On a sideways look, the Internet has used the Request for Comment/RFC methodology which is interesting way of thinking about a peculiar jurisdictional . Again, it might be helpful to have a map of two or three body of law sets of documents and examples of a full set mapped to tags and attributes as an exercise that might help everyone have an concrete method of evaluating this issue. Daniel On 2/8/2013 11:25 AM, monica.palmirani wrote: Totally agree! +1 for me. This is my view: to use an attribute for expressing the local vocabulary. mp Il 08/02/2013 17:21, Veronique Parisse ha scritto: Dear all, For me, the current terms are not problematic as they don't have special meaning inside the European legislation (we use proposal , draft or motion to express the not approved text). And act can be used for binding and not binding text. So, I don't have problem to say that a resolution is an act and a motion for resolution , a bill . But I understand the problem to use as generic term a concept that has a specific meaning in some tradition. Now, it is a big challenge to find a name for these element that has no specific meaning (i.e., proposal is not a good term as it has the meaning of proposed by another institution that the proponent , in opposite of draft . So I have a problem to mark a draft as a proposal ;-) Pragmatically, If act or bill elements are generic, maybe they need to have an additional attribute 'name' like doc element to put the type of act or bill. Additionally, it could also be a good idea to standardize the metadata that are needed to qualify a document at a legislative point of view (type, proponent, ...). For the European law , you have treaty, then directive, decision, recommendation and regulation At the level of the European parliament, there are resolution, decision and recommendation (not the same meaning as the previous one). For the Belgian legislation, we have the constitution, the code, loi, décret , arreté , arrêté loi , arrêté ministériel, ... I don't think it is a good idea to have one tag by name. Kind regards Véronique De : Ashok Hariharan <
ashok@parliaments.info> À : monica.palmirani <
monica.palmirani@unibo.it> Cc : Grant Vergottini <
grant.vergottini@xcential.com> ;
legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org <
legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org> Envoyé le : Vendredi 8 février 2013 15h55 Objet : Re: [legaldocml] Bills and Acts On 8 February 2013 02:31, monica.palmirani <
monica.palmirani@unibo.it > wrote: Dear Grant,Finally: I propose you to define together a taxonomy/light-ontology/vocabulary (defined outside of the TC) concerning the nomenclature of the normative acts used in US and to link this taxonomy to the tag <act refersTo= #resolution > using refersTo. In this way you can use your ontology, the Chile its ontology in Spanish with their specific nomenclature, Italy as well its ontology in Italian. What do you think about this? The below note is from Flavio, since he couldnt reply to the mailing list ( I agree too ) : Since we are talking about people I dare to step in. I do tend to agree with Grant. Monica in your response you may find possible generic terms : bill could become proposal , you wrote pre-proposal act could become approved ????? So I do agree with Grant that people get mislead by terms like bill/act that are loaded with specific meanings. Bill/act may not be the best way to represent the concepts of document proposal and document approved that are what Akoma Ntoso bill/act are about. Thank you. Flavio Il 07/02/2013 19:51, Grant Vergottini ha scritto: Hi Monica, Fabio, All, I can understand the need to define the relevant concepts in the fewest possible terms. In fact, I have tried to do this always. And I still carry the battle scars from when I tried to use terms in an abstract way that were already well understood in a specific way. This simply did not fly. In my experience, people are extraordinarily sensitive to overusing terms for which they have a very precise definition. It's quite acceptable to define a very general term for an abstract concept if that general term has no pre-existing meaning. But as soon as you hijack an existing term, they come to the meeting armed with whatever force they feel necessary to slay your proposal in its entirety. You're doomed from the very start. I believe that will also happen to Akoma Ntoso too. Here is why: 1) You cannot call a resolution that does not propose law a bill. A resolution is most often a statement or an opinion made by the legislative body. Calling it a bill brings with it the notion that it is proposing law and, upon approval, will become a law. Certainly, there are cases where a resolution does propose law - such as a US joint resolution. But this is the exception rather than the rule. What about a California Constitutional Amendment? It proposes an amendment to the constitution and is thus regarded as a resolution - put forth to the people of the state, suggesting a modification to the Constitution. It is not considered a bill. When it is adopted, it causes the creation of a proposition to the people - a separate document. It takes successful passage of the proposition for the law to change. 2) You cannot call an initiative by the people, proposing law, a bill. A bill is usually defined as a law proposed by a legislative body. An initiative is not a bill in that it comes from the people rather than from the legislative body. Calling it a bill misplaces its source of origin. 