Wikidata:Property proposal/general law

general law

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Not done

Description	law that applied in relatively broader scope
Data type	Item
Domain	sources of law (Q846882)
Allowed values	instance of statute (Q820655)
Example 1	Commercial Act of South Korea (Q15213202) → Civil Code of the Republic of Korea (Q5124449)
Example 2	Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act (Q73442024) → Commercial Act of South Korea (Q15213202)
Example 3	Juvenile Court Act (Q1711300) → Strafgesetzbuch (Q674827), Code of Criminal Procedure (Q897021)
Example 4	Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Q2520498) → Civil procedure code of Germany (Q206893)

Motivation

Laws can be ordered in general-specific relation. Specific law applies first, and then general law applies where there is no related provision in the specific law.

Currently, there is no way to express the relations of statutes. This property should be created to relate statutes in general-specific order. – Kwj2772 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment Isn't part of (P361) sufficient? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relation covered by the property I proposed is near to relation of general principles and exceptions, rather than whole-part. That means, if there is a relevant provision in a specific law, the provision in the specific law applies directly and provisions in general laws are excluded in application. Conversely, if there is no relevant provision in the specific law, provisions in general laws are applied mutatis mutandis. That's why part of (P361) is not applicable. – Kwj2772 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please use charter URL (P6378). Nomen ad hoc (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't see how charter URL (P6378) fits the purpose at all. As it's name suggests, it takes a URL, not a law. I don't know enough about law to cast a support vote, but it seems like this reason for an oppose is not valid. Swpb (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What prior arts exists for modeling this relationship? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This property is useful for countries which follow pandectists (Q59832). These countries uses Q1744275 to avoid repeating same provisions. Article 7 of Administrative Case Litigation Act (Q4683476) is a good example. – Kwj2772 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as i can see laws applied (P3014) is sufficient. --Hannolans (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Kwj2772: I think I have a vague understanding of where you’re going with this (next-higher level in the hierarchy of sources of law as relevant to the application of law, as opposed to the next-higher level in the hierarchy of authority when it comes to competency for declaration of law), but can you elaborate on the difference between laws applied (P3014) and this proposed property?―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Insufficient support and OP has not returned to discussion MSGJ (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]