OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legaldocml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE:[legaldocml] Issue with components I am not sure how to model

Hello Grant,


Structurally speaking, can we consider this case as similar to the attachment in the context of the European institutions :


Agreements, protocols, declarations and conventions may be preceded by an act of secondary legislation, which generally approves them. They are ‘attached’ (and not ‘annexed’) to this act (decision or regulation).”


The real new act as the version published independently (as part of the US code (or Title)). It is a new Work, with its own identifier.

The statute would be also the new Work but it cannot be modified by amendments. 


The version of new act that is annexed to the approved statute is an historical version and the reflect of an historical decision. 

So, personnally, I vould mark it as a component that reference the first _expression_ of the new act (part of US code or Title). 


What do you think ?


Kind regards






De : legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org [legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org] de la part de Grant Vergottini [grant.vergottini@xcential.com]
Envoyé : mardi 7 mai 2013 21:17
À : legaldocml@lists.oasis-open.org
Objet : [legaldocml] Issue with components I am not sure how to model

Hi Everyone,

I want to understand how best to model a situation that arises all the time for me - both in California and at the Federal level:

I have a Bill that exists to "enact" a new law.- That new law, should it be approved, will exists as it's own autonomous "Act" that appears to be independent of the Statute that enacted it. In California we have many such Acts generally relating to water rights and Indian gaming. At the Federal level, the classic example is the Bill the creates a new positive law Title. When that Bill is approved, it becomes a Statute and is added to the Statutes at Large. But it also spawns a new document which is the new Title.

So here is what I am wondering. When the Title is drafted and is introduced as a Bill, the proposed Title is enclosed within the Bill and does not have an identity separate from the Bill itself. The proposed Title cannot be amended in any context other than as part of the Bill containing it. But once the Bill is enacted, there will now be two "copies" of the Act or the Title (I'm not sure of the legal rules here). First there is the copy that is an integral part of the Statute (which is also an Act) that results. Second, there is the new Act or the new Title that is part of the US Code. From what I can tell, amendments to the US Code are not also applied back to the originating Statute that created the Title in the first place - so the originating Statute forever more reflects the initial state of the Title.

First of all, is my understanding of this correct? (Tom Bruce, can you shed any light on this?) I have wondered about the legal rules even in California, but never got a definitive answer.

Secondly, how should this be modeled in Akoma Ntoso? Should the part that will become the new Title be modeled as a component? When the Bill becomes a Statute, does it essentially also give birth to a new document that is the Title? Should the Statute make a component reference to the new Title or forever hold an archive of the Title in its original state?

-- Grant
Grant Vergottini
Xcential Group, LLC.
email: grant.vergottini@xcential.com
phone: 858.361.6738

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]