[Crm-sig] Bills / Parliamentary projects or procedures as FRBRoo

Thomas Francart thomas.francart at sparna.fr
Mon Dec 3 12:46:50 EET 2018


Dear CRM and FRBRoo community

In the context of ELI framework (European Legislation Identifier) (
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli), I am looking for guidance on how to best
describe "draft legislations" / "bills" / "legislative projects" using
FRBRoo.
This is my first time here, so please excuse me if this is not the correct
place to ask, or the correct way to do it, and please let me know the best
practices to do so.

The main things I am trying to describe are :

   - entity A : The whole *event* that resulted in the creation of the
   legislation (as published in the Official Journal), encompassing
   initiation, amendments, voting, signature and publication in OJ;
   - entity B : The corresponding "Parliamentary *folder*" / "Dossier
   parlementaire" (maybe "Bill"), that is the aggregation of all the documents
   that serve as a basis for the creation of the legislation : the successive
   versions of the act (modified by amendments, etc.), but also the impact
   studies carried out, the opinions given by commitees or chambers, recording
   of debates, etc.
   - entity C : The successive *versions of the draft legislation*, as the
   text goes through the legislative process (typically "text of the bill as
   initiated", "text of the bill after first reading in chamber X", etc.)
   - entity D : The *final legislation*, as published in the OJ, is
   alreadry modeled as a (subclass of) F1_Work.


Here are some randomly picked examples on what we are trying to capture :

   - EU :
   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2017_332?rid=11&qid=1543826458822
   - Ireland : https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2017/155/?tab=debates
   - France :
   http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/dossiers/alt/jeux_olympiques_paralympiques_2024#L15-VD184011CF

My questions :

   - Is it fair to consider entity A (the Legislation Creation Event /
   project) as a (maybe subclass of) *F28_Expression_Creation*, that
   resulted in the creation of the Expressions of the legislation as published
   in the OJ (and their corresponding Manifestations) ?
      - Note that the creation of the final law may not actually succeed;
      the definition of F28_Expression_Creation states "This class comprises
      activities that result in instances of F2 Expression coming into
      existence." if no Expressions come into existence through this
event, is it
      still fair to consider it a Creation event ?
      - Note also that we are trying to describe these events while they
      are not achieved, so we don't know yet their outcome;
   - Is it fair to consider entity B (the folder/dossier) as a (maybe
   subclass of) *F17_Aggregation_Work* ? the expressions of which would
   *P165_incorporates* the Expressions of the documents stored in the
   folder.
   - Is it fair to consider entity C (the draft legislation) as a
   *F15_Complex_Work* ? and each successive version as a
   *F14_Individual_Work* being a member of this Complex_Work ? or is it
   best modelled as an F14_Individual_Work with each version being an
   Expression ?
      - Note that the F15_Complex_Work alternative currently has my
      preference since : 1. each version undergoes a formal publication process
      by the corresponding chamber/assembly and 2. the intellectual content may
      vary from a version to another;
   - In the folder/dossier we need to distinguish the successive draft
   versions of the legislation (entity C) from other content (opinions,
   debates, etc.); Is it fair to link from (Expressions of) entity B to
   (Expressions of) entity C with a *specific subproperty of
   P165_incorporates* to distinguish this ?
   - We need to somehow articulate the activity with the folder used
   throughout the process. Is it fair to state that the
   F28_Expression_Creation (entity A) *P16_used_specific_object* the
   F17_Aggregation_Work (entity B) ? or is another type of link more
   appropriate ?
   - What kind of links (if any) can be drawn between the activity (entity
   A), and each of the document produced during this process (opinions,
   debates recording, etc.) ? these documents can be seen as both "side-effect
   outcomes" of the project (the main outcome being the legislation itself),
   and also "necessary objects" for the event to be completed; can
   P16_used_specific_object is also appropriate for this ?
   - Once the final legislation (entity D) is published in the OJ, we need
   to somehow link it with either the creation event (entity A), the
   "parliamentary folder" (B) and/or the (Complex) Work representing the draft
   legislation (C) :
      - I am assuming the links from A to D are those used to describe the
      outcome of an Expression_Creation : *R17_created, R18_created,
      R19_created_a_realization_of*;
      - Is it fair to state that Work representing legislation as published
      in the OJ (entity D) *R1_is_logical_successor_of* the Work
      representing the draft legislation (entity C) ?
      - What kind of link can be made from the "folder", conceived as the
      grouping of all the works carried out during the legislative process, and
      the final outcome of this ? is it also R1_is_logical_successor_of ?


Thanks a lot for reading me and even more for your precious answers; I
would be happy to provide more details, should you request additionnal
details.
Any pointers to helpful resources would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and Best Regards
Thomas

-- 

*Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA*
Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux
*connaissances*
blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin :
fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20181203/a706e067/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list