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