Sandrini demonstrates the inadequacy of paper law dictionaries to give an adequate portrait of legal terminology. The shortcomings result both from the very nature of terminology in general with its emphasis on the centrality of the concept, on the interrelatedness of concepts and on the principle of univocity, and also from the specific culture/system-bound character of legal terminology. Paper dictionaries propose equivalence where terminology rejects such a relationship, seeking instead to compare and contrast concepts in different legal systems. Traditional paper electronic dictionaries provide multiple equivalents whereas terminology theory holds that each concept should be designated by a single term. The author sets out the information requirements (including the hierarchy of concepts, the relationship between concepts, legal classification and so on), a multitude of data and cross-references that can only truly be represented electronically.