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