Discussions on Law
Start a New Discussion
-
-
Hi, the Law commons is regrettably lacking. There are multiple Law and Legal user bases in existence, such as:
http://www.freebase.com/view/user/skud/legal http://www.freebase.com/view/user/tsegaran/legal
May I request a schema review for the purpose of promoting some of these types to Commons? We can use types such as Judge and Legal case and Court Ruling.
-
-
-
In doing the typing for the topics that were brought in from Wikipedia, I came across large lists of things that were:
- Acts of Congress, i.e. laws passed in the United States
- Decisions by various courts.
This is great stuff to be able to search, it would be cool to have types in Freebase for these Topics
-
I absolutely agree. This has been rolling around in my head for a couple weeks too because I'm interested in laws and regulations pertaining to bioenergy production and their effects on ecological systems. It would be nice to develop a Freebase version of something like this: http://law.jrank.org/ that could be used to cross-reference existing case law and it's applications. For example, see Computer assisted legal research - recent developments. It would be nice to store all existing laws in a way that allows citizens to actually find and access them!
-
I've created some types for case law in my Legal domain. Please check out Legal Case and its linked types (Litigant, Legal Subject, Court).
Thoughts?
-
Looks like alexbl is also modelling congressional bills, if anyone's interested in taking a look here.
-
Any progress on getting laws/pieces of legislation added someplace? I notice Ed has some Conservation Legislation but it's not connected to anything. The link that Kirrily pointed at 9 months ago is dead.
It seems like a pretty basic type for a commons called "Law" and the request was made 15 months ago.
-
I would change the name from "Act of Congress" to "U.S. Public Law," which means all enacted legislation (i.e., legislation that has passed both houses and (1) been signed by the President or (2) been enacted over the President's veto.
Any time federal legislation is enacted, it gets a public law number. For example, when the president signed the bill formerly known as H.J.RES.7, it became Public Law No. 107-1.
-
ive had a go at it here in the more law base hands up for adminship
-
-
-
Shouldn't this be linked to Administrative District or something and not Country? What about state constitutions?
-
Yes, that's a very good point. Maybe Governmental Jurisdiction would make the most sense, out of existing topics? I think it's a better choice than Location, and arguably better than "Place with Constitution" -- that is, all places that have a constitution will also be Jurisdictions, although not all jurisdictions by far will have constitutions.
-
I agree, Governmental Jurisdiction. That's what I was thinking, but forgot the terminology. d'oh!
-
-
-
there is alot of overlapp here with the work im doing over at the Argument mapping base
would you consider renaming invention to 'original idea', to incorporate things like 'the ontological argument', 'marxism' etc? invention seems limited to gadgets or whatever, but i think this type should be used to map 'who came up with this idea', when, what ideas they based it off, and how it was published etc.
that way i can cotype it with Arguments, etc
-
here, please take a look at Original idea and Innovative work . I hope to not denormalise this subject. alot of things and processes also have an idea life, which this type touches upon but i would like to begin mapping thoroughly.
A Mitochondrion is a little object, but it is also an idea because it was discovered by somebody, and presumably disputed by others etc. a mitochondrion though is hardly an invention, so to be used here would require change to this type.
maybe this type could be changed to 'patented idea', which would require going through and deleting the unpatented inventions.
I'll merge these topics into here if you'd like to make invention more general and use this type to map used to map academic priority. Or i can help cut it back if you'd just like to model patents with this type. your call i suppose.
cheers
-
-
-
I´ve created types for Constitution and Constitutional Convention .
Is it possible to make them public types? Or what else would be necessary?-
I see you have already published the types. The next step would be for administrator (me) to put them into a the Law domain. Your definitions look good to me, but I would normally wait a bit to see if anyone has any comments or concerns before making them the standard.
-
Would it make sense to replace country on constitution with Governmental Jurisdiction? this woud allow us to properly model state constitutions such as West Virginia Constitution
-
Sounds like a good idea to me, but it'll need to be done otherwise than through the client, and there might be some gardening and stuff as well. Want to raise a ticket for us?
-
-
-
I propose that the property 'US Patent' is replaced with a CVT 'Patent Claim'. This CVT would have a property called 'Patent Number' and a property for 'Patent Granting Body' which has a type 'Patent Granting Body'.
This would allow UK, EU and other international claims to be described alongside US claims.
Further additional properties for the CVT could include the status of the claim - 'rejected', 'pending', 'approved', the date the claim was lodged and the date the patent was approved.
-
I think there's value in keeping some notion of Patent as a standard type (the description, for starters, would go away if we changed it into a CVT), but I agree that it should be internationalized.
The simplest thing might be to add a new property for "Patent-granting body" as you suggest, and remove or generalize the US-specific properties. There are already properties for application date and issue date, but I think status sounds pretty good.
-
I've updated the model a bit to be more international, mostly by removing unnecessary US's and adding a propery and type for Patent Office. I also added a property for date revoked, so we have revoked patents, too.
-
-
-
This is one of those ambiguous examples where the company name is nearly identical to the make it produces. Technically Ford Motor Company produces the Ford nameplate so I am going to remove the Make type from Ford Motor Company and create a new Make called Ford. I'll apply all the Makes currently under Ford Motor Company to the new Ford topic.
-