3) You cannot refer to non-positive titles of the US Code as acts. You can call a non-positive title of the US Code a lot of things, but you most definitely cannot call it an act. It was not enacted - and that is an extremely important point. Without enactment, it is only evidence of the law rather than law itself. The entire purpose of the codification of the US Code into positive law is to deal with this important characteristic. I cannot and will not suggest modeling a non-positive title in the US Code using an <act> tag. It would be less controversial to suggest the non-sensical <automobile> tag. I think you have to look at the meanings that the words like bill and act bring with them. They are not abstract terms. They have preexisting meanings and meddling with those meanings will only incite quarrels which will lead to the rejection rather than adoption of the standard. I bring this up as I have tried to deal with this issue too many times in the past and have only found that the only way forward is to either accept a broader vocabulary or to choose a vocabulary unencumbered with existing meaning. -Grant On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:15 AM, monica.palmirani <
monica.palmirani@unibo.it > wrote: Dear Grant, I understand your linguistic doubts, and I see your points. Thanks. However bill and act are two general terms selected as representative of two concepts. In the semiotic triangles of Peirce the concept is represented by a sign, a sign is a representative term/picture/etc. (usually it is the best term for represent the concept), an object is the concrete thing in the real world. So during the last 5 years, when Akoma Ntoso core was founded, we had about 20 seminars around the world (Africa, Europe, Latin America, US, etc.) and we have interviewed about 1000 people at the end we decided to use bill for representing all the proposed legislation/regulation/order not yet approved by the authority and act for any legislative/regulative/government normative document approved by the authority. Take also in consideration that bill is really a general concept and it deosn't represent any legislative procedural step. bill is a pre-proposal, it is the document proposed officially to the clerk, it is the document discussed in the assembly, it is the document approved by the Senate but not yet approved by the Chamber, etc. Bill is any draft document of a future law in any steps of any legal tradition, in any law-making system. Similarly act includes all the endorsed/approved documents by a empowered authority, including, paradoxically also the autocratic and military regime documents. :-) They are only and simply abstract terms for representing all the other types of legal document according with each state legal tradition. It is a synecdoche: we use a part for representing the whole. I am confident that we can can explain this in the documentation of the D1 that I am now populating for this afternoon. Cheers, Monica Il 07/02/2013 00:20, Grant Vergottini ha scritto: There are two document types in Akoma Ntoso which appear intended to cover a wide range of documents - Bills and Acts. I'm having a bit of a difficulty accepting how these two general terms would map into local terms - largely because of the overlap. The basic model is, I believe, proposed vs. enacted law. A proposed law is a bill and an enacted law is an act. But that over simplifies the documents. In my experience: Proposed legislation: =============== Measures might be the general term. I'm not sure if the term measure is applied to enacted law. - Bills - Resolutions (Resoluitions are sometime proposed law and sometimes formal expressions of the legislature.) Sometime the term bill is used to describe all types of measures, but that is sloppy use of language rather than correct use of language. Enacted Law: ========== Law is maybe the general term. Depending on the jurisdiction, laws are referred to as: - Acts - Statutes - Ordinances - Codes - Titles in the case of the US Code - Constitution These are all things that are enacted. I am not convinced that you can refer to these all as acts -- Grant ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email:
grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738 -- =================================== Associate professor of Legal Informatics School of Law Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna C.I.R.S.F.I.D.
http://www.cirsfid.unibo.it/ Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3 I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY) Tel +39 051 277217 Fax +39 051 260782 E-mail
monica.palmirani@unibo.it ==================================== -- ____________________________________________________________________ Grant Vergottini Xcential Group, LLC. email:
grant.vergottini@xcential.com phone: 858.361.6738 -- =================================== Associate professor of Legal Informatics School of Law Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna C.I.R.S.F.I.D.
http://www.cirsfid.unibo.it/ Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3 I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY) Tel +39 051 277217 Fax +39 051 260782 E-mail
monica.palmirani@unibo.it ==================================== -- =================================== Associate professor of Legal Informatics School of Law Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna C.I.R.S.F.I.D.
http://www.cirsfid.unibo.it/ Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3 I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY) Tel +39 051 277217 Fax +39 051 260782 E-mail
monica.palmirani@unibo.it ====================================