[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: LRR: identifiers for divisions of a court
Thinking forward to the use of identifiers for legislative and administrative materials in MLZ, I've uncovered an interesting little wrinkle. A legislature or a ministry can be both a law-making body in its own right, or a scope of jurisdictions for the minor bodies that operate under it. The difference would be expressed in the LRR syntax more or less like this: ie;dail ie:dail;select.committee.enterprise.small.business Frank On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Frank Bennett <biercenator@gmail.com> wrote: > A release of the MLZ reference manager that uses the LRR identifiers > went out a few days ago, and there has been some feedback from users. > > One item of interest is the need to specify divisions of a court > within the identifier: > > https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/46508?page=1#Item_4 > > This seems a good time for an informal explanation of the structure of > the LRR identifiers. > > (The use of the identifiers in the MLZ user interface is shown in the > attached screenshot.) > > ## Description > > Here is the identifier for Section I of the European Court of Human > Rights under the Council of Europe: > > coe.int;echr~section.1 > > Identifiers are expressed as lower-case ASCII 128 letters, numbers, > periods, colons, semicolons, and tilde characters. Other characters > are not permitted. > > As shown in the example above, an LRR identifier consists of at most > three elements: a Jurisdiction specifier; a semicolon-separated Court > specifier; and a tilde-separated Court Division specifier. > > (1) Jurisdiction specifier (coe.int) > > A jurisdiction specifier is a colon-delimited list of one or more > elements, beginning with the element having the largest scope. The > first element may be the ISO 3166 code for a top-level national > jurisdiction, or an arbitrary code identifying a non-national scope > ending in ".int". Sub-elements following the top-level are not an > expression of judicial or administrative hierarchy. At the technical > level, their only role is to prevent namespace conflicts among > entities that share the same Court specifier. The subelements should, > however, loosely reflect the organization of institutions within the > national jurisdiction, as they will be used to generate menus, > information pages, and the like. > > (2) Court specifier (echr) > > A court specifier follows the Jurisdiction specifier, and is separated > from it by a semicolon. The court specifier should be derived from the > name of target institution, either as a set of initials (where these > are widely recognized) or as a roman transliteration of the name in > its original language. It identifies an institution with > decision-making authority. In jurisdictions that recognize multiple > official languages, the English form is preferred as the base language > for deriving the identifier. This is not a reflection of priority or > relative authority; it is simply a matter of technical convenience. > > (3) Court Division specifier (section.1) > > A Court Division specifier follows the Court specifier, and is > separated from it by a tilde. The court division specifier is derived > in the same way as the Court specifier. Where roman numerals are used > in the human-readable name, arabic numerals should be used. > > ## Differences from URN:LEX > > While the LRR identifiers resemble the URN:LEX scheme, there are > significant differences, driven by the differing objectives of the two > systems. The URL:LEX schema is here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spinosa-urn-lex/?include_text=1 > > URL:LEX seeks to give semantic expression to the structure of > authority within target jurisdictions, and objective closely tied to > the requirement that identifiers be settled by national authority > (schema 5.2). To permit lightweight assignment of identifiers for > referencing convenience, the LRR abandons the strict alignment of > identifier structure with the hierarchy of authority. One consequence > of the difference is that an LRR identifier need not change when the > status of a sub-jurisdiction changes. For example, the code for > Hawai'i in the United States would be "us:hi" both before and after > statehood. > > In the structure of identifiers, the LRR draws a distinction between > scope of jurisdiction (the first specifier) and the lawmaking body > (the second specifier). This does not appear to be the case in URN:LEX > (schema 4.4). The distinction is important in the LRR, because the two > must be stored to separate fields in descriptive citation data. > > To avoid confusion between the two schemes, the LRR adopts ".int" > rather than ".lex" as the suffix for non-national scopes (see schema > 2.4). > > Finally, the LRR uses the tilde separator to specify the division of a > law-issuing body, so that it can be parsed out and stored in > descriptive citation data. As far as I can tell, the current draft of > URN:LEX does not provide a means of encoding this information. > > Frank
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]