Ambiguity is described by Wikipedia here. Ambiguity in the Lexical Form is described by Wikipedia here. It is describes the term Polysemy. A word that is so unusual that my spell checker questions its existence. Well, it does not think Wikipedia is a real word either. It is not just ambiguous about it, it is a fact to the spell checker.
Moving along the continuum of ambiguity expression in different languages is a trip from linguistics, spoken, written language to math. Math defines ambiguity in math functions.
In the English language there might be a refining iteration applied to ambiguity to derive clarity. Discussion.
In computer languages there are routines that iterate ambiguity to reduce it to some lesser state suitable for further processing in accordance with applicable algorithms. Ultimately it might present a decision to be made by the user of the application when the program fails to find an answer.
The US Code is a huge volume of written words. Their is a hierarchical chapter structure to it as old fashion as the early 20th century. And now this is on an Apple App.
In our modern information age one of our greatest challenges is to structure our body of law as contained in the US Code in the rigorous relationship manner that information engineering technology has made possible.
The magnitude of the task is like trying to straighten out a bowl of spaghetti!
It can be done. It is a problem domain to be solved like sending a man to the moon or creating an Internet. Who is going to do it and what is in it for them. It would appear that there is more interest in maintaining the legacy system of defining the law of the land, the US Code in the legacy system. A legacy system in which ambiguity and the difficulty and inadequacy of that system of expression works to the benefit of those that would preserve and perpetuate it and to the maximum extent defend it. Not to defend the essence and clarity of the law but the ambiguity of its language of expression. The English language. Not the English language as an expression of the under laying computer technology expression of the logical structure relationship of the concepts expressed by the written language of the law.
The law says what it says. The meaning of the law is in the words and their relationships to other words creating a conceptual structure.
The conceptual structure of our written laws, the US Code, must be expressed in a more precise manner, the under laying conceptual structure of an information engineered system implemented on a computer system.
Wow! There is a big challenge for the 21st Century!
The problem domain of the law is essentially the same as the problem domain of money. The difference is that those that control the money system have used information technology to organize their control of money and the society that uses their money. Bankster money.
Those that control the system of laws in our country have not used used information technology to organize their control of the laws of the land. The laws that dictate the operating systems and application programs of what money is and what money does as well as all the other things that are meant to be the application of the laws of our land.
Plausible Deniability as described here by Wikipedia is a function of Ambiguity.
Ambiguity = Wiggle Room
Ambiguity = Wiggle Room as a sub-optimized system design objective intent undermines the stated purpose and goal of the system.
The Law of the Land is the Law of the Land. The sub-optimized objective is to introduce ambiguity into the law by intent. This ambiguity mitigates the law or abrogates it or throws it to the courts to decide in the favor of law or the favor of those that seek to sub-optimize the law.
Citizen United?
If we created a object oriented information engineering design describing the relationship attributes of:
A Citizen
Corporations
The Constitution
US Code
Court Decisions
The whole sorry mess of expressing these complex conceptual things would be much more precise. Apply a precise methodology to a system structured to reduce ambiguity and then let the chips fall where they may.
We the people need that system and method of operation made possible by information technology. It is not the language that we as citizens generally use to organized and apply the rules of law.
Corporations, specifically financial entities, use information engineering technology as a language of choice.
We, the people, are out gunned in this battle. Among us there are those that are not. They have the skills and the tools. What is in it for them?
Those that come forward to give their time and efforts to applying information technology to things like the US code to make a bowl of spaghetti an organized conceptual structure that works better for us are true patriots in the tradition of our Founding Fathers that gave us the initial conceptual structural information engineered design for the building of out country. Not much has been done since then.
In the 1920's there was an effort as described by Wikipedia:
Official code
During the 1920s, some members of Congress revived the codification project, resulting in the approval of the United States Code by Congress in 1926.[17]The official version of the Code is published by the LRC as a series of paper volumes. The first edition of the Code was contained in a single bound volume; today, it spans several large volumes. Normally, a new edition of the Code is issued every six years, with annual cumulative supplements identifying the changes made by Congress since the last "main edition" was published.[18]
In practice, however, the Code is kept up-to-date on a near-current basis as laws are enacted, and notes are printed in the margins of the slip laws indicating where each section will be codified, if at all. Both the LRC and the GPO offer electronic versions of the Code to the public. The electronic version may be as much as 18 months behind current legislation, but it is the most up to date official version.
We can now do better than that!!!
There are 50 titles in the US Code. It is self evident that it is bloated, dis-organized and in need of restructuring.
A rule of thumb of information engineering says that big things in a top down break down, or if you want to look at it from the bottom up assembly view point. Break down (or build up) to a number of major component things (concepts) that range between 8 and 12 components. They each break down to things or concepts that range between 8 and 12 components.
The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Furthermore they are exclusive one to one relationships. The discrete conceptual relationship type on which conceptual structures are founded. Like the concept of one person, one vote.
The start of a solid conceptual structure is easy. However, if it is a major conceptual structure the start is most likely revolutionary as well as simple. There is no need for a new revolutionary start. Just a revolutionary change in how we apply our tools to the problem of implementing the vision.
Wiggle Room? That is the application of the best information technology tools available and used in the hands of the few to take the results of applying information technology to gain knowledge advantage and then codify rules identified by that knowledge in a cumbersome system of expression (US Code) that lacks the structural conceptual support of an equally engineered information system.
This sums up what was said in the first paragraph with some refinement based on all the paragraphs in between:
All the US Code has is the words and their conceptual related structures to support it. Words, only words, fail in a complex system. The implementation of the law is only in words vs the introduction of legislation based on information engineered structural analysis of sub-optimized objectives intended to repeal laws or introduce laws that do not apply and therefore contribute to attaining sub-optimized special interest objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment