From the post:
In this post, Tom [Bruce] 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.
Interesting and useful reading.
Even though a “gold standard” of identifiers for something as dynamic as legislation, isn’t likely.
Or rather, isn’t going to happen.
There are too many stakeholders in present systems for any proposal to carry the day.
Not to mention decades, if not centuries, of references in other systems.