Re: Ontology design for UK Parliament

How does this work apply to what you are working on?

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=legaldocml

Are the dots connecting?

Also FYI:
http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/records/legislativerecords/

Steven Clift  -  Executive Director, E-Democracy.org
   clift@e-democracy.org  -  +1 612 234 7072
   @democracy  -  http://linkedin.com/in/netclift
   http://1radionews.com - My radio app


On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Jaakko Korhonen <jaakko@okf.fi> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Sharing the situational awareness over what the parliament is doing is a
> key factor in improving democracy in the digital age. Congratulations to
> the UK parliament are in place for taking this step.
>
> Helsinki, Turku and others have some implementations with some
> municipality boards as well as the Finnish Parliament. These partly take
> into account AS2, JSON-LD and Popolo. There is a national standard in
> testing, and we would be keen to support any work that would bring us
> closer to an international one.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jaakko
> +358503285285
>
> > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:31:35 +0100
> > From: michaeljsmethurst@gmail.com
> > To: jamespetermckinney@gmail.com; raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
> > CC: public-opengov@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Ontology design for UK Parliament
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > On 25/08/2016, 17:04, "James McKinney" <jamespetermckinney@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >I’m supportive of any work to align vocabularies and formats across
> legislatures.
> >
> > Super [image: Smiling face (black and white)]
>
> > >
> > >Popolo was designed with civil society as its primary audience, so it
> focuses on the publication/distribution of information. Within that use
> case, it’s easier to normalize terms across legislatures. Civil society’s
> interests tend to be much narrower than the universe of legislative
> activity, so that reduced scope also makes standardization easier.
> >
> > And probably more applicable to being mapped into schema.org
> extensions…?
> >
> > >
> > >On the other hand, within a legislature, there are many more use cases
> that can pull a vocabulary towards being more specific: for example, there
> may be a desire to satisfy internal use cases like drafting legislation,
> tracking changes, etc. My understanding is that, with the work John
> Sheridan did in the UK, it was necessary to get very specific in order to
> satisfy those use cases.
> >
> > There does seem to be a split between models for document drafting and
> outputs and models for the processes that sit behind the drafting. As far
> as I’m aware John’s project is more about drafting documents as they evolve
> through amendment whereas our domain model is more about the processes
> happening that inform, raise, debate and vote on the amendments. And the
> committees that form and the evidence they here and the reports they
> produce etc. The drafting work and the domain model obviously intersect
> though I can’t say we’re too sure where or how. But are due a meeting soon
> > >
> > >So, I anticipate that, with any new work, it will be possible to
> achieve alignment for the publication/distribution of information, but it
> may be difficult to produce a reusable vocabulary for internal use cases,
> which tend to be specific to each legislature.
> >
> > Quite a lot of the user groups / use cases we have for the parliament
> website / data are from specialist users (journalists, lawyers, charities,
> lobby groups etc) as well as wider civil society so we do need a way to
> model some of the more gnarly internal processes in a public way. But how
> many of those might map to other jurisdictions is very unclear
> > >
> > >I am just raising this potential issue, because I would like to ensure
> that whatever product comes out of this work would still allow the easy
> interpretation of information across different legislatures. My experience
> with Akoma Ntoso, for example, has been that it provides LEGO blocks that
> each legislature uses to build different documents, which can’t be easily
> parsed in the same way.
> >
> > Yes, again capturing the right levels of abstraction and allowing for
> more specific implementations feels the right direction for now. We’ll
> hopefully have the beginnings of a UK implementation to show over the next
> couple of months (though parliamentary time is relative). Then start the
> conversation about how much can be usefully abstracted up for different
> parliament to implement differently
> >
> > michael
> > >
> > >James
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:27 AM, Raphaël Troncy <
> raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >>> I'm currently working for UK Parliament [1] and we're interested in
> designing a formal ontology for our procedural data. Initially for use in
> internal systems but also mapping to common vocabularies for publishing.
> > >>> We'd like to do this in as open and collaborative a way as possible
> and we're wondering if this group would be a good place to do that?
> > >>
> > >> It indeed seems that this is a favorable moment to progress on those
> issues since a number of parliaments in Europe and elsewhere are working on
> this. The Popolo project [1] has already been mentioned.
> > >> In France, you may want to look at the work done with the OODF
> ontology [2]. In Europe, I believe that all the work around ELI (and ECLI)
> is relevant [3]. There is finally all the work done by Thomas Francart
> around the legislation extension to schema.org [4].
> > >>
> > >> Raphaël
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://www.popoloproject.com/
> > >> [2] http://openlaw.fr/index.php?title=Ontologie_Ouverte_du_
> Droit_Fran%C3%A7ais_(OODF)
> > >> [3] http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/eli/
> > >> [4] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1156
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Raphaël Troncy
> > >> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
> > >> Data Science Department
> > >> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
> > >> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> > >> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> > >> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> > >> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>