Government Domain Ontology

FLOW ALGEBRA
TITLE: Government Domain Ontology
VERSION: 1.0
SOURCE_URL: https://kirethresearch.org/booksai-core/ontologies/domain-ontologies/legal-government-domains/government-domain-ontology.html
STATUS: Domain-based draft; source page not independently verified.
AUTHORS: Mark Higgins — Sky (Recursive AI)

DOMAIN:
  id: government_domain_ontology
  parent: legal_government_domains
  purpose: Represent governmental institutions, public authority, governance processes, and accountable decision-making across jurisdictions.

TYPED_ENTITIES:
  Government: {id: string, jurisdiction: Jurisdiction, system_type: string, valid_period: Interval}
  Jurisdiction: {id: string, territory: string, level: enum[national,regional,local,supranational]}
  PublicInstitution: {id: string, institution_type: string, jurisdiction: Jurisdiction}
  ExecutiveBody: PublicInstitution
  Legislature: PublicInstitution
  JudicialBody: PublicInstitution
  PublicAgency: PublicInstitution
  PublicOfficial: {id: string, office: PublicOffice, term: Interval}
  PublicOffice: {id: string, institution: PublicInstitution, powers: set[LegalPower]}
  LegalPower: {id: string, legal_basis: LegalInstrument, scope: string}
  LegalInstrument: {id: string, instrument_type: string, jurisdiction: Jurisdiction, effective_period: Interval}
  PublicPolicy: {id: string, issuing_body: PublicInstitution, objectives: set[string], status: string}
  AdministrativeDecision: {id: string, authority: PublicInstitution, basis: LegalInstrument, date: Date}
  PublicService: {id: string, provider: PublicInstitution, beneficiaries: set[PopulationGroup]}
  PopulationGroup: {id: string, description: string}
  Budget: {id: string, authority: PublicInstitution, period: Interval, currency: string}
  OversightBody: PublicInstitution
  Election: {id: string, jurisdiction: Jurisdiction, date: Date, rules: set[LegalInstrument]}
  EvidenceRecord: {id: string, source: string, observed_at: DateTime, quality: float}

RELATIONSHIPS:
  HAS_JURISDICTION(Government|PublicInstitution, Jurisdiction)
  PART_OF(PublicInstitution, Government|PublicInstitution)
  HOLDS_OFFICE(PublicOfficial, PublicOffice)
  EXERCISES_POWER(PublicOffice|PublicInstitution, LegalPower)
  AUTHORISED_BY(LegalPower|AdministrativeDecision, LegalInstrument)
  ENACTS(Legislature, LegalInstrument)
  IMPLEMENTS(PublicInstitution, PublicPolicy)
  DELIVERS(PublicInstitution, PublicService)
  ALLOCATES(Budget, PublicService|PublicInstitution)
  OVERSEES(OversightBody, PublicInstitution|AdministrativeDecision)
  SUBJECT_TO_REVIEW(AdministrativeDecision, JudicialBody|OversightBody)
  AFFECTS(PublicPolicy|AdministrativeDecision, PopulationGroup)
  SUPPORTED_BY(Assertion, EvidenceRecord)

CONSTRAINTS:
  C1: Every exercise of public power must identify an applicable legal basis and jurisdiction.
  C2: Authority must be evaluated at the time of the act, not assumed permanent.
  C3: Institutional oversight does not imply operational control.
  C4: A policy proposal is not equivalent to an enacted law or implemented measure.
  C5: Governmental arrangements vary by jurisdiction; do not universalise a separation-of-powers model.
  C6: Missing evidence must not be interpreted as proof of absence.

INFERENCE_RULES:
  R1: EXERCISES_POWER(x,p) AND AUTHORISED_BY(p,l) AND VALID_AT(l,t) -> POTENTIALLY_AUTHORISED(x,p,t); subject to scope and jurisdiction checks.
  R2: PART_OF(a,b) AND HAS_JURISDICTION(b,j) -> CANDIDATE_JURISDICTION(a,j); requires confirmation of delegation.
  R3: IMPLEMENTS(a,p) AND AFFECTS(p,g) -> CANDIDATE_SERVICE_IMPACT(a,g); not proof of causal effect.
  R4: OVERSEES(o,a) -> ACCOUNTABILITY_LINK(a,o); oversight powers must be separately established.
  R5: AUTHORISED_BY(d,l) AND NOT VALID_AT(l,date(d)) -> FLAG_LEGAL_BASIS_REVIEW(d).
  R6: CONFLICTING_EVIDENCE(claim) -> FLAG_FOR_HUMAN_REVIEW(claim).

CONFIDENCE:
  range: [0.0,1.0]
  model: confidence = weighted(evidence_quality, source_independence, temporal_relevance, jurisdiction_match)
  warning: Confidence is an epistemic assessment, not legal validity or political approval.

SEMANTIC_EQUIVALENCE:
  equivalent_if: same_entity_identity AND same_jurisdiction AND compatible_time_period AND compatible_legal_role
  examples:
    - government department ~ ministry: context-dependent, not universal
    - local authority ~ municipality: jurisdiction-dependent, not universal
    - policy != legislation
    - executive order != statute

PROVENANCE:
  required: [source_identifier, source_type, retrieval_date, jurisdiction, effective_date, evidence_record]
  preserve: historical_versions
  distinguish: [official_record, scholarly_interpretation, commentary, unverified_claim]

FLOW_HASH:
  algorithm: SHA-256
  input: canonical_serialisation(domain, typed_entities, relationships, constraints, inference_rules, version)
  generation: Compute at publication time; no fabricated digest.

UPDATE_MODEL:
  triggers: [new_legislation, institutional_reorganisation, election_result, policy_change, court_decision, source_correction]
  steps: [ingest, verify_provenance, check_jurisdiction, reconcile_temporal_versions, validate_constraints, recompute_flow_hash, publish]
  retention: Preserve prior versions and audit trail.

AI_CONSUMPTION:
  format: text/plain; UTF-8
  tasks: [entity_linking, knowledge_graph_construction, jurisdiction_aware_retrieval, temporal_reasoning, policy_comparison, provenance_tracking]
  safeguards: [political_neutrality, human_review_for_legal_conclusions, no_unverified_authority_claims, no_inferred_electoral_preferences]
  output_requirements: [jurisdiction, relevant_time, cited_evidence, uncertainty, reasoning_trace]

END FLOW ALGEBRA