Definition database

[fierce-bad-squirrel]

OLawD hamstar suggested a definition database in this reddit thread. This defintion database could be both searchable, and allow for legislation to be mapped by tying definitions and relations together.

(Apparently OLawD did suggest the same thing elsewhere. Great minds think alike, etc.)

[OLawD]

I think it was hamstar who made that particular suggestion (unless I said it elsewhere which is possible) but this is honestly not going to be as easy as it may sound.

There may be two cybersecurity bills but each one has a definition of "cyberattack" which gives context to the whole entire rest of the language used. They wouldn't really be interchangeable or else you've frustrated the intent of one of the authors. What you can do is say is one is "cyberattack" and the other is "cyberattack+" either because it seems to imply some harsher or more damaging action or because it can be punished greater. The use of symbols then is an easy indicator that the definitions are both similar but easily distinguishable.

The next time someone tries to use the word cyberattack and define it, those two examples should pop up with a plea or explanation of the purpose of consolidating words for ease. If they truly want to craft a different definition, force them to distinguish it in some way by either making it "cyberattack-" or "cyberattack++" or some visual way that users can make the distinction in the future.

[hamstar]

We could also (you guys were probably already thinking this) have it shown in small text which bill the definition came from.

[fierce-bad-squirrel]

I think it was hamstar who made that particular suggestion (unless I said it elsewhere which is possible) but this is honestly not going to be as easy as it may sound.

Oops. You're right. Fixed it.

I think it was hamstar who made that particular suggestion (unless I said it elsewhere which is possible) but this is honestly not going to be as easy as it may sound.

I have an idea for how this could be set up, but I'm having a hard time finding words to explain it. I'm going to give an example instead.

cyberattack

1. as defined in Bill Name, Section, etc.

   Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque elementum fermentum aliquet. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque dui sed congue. Etiam laoreet risus ac dui accumsan vel placerat ipsum viverra. Praesent aliquet turpis fermentum lectus tincidunt sit amet lobortis nulla blandit.

2. as defined in Bill Name, Section, etc.

   Donec erat sapien, imperdiet non pharetra sed, vulputate sed mauris. Pellentesque volutpat cursus mauris nec lacinia. In fermentum tincidunt erat vel vehicula. Ut eget lectus nibh, at eleifend eros. Aenean venenatis, est et hendrerit tincidunt, lorem tortor vulputate enim, sed commodo nulla nibh quis tellus. Quisque feugiat lacus eu augue venenatis sed iaculis lectus consequat. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Aenean id velit tortor, at laoreet lacus.

_usage:_ Definition 1 is appropriate in situations where a, b and/or c is desired. Definition 2 should be used in cases of x, y and/or z.

When someone is crafting a bill and defining a term defined elsewhere, a question could appear asking if s/he wants to use existing definition 1 or 2, or create a new definition (which would then be added to the definition database). If s/he wants to use an existing definition, that could be referenced a la the reference tooltips discussed in #37.

[OLawD]

actually i found where i did say we needed a repository of clauses, definitions, and form examples so we both said it!

your example works except i do think it needs to be visually clear whether one is more inclusive than the other. it's not going to be an automatic process but someone is going to have to read both definitions and make the determination that one is more broad/narrow than the other. we like narrow, we know what narrow means. we discourage broad and vague usage.

[fierce-bad-squirrel]

So more like:

_usage:_ In general, Definition 1 is preferred because of its very specific defining terms. Definition 2 should be used sparingly and with great caution because of its broader terminology which can introduce confusion and vagaries.