- If it is really needed, we can add new document types for document containing non normative content, but then, I think we need to have a clear "universal" definition of what is a
normative content and what is not a normative content and on which base the selection of the correct category is done in AkomaNtoso.
(I suppose that an attribute on the bill/act element with the value like "normative" / "nonNormative" is not enough ;-) ). For example, is the rules of procedure of an institution normative or not ?
- If we do so, I think that we need two new document types, one for "draft/motion/proposal/..." and one for the document that is officially approved by an official body.
- In the context of the Parliament, all these document have a structure like a bill or an act : preamble, body, annexes, but not so strict as legislation.
Sometimes, they have annexes that are bill (for exemple : Motion for a European resolution with recommendations to the Commission on setting up a legislation on a specific subject)
- "Resolution" is a specific type. Other are "decision" or "recommendation". So I prefer to have a more general name. But currently, I have no concret idea for the names.
- I think that an additional attribute could be interesting to store the type of official document as it is named in the country. I don't know if the 'name' attribute is the good one or if an attribute like 'type' is better.
De : firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] de la part de Fabio Vitali [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Date d'envoi : mardi 12 février 2013 10:05
À : Grant Vergottini
Objet : Re: [legaldocml] Acts and bills
Ok, I fear that writing essays rather than messages is just too much for anyone to bear. So here is my actual proposal, short and to the point:
1) Shall we be content with the addition of a new document type, meant to represent documents that have an official status, are officially approved and/or endorsed by an authority, but have NO normative content?
2) Is ONE new document type enough, or do we need to distinguish drafts being discussed within the assembly from final things formally approved and published by the official body?
3) Would the content model be as ample as possible, namely OpenStructure, or do you foresee and restriction in the allowed elements?
4) Would the name "resolution" fit for this new document type? Veronique, would it fit your needs? I fear that, since California uses the term "resolution" for non-normative content, while the European Parliament has normative content in, we should not use
this name. If so, can someone propose an alternative?
5) Do we need to add a name attribute to bill and act, where one can specify the actual name of the draft/approved legislative document, such as statute or executive order etc.?
6) Can we keep the name attribute as optional, so that plain old bills and acts can still be called bill and act without further specification unless so desired?
Il giorno 12/feb/2013, alle ore 00.26, Grant Vergottini ha scritto:
> Here is House Resolution 5 from this year's session in California:
> It simply commemorates the 100th anniversary of Rosa Parks' birth. It is obvious that it proposes no law. Nonetheless, it is an official document of the California Assembly. It was adopted on February 4th. It is not now a Statute and will not be entered into
the Statutes of 2013. It is merely a statement honoring a great American.
> Here is Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 from this year's session in California:
> It simply re-designates Diane Boyer-Vine as Leg. Counsel for this session. Again, it is proposing no law. It passed and was entered into the "Resolution Chapters" for this session. It does this by virtue of being a Concurrent Resolution which was passed by
> Here is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 from this year's session in California:
> It proposes an amendment to the people of California to amend the constitution relating to the powers of the Legislature. It clearly limits how the Legislature may make law and specify how agencies that have delegated law making powers answer back to the
legislature. If it is adopted, it will be chaptered as a "Resolution Chapter" rather than in the regular statutes of 2013.
> In the jurisdictions I have worked thus far:
> 1. A Resolution is a formal written motion taken up by a legislature
> 2. A Non-Binding Resolution expresses an opinion of the legislature or takes up some other matter not related to creating law. It will not become law if adopted. It does not become an act and is not referred to as a statute. Sometimes a Non-Binding Resolution
is simply called a Resolution.
> 3. A "binding" resolution is known as a Bill (In the US House, a Joint Resolution is also a "binding" form of a resolution in most cases) A Bill proposes law and will become law if adopted.
> 4. Another type of motion is an Amendment. Its purpose is to amend a Bill or Resolution currently being considered.
> 5. A Constitutional Amendment is not an Amendment in the same sense. It is instead a Resolution and results in a proposition to the people that must be passed in order to enter into law. At the US Federal level, it is a Joint Resolution that requires ratification
of the states in order to become law. In some respects, a Constitutional Amendment straddles the line between a bill and a resolution and falls one way or the other depending on the jurisdiction.
