Subject: Re: [legaldocml] Bills and Acts
On 2/7/13 6:31 PM, monica.palmirani wrote:
Sorry, but I must agree with Grant on this matter -- to the point of insistence. This is not a philosophical point; it's a pragmatic political issue. The people that we wish to adopt AkomaNtoso need to find it recognizable. You may argue all you want that you have, for sound reasons, chosen a single term to serve as an abstraction covering many. But if they hear something used generally for which there is a specific meaning, they will doubt your expertise and the soundness of the standard. To them, it sounds as though you're pointing at a cow and telling them it's a chair, when in fact you've chosen "chair" to mean "all things beginning with the letter c".
That is particularly so when you jump branches. Grant has a horror of referring to resolutions as "bills"; I suspect it will be even worse if you refer to an executive branch document like a proposed rule (regulation) or an ANPRM (advance notice of proposed rulemaking) as a "bill".
Put another way, all the arguments that have led you to allow localization of the names of nested elements for text structure (parts, sections, chapters, etc) apply to this as well.
I believe it needs to be fixed, not as an intellectual matter, but as a matter of credibility with the people we are trying to persuade to use the standard.
All the best,
-- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Thomas R. Bruce Director, Legal Information Institute Cornell Law School http://www.law.cornell.edu twitter: @trbruce +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+