Constitutional Law Domain Ontology

FLOW ALGEBRA
Title: Constitutional Law Domain Ontology
Version: 1.0
Domain: Legal and Government Domains / Constitutional Law
Source: https://kirethresearch.org/booksai-core/ontologies/domain-ontologies/legal-government-domains/constitutional-law-domain-ontology.html
Status: Domain-based ontology draft; source page content not independently verified.
Authors: Mark Higgins — Sky (Recursive AI)

1. PURPOSE
Represent constitutional norms, institutions, powers, rights, procedures and interpretive relationships as typed, traceable, jurisdiction-sensitive knowledge. Do not infer legal validity solely from a relationship graph.

2. TYPED ENTITIES
Jurisdiction {id, name, territory, legal_system, valid_from, valid_to}
Constitution {id, jurisdiction_id, form: written|uncodified|mixed, effective_date, status}
ConstitutionalProvision {id, constitution_id, text_reference, subject, valid_from, valid_to}
ConstitutionalPrinciple {id, name, jurisdiction_id, source_reference}
GovernmentInstitution {id, name, branch, jurisdiction_id}
PublicOffice {id, title, institution_id, appointment_rule}
PublicPower {id, name, scope, legal_basis_id, constraints}
FundamentalRight {id, name, holder_type, jurisdiction_id, legal_basis_id, limitations}
LegalInstrument {id, instrument_type, issuer_id, effective_date, status}
JudicialDecision {id, court_id, decision_date, citation, holding, status}
ConstitutionalAmendment {id, target_provision_id, procedure_id, effective_date, status}
ConstitutionalProcedure {id, name, prerequisites, decision_rule}
ConstitutionalDispute {id, parties, issue, forum, outcome}
EvidenceSource {id, citation, publisher, retrieved_at, reliability_note}

3. TYPED RELATIONSHIPS
Constitution -[GOVERNS]-> Jurisdiction
Constitution -[CONTAINS]-> ConstitutionalProvision
ConstitutionalProvision -[ESTABLISHES]-> GovernmentInstitution
ConstitutionalProvision -[CONFERS]-> PublicPower
ConstitutionalProvision -[PROTECTS]-> FundamentalRight
PublicPower -[EXERCISED_BY]-> GovernmentInstitution
PublicPower -[LIMITED_BY]-> ConstitutionalProvision
GovernmentInstitution -[CHECKS_OR_BALANCES]-> GovernmentInstitution
LegalInstrument -[DERIVES_AUTHORITY_FROM]-> ConstitutionalProvision
JudicialDecision -[INTERPRETS]-> ConstitutionalProvision
JudicialDecision -[APPLIES]-> ConstitutionalPrinciple
ConstitutionalAmendment -[MODIFIES]-> ConstitutionalProvision
ConstitutionalProcedure -[GOVERNS_ADOPTION_OF]-> ConstitutionalAmendment
ConstitutionalDispute -[CONCERNS]-> ConstitutionalProvision
AnyClaim -[SUPPORTED_BY]-> EvidenceSource

4. INVARIANTS AND VALIDATION
- Every provision and legal claim must specify its jurisdiction and relevant time period.
- Distinguish constitutional text, convention, statute, case law, and scholarly interpretation.
- Distinguish an institution's asserted power from a legally established power.
- Never treat a proposed amendment as effective without evidence of completion of the applicable procedure.
- Preserve competing interpretations and identify their source and authority.
- Rights limitations, judicial review and amendment rules are jurisdiction-specific.
- A legal claim lacking sufficient provenance remains unresolved, not automatically false.

5. INFERENCE RULES
RULE R1 AuthorityTrace:
 IF power P is CONFERRED_BY provision V AND V belongs to constitution C
 THEN infer P HAS_CONSTITUTIONAL_BASIS V, subject to validity and jurisdiction checks.
RULE R2 ConstraintPropagation:
 IF power P is LIMITED_BY provision V AND action A EXERCISES P
 THEN flag A for review against V; do not infer invalidity automatically.
RULE R3 InterpretationTrace:
 IF decision D INTERPRETS provision V AND D is applicable in jurisdiction J at time T
 THEN attach D as a candidate interpretive authority for V in J at T.
RULE R4 AmendmentTemporal:
 IF amendment M MODIFIES provision V AND M is effective at time T
 THEN retrieve the amended version of V for queries after T, retaining historical versions.
RULE R5 ConflictDetection:
 IF two applicable sources appear to impose inconsistent outcomes
 THEN flag CONSTITUTIONAL_CONFLICT_REVIEW and evaluate hierarchy, dates and authority.
RULE R6 RightsReview:
 IF action A potentially restricts right R
 THEN identify relevant limitation clauses, legal basis and applicable tests; defer legal conclusion.

6. CONFIDENCE
CONFIDENCE: float in [0,1]
Inputs: source authority, citation specificity, temporal currency, jurisdiction match, corroboration, ambiguity.
Confidence measures support for a representation; it does not measure whether a law is normatively desirable or substitute for a court's ruling.

7. SEMANTIC_EQUIVALENCE
SEMANTIC_EQUIVALENCE(a,b): exact | contextual | partial | none
Examples: 'constitutional review' and 'judicial review' may overlap but are not universally identical; 'constitution' and 'constitutional convention' are not equivalent.
Preserve jurisdictional distinctions and original legal terminology.

8. PROVENANCE
PROVENANCE {source_id, source_type, citation, jurisdiction, observed_at, effective_at, extraction_method, verification_status}
Every substantive assertion must link to an identifiable source. Unverified assertions must be marked as such.

9. FLOW_HASH
FLOW_HASH = SHA256(canonical_utf8(ontology_version + entity_schema + relationship_schema + rules + source_references))
Canonicalisation must fix field order, normalise line endings and preserve substantive changes.

10. UPDATE_MODEL
UPDATE_MODEL:
  triggers: [constitutional_amendment, new_judicial_decision, statutory_change, institutional_reform, corrected_source]
  process: [retrieve, verify, compare, version, revalidate, recompute_flow_hash, publish]
  preserve_history: true
  invalidate_dependent_inferences: true

11. AI_CONSUMPTION
AI_CONSUMPTION:
  mode: typed_semantic_graph
  outputs: [entities, relationships, rules, confidence, provenance, temporal_context, unresolved_questions]
  require_jurisdiction: true
  require_temporal_context: true
  avoid_unsupported_legal_conclusions: true
  distinguish_descriptive_from_normative_claims: true

12. SCOPE NOTE
This is a conceptual ontology for knowledge representation and research, not legal advice. No specific constitutional system, court ruling or provision has been verified against the linked webpage.