> 6. A Bill that is adopted becomes an Act when it is promulgated (I think). It is also referred to as a Statute.
> 7. A Non-Positive Law Title of the US Code is not enacted, was never a Bill, and thus is not, in itself, Law. It is not an Act.
> In Akoma Ntoso, there exists tags for motions that are Bills and Amendments and for Bills that have gone on to become Acts. Unless I am very much mistaken, there exists no tags for Resolutions (#2 above) other than Bills or non-authoritative representations
of the law (#7 above). Arguing that the terms "bill" and "act" are simply metonymies for broad concepts of document asks that the established meanings, sometimes defined in stone in the Constitutions, be relaxed. This seems unlikely to be acceptable in many
> Let me give a counter-example to make my point. Imagine the argument were not about the word act but was instead about the word statute. That word could just as easily have been selected as the term for the general concept of a law. Go back and look at ACR
1 above. It's clearly granting powers using a clearly defined meaning for the word statute just as it is clearly using the word bill. it is not for us to tamper with those meanings. It has been my experience that being sensitive to the established meaning
of these words and concepts is a requirement.
> It is important that the models we adopt be sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to correctly portray how a legislature views their legislation. In my job, I perform a document analysis. I echo back what the drafters at the legislature teach me as a taxonomy
which is then mapped into a schema. If that schema does not fit or it appears I am force fitting terms to tags in ways that are tortured and require suspending disbelief to accept, then my credibility and the credibility of the technologies I suggest is put
on the line.
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Daniel Bennett <email@example.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a Google hangout or Skype or other phone conference might be helpful on this subject, compared to this email thread. Again, I liked Monica showing one example of an instantiation of something into AKN. However, it would be helpful to me and perhaps
other to see the California and/or other jurisdiction have each possible document mapped to AKN types. Fabio has a good written explanation, but to go one step forward with the AKN example would help me.
> This points out the problems of semantics overtaking the object naming which could allow representations in element and attribute to be more difficult than needed, perhaps.
> On 2/11/2013 9:10 AM, Aisenberg, Michael A. wrote:
> "Parochial" as in narrow...but unduly local might also fit...knucklehead is a US epithet referring to someone who does something foolish...
> ------Original Message------
> From: McGibbney, Lewis John
> To: Mr Michael Aisenberg
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> To: 'email@example.com'
> Subject: RE: [legaldocml] Acts and bills
> Sent: Feb 11, 2013 03:53
> Hi Michael,
> You find the conversation parochial because it refers in some sense to a church parish or because it is narrow in its scope and views? I assume it has to be one of the two.
> I am not quite getting you here!
> What are knuckleheads? In line with this thread, I am not familiar with the terminology.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On Behalf Of Aisenberg, Michael A. [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 11 February 2013 03:03
> To: 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: Re: [legaldocml] Acts and bills
> I find this discussion frighteningly parochial.
> Fear of deferring to the U.S. Federal construct, which has been settled since the first edition of Jefferson's Manual, seems to be creating an unnecessary tempest.
> The distinction is entirely procedural and depends on the instrument's posture in the process. The term "bill" has since the Second Session of the First U.S. Congress referred to any writing seeking to become an element of the U.S. Statutory system ("Public
"Laws") properly introduced into one of the two houses of Congress. In its introduced form, it may (and now commonly does) adopt the style and caption of the form it will have if passed--that is, it refers to itself as an "Act"...BUT IT IS NOT an "ACT" until
passed by both houses (at which point it is No Longer a "bill") and sent to the President for his signature, at which point, the Act will become
> Michael Aisenberg. Sent from handheld.
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> Grant Vergottini
> Xcential Group, LLC.
> email: email@example.com
> phone: 858.361.6738
Fabio Vitali Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly,
Dept. of Computer Science Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?'
Univ. of Bologna ITALY Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
phone: +39 051 2094872 Man got to tell himself he understand.
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle"
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: