He's asking for a standard, not an API to various oracle machines currently in existence.
The "system that works for years" relies on subjectively-defined terms often fiated by those oracle machines (thus only deterministic given the 'institutional knowledge' of 'accepted practice' depending on various jurisdictions) which aren't actually written down or encoded anywhere.
Because anyone who would be in a position to see that and write those down usually has a job instead acting as an oracle machine for decisions made based on that knowledge.
And that's just one of the gotchas where that's concerned. Taking the 'ideal' solution of just encoding 'common practices' ad-hoc as issues arise, you might as well just roll your own at that point.
We have predictable standards codified in statute and case law. Most cases settle predictably. A few make new law. These receive disproportionate media attention because they are defining edge cases. It doesn't matter if your law is in code or text at that point. If you have an investigatory law saying "books and papers," and a prosecutor seizes an iPhone, you have to produce new law.
This ambiguity is a product of mapping heterogeneity between abstract concepts and the real world. There will never be agreement on what all words mean. "Is this a chair? Yes. Is that a chair? No, it's art. Who says? Let's debate." That is a product of language.
> which aren't actually written down or encoded anywhere
Here's a random, recent Supreme Court opinion [1]. I don't have a legal background; I find it highly readable. Furthermore, the citations are pretty easy to follow.
> anyone who would be in a position to see that and write those down usually has a job instead acting as an oracle machine
Not everyone trained in law is a legislator. (Or judge.) Many legislators, judges, lawyers, professors, students and random people opine on the law in books, blogs and other materials. This is a public debate. When courts face an edge case, lawyers from both sides cite these materials. After that, once a precedent is set (and recorded), it is respected until a new edge case arises or the statute is revised by the political system.
> This ambiguity is a product of mapping heterogeneity between abstract concepts and the real world. There will never be agreement on what all words mean
And even if there is agreement, these meanings may change over time.
It is not uncommon for laws to be deliberately abstract precisely to accomodate future developments.
> The "system that works for years" relies on subjectively-defined terms often fiated by those oracle machines (thus only deterministic given the 'institutional knowledge' of 'accepted practice' depending on various jurisdictions)
The same could be said about countless technical standards...
> which aren't actually written down or encoded anywhere.
The "system that works for years" relies on subjectively-defined terms often fiated by those oracle machines (thus only deterministic given the 'institutional knowledