Jurisdictional scope

[Frank Bennett <biercenator@gmail.com>]

Patrick raises an important point about jurisdictional scope. From his
note to another thread:

*****

Link: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalcite-markup-discuss/201309/msg00004.html

*****

I think that it is important to keep world-wide scope in view, while
acknowledging both that we can't get there in one go, and that it will
be an ever-receding target (which does not conflict with Patrick's
point, as I understand it).

This got me to thinking, and I have a couple of questions. For
world-wide (and historical) coverage, we would need a set of concrete
jurisdiction specifiers, such as contemplated by the LEX:URN draft.
Also, within a given jurisdiction there is a finite number of
reporters/sources for primary legal text, with local conventions for
their abbreviation in citations. Both of these (jurisdiction
identifiers and journal abbreviations) are areas where there is a fair
amount of variance across projects, and a good deal of chaos out in
the wild. Is the establishment (and maintenance) of canonical lists
for these two (for the latter, at least for the US jurisdiction,
initially) within the scope of the proposal?

Frank