Feedback on the ELI extension for draft legislation

Published on: 07/02/2019
Last update: 21/07/2020
Discussion

(CLOSED : for feedback, open a new discussion instead at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/solution/eli-ontology-draft-legislation-eli…)

The ELI extension for draft legislation has been publicly released. It is in "draft"/"alpha" version and has been made public to receive feedback.

So please post your comments in this discussion channel if you have feedback/comments on the ontology, so that they can be publicly reviewed and integrated in the final version of the model.

Comments

Tue, 03/12/2019 - 09:27

I have applied the ELI DL ontology to Polish parliamentary procedure for drafting a bill and I have the following remarks. I have already posted some of those remarks on other threads.

I suggest that for LegalActivity there is also a data property to assign the name of a person involved. Currently there is only the object property has responsible (participant) person. Whereas this is feasible for organizations and maybe for some VIPs, it may be not for other persons involved. In Poland we have so-called “citizen projects”, where any person can be the representative, and we will not keep all of them in a controlled vocabulary. It is possible to use blank nodes, but something similar to eli:publisher and eli:publisher_agent would be more convenient.

We need an additional property of a LegislativeProject, subproperty of  has participant organization, to describe the organization that submitted the project to the parliament (this could be the government, the President , the Senate, a group of MPs, a parliamentary committee or a group of citizens). Such organization should be somehow distinguished from other participant organizations and at the same time it cannot be considered as the responsible organizations, since parliamentary bodies are responsible for all stages. 

It is not clear which status should be used for bills that have been successfully vetoed by the President: Abandoned or Closed? I feel that Abandoned corresponds to the case when the parliament itself decides not to proceed, and if it is Closed then one does not know if the project was finally successful. Maybe there should be additional status Rejected which would mean that some other body have rejected the bill.

I have doubts about LegalDraftWork and LegalDraftRelatedWork classes. Our Senate can suggest amendments to a bill that has been passed by the Sejm (lower chamber). The Senate resolution contains the list of amendments and not the text of the bill itself, thus it is not clear if it can be considered a LegalDraftWork (although for now we want to consider it as such). On the other hand it has legal value and greater significance then e.g. some explanations. Perhaps some clarification would be useful.

I suggest that LegislativeProject has additional latest_stage property that would indicate the stage of the last LegalActivity. It would replicate the information from latest activity, but would simplify searches. Currently one can use the occurred at stage property, inherited from LegalActivity, but that sound a little bit strange.

As to the question about subdivision – I recommend using LegalResourceSubdivisions, as they are subclasses of Work, and has_member has Work as both domain and range. This way the structural definition of an act will not have to be changed when passing from LegislativeProjectWork to LegalResource.