Germany's laws on github, machine-readable and ready to be forked

Post by skrebbel » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:17 AM UTC

tsahyt wrote: post #40

skrebbel wrote: post #35

Gesetze sind Prosa, sie enthalten keine maschinenlesbare Semantik. (Laws are prose, they contain no machine readable semantics) And there was me hoping they had fixed that ! Ahwell, one step at a time :)

Rewriting law to be machine-readable as in "instructions a machine can understand" would be quite a task I suppose. Interesting project though. Would that even be possible? How well does the law map on the black and white logic of a computer?

Post by gurkendoktor » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:54 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #37

Start with the IP-related laws. They seem to have some of the most aggressive ones in the world, which could explain why the Pirate Party there is also the fastest growing branch.

Post by gosub » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 8:09 AM UTC

tsahyt wrote: post #42

skrebbel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, I fantasize about turning that around. What if parts of the law (say, fiscal law sounds like a candidate) are chosen to be as black and white as the logic of a computer? Policymakers could get automated compile errors when trying to craft conflicting laws. They could instantly compute what the effect of a law change is on this and that demographic or persona.

> automated compile errors when trying to craft conflicting laws That just made my day :) It's actually a good idea, I think. I'm just not exactly sure whether that would work because laws govern the real world and in the real world, logic isn't binary. However, such laws would at least be understandable for mere programmers ;)

    data Offense = MensRea | ActusReus
    CriminalLaw :: [Offense] -> Punishment
    ExtenuatingCircumstances :: CriminalLaw -> [Circumstance] -> ExtenuatingEffect -> Punishment

Post by mjwalshe » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 8:31 AM UTC

sigil wrote: post #28

damncabbage wrote: post #6

There was a great discussion on HN previously about this topic which also explains why a straight git implementation isn't viable for US law; I'm not sure if doing the same with Germany's laws would be similarly difficult: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3968653

Thanks for the link. I read the following from that earlier discussion and immediately thought, isn't this what the Darcs version control system was designed to do? "What you have to do is to just record the conflict and create two parallel universes, one in which the conflict has been resolved using branch A and another one in which the conflict is resolved using branch B. You then keep these two universes alive and…

Post by mjwalshe » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 8:34 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #41

tsahyt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rewriting law to be machine-readable as in "instructions a machine can understand" would be quite a task I suppose. Interesting project though. Would that even be possible? How well does the law map on the black and white logic of a computer?

Sometimes, I fantasize about turning that around. What if parts of the law (say, fiscal law sounds like a candidate) are chosen to be as black and white as the logic of a computer? Policymakers could get automated compile errors when trying to craft conflicting laws. They could instantly compute what the effect of a law change is on this and that demographic or persona.