this fiscal year. Regarding last year's surveys and demonstrations, we have just received very grateful points and opinions. In last year's surveys and demonstrations, we have also received suggestions that development should be promoted with priorities based on users' needs and technical Issue.

In the comments I received today, you have pointed out that I am very grateful for your opinions, such as being sincere and not being overstuffed. It has been nearly 30 years since I became involved in law affairs, and I deeply feel that the difference between us is tremendous. However, I believe that you pointed out today that it is extremely important to clearly show what can and cannot be used for legal affairs. In addition, as you pointed out at the end, I believe that it is important to development what will be used in practical operations on the ground. Therefore, I believe that the idea is to start small and grow big, including the setting of KPIs. Thank you for your truly useful suggestions on these points. I would like to ask for your continued support.

I would like to conclude my remarks. Thank you very much for your continued support.

Thank you for your time today.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much.

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

With that said, I would like to conclude the 3rd Working Group. Thank you very much for joining us today. We look forward to your continued support.

Thank you very much.

End