Start again with the main pillars of
- We need two terms general enough for not depending from a
particular legal tradition (e.g. too much US oriented for
instance or not too much Euroepan), not depending to a
specific government form (one chamber, two chambers, three
chambers) or to a specific senate/chamber regulation, not
depending to the law-making process (steps and workflow)
- We need two terms that represent two macro-categories of
legislative documentation: normativeDocumentApproved and
draftNormativeDocument (in Swiss they have a beautiful
document that is a pre-draftNormativeDocument called
avamprogetto). Take in care the point that we need to include
also secondary law, regional law, ordinance, subsidiary law,
etc. not only the primary law and also government
regulation/legislation. Please don't skip this crucial issue
that you didn't address in the last answers.
- We need also two terms that are closed to the legal domain
because the people need to understand without confusion
- The terms must be sound to all the legal traditions not only
to anglophone's one.
- Akoma Ntoso is an XML schema based on the principle of
descriptiveness but general enough for not enter in the list
of the specific local nomenclatur
So these are the main pillars.
Please propose a tentative list of TWO terms that are compliance
with those rules.
Il 08/02/2013 15:43, Thomas R. Bruce ha scritto:
On 2/7/13 6:31 PM, monica.palmirani
So we decided in AKOMA to use a different approach: to use
neutral categories coming from the theory of law and not from
a list of document nomenclature, list that each country could
interpreted in different way. Example: US uses "bill" with a
particular meaning in a such particular step of the process,
but in Australia bill has a different meaning, and also in
California bill is different respect House of Representative
bill, and in UK the same, without to speak in Italy (we have
several different bills: from government, from parliament,
from people, from regions).
So let me start on the fact that we used more abstract
categories coming from the theory of law: LAW, ACT and BILL
(uppercase) belong to general theory of law definitions in
this sense and not represent "the bill" "the act" as concrete
document in a country tradition.
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
Associate professor of Legal Informatics
School of Law
Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna
Palazzo Dal Monte Gaudenzi - Via Galliera, 3
I - 40121 BOLOGNA (ITALY)
Tel +39 051 277217
Fax +39 051 260782