Re: Identifier review: U.S. Federal jurisdicton

[Frank Bennett <biercenator@gmail.com>]

Haven't received any feedback from the list and the US LRR
identifiers, but I've continued fretting over the sets for this and
several other jurisdictions. In the US, I decided to remove the States
and Territories and Possessions segments, and move their content up
one level.

The registry now has the following identifier sets in beta:

* Canada
* People's Republic of China
* Japan
* Mongolia
* United States
* Viet Nam

The structure of each is unlikely to change, but there may be
additions to several as feedback is returned by students and
colleagues.

Frank Bennett
Faculty of Law
Nagoya



On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Frank Bennett <biercenator@gmail.com> wrote:
> After much to-ing and fro-ing, the U.S. identifiers in the LRR have
> finally stabilized. It would be great if members of the group could
> take a look at the arrangement before it is finalized.
>
>     http://fbennett.github.io/legal-resource-registry/us/index.html
>
> There are two main issues:
>
> (1) I am not sure about the courts set under "Federal Circuit". These
> should all be courts from which there is an appeal to the U.S. Court
> of Appeals for the Federal Circut. I'm not sure that is true in all
> cases (FISA? and maybe others).
>
> (2) I have placed "States" and "Territories and Possessions" in
> separate segments. There are some alternatives:
>
> (a) These could be placed under the circuits from which appeal can be
> had from the relevant state/territory Supreme Court, but that would
> misrepresent the relative autonomy of state-level jurisdiction.
>
> (b) Alternatively, both could be bumped up a level, dropping the
> segments. That does not raise any namespace issues, but it would muddy
> the distinction between these and  the Navajo Nation system, which
> terminates in its own final court of appeal (plus it would make the
> browsable view more cluttered, which may not be an issue).
>
> (c) Things could be left as they are.
>
> Take a look, see what you think!
>
> Frank