Upgrade StorageField request: decisionType
I've begun recording law reports using the "Case" type. I have one small request, and one small suggestion.
The small request is to add a field to "case" for "decisionType", labelled in the UI as "Disposition". In a given matter, a court might issue several interim orders before the final judgment, each of which would be cited separately. A field for "Disposition" would provide a systematic way of keeping the various orders issued in a case straight. (For clarity, I'm including a patch at the bottom of this post that shows what I have in mind. Feel free to delete the patch after reading; I'm only putting it here for temporary illustration purposes.)
(EDIT by fbennett: patch has been pulled)
The small suggestion is to change the name of this type in the UI from "Case" to "Judgment". "Case" is a descriptive term for a dispute that unfolds in stages. For example, the case of World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson involves two separate court decisions based on the same set of facts: one by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma; and another by the Supreme Court of the United States.
"Judgment" is narrower than "case", and might better capture what the type is meant to record -- I don't believe it is meant, by itself, to capture petitions, motions, or briefs, which a lawyer would think of as being part of a given "case".
The small request is to add a field to "case" for "decisionType", labelled in the UI as "Disposition". In a given matter, a court might issue several interim orders before the final judgment, each of which would be cited separately. A field for "Disposition" would provide a systematic way of keeping the various orders issued in a case straight. (For clarity, I'm including a patch at the bottom of this post that shows what I have in mind. Feel free to delete the patch after reading; I'm only putting it here for temporary illustration purposes.)
(EDIT by fbennett: patch has been pulled)
The small suggestion is to change the name of this type in the UI from "Case" to "Judgment". "Case" is a descriptive term for a dispute that unfolds in stages. For example, the case of World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson involves two separate court decisions based on the same set of facts: one by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma; and another by the Supreme Court of the United States.
"Judgment" is narrower than "case", and might better capture what the type is meant to record -- I don't believe it is meant, by itself, to capture petitions, motions, or briefs, which a lawyer would think of as being part of a given "case".
As for my suggestion to use "Judgment" rather than "Case", it seems consistent, at the conceptual level, with the fact that BIBO contains the bibo:LegalDecision entry (linked above). Is there something that I should be suggesting about that that I'm missing?
As you can tell, I'm kind of lost.
If it's possible to just add a decisionType field and link it to "type", that's all I'm after. It would contain information like "Reversed and remanded", "Affirmed", "Injunction granted". Signals of what action the court took through the decision. We use this information in citations.
There is also a more generic bibo:status object property that might be helpful.
So the modeling in BIBO is really ideally less about literals, than about links in a graph.