In this post, Tom explores legislative identifier granularity, or the level of specificity at which such an identifier functions. The post discusses related issues such as the incorporation of semantics in identifiers; the use of “pure” (semantics-free) legislative identifiers; and how government agency authority and procedural rules influence the use, “persistence, and uniqueness” of identifiers. The latter discussion leads Tom to conclude that
a “gold standard” system of identifiers, specified and assigned by a relatively independent body, is needed at the core. That gold standard can then be extended via known, stable relationships with existing identifier systems, and designed for extensible use by others outside the immediate legislative community.
The post continues with a discussion of the relationship of legislative identifier granularity to various functions of identifiers, including “tracing the evolution of a bill or other legislative document,” “recording the status of that document,” version control, “fragmentation” of legislative documents, and “recombination” of such fragments, as through “codification,” which Tom calls an example of “fragmentary re-use.”
For more information, please see the complete post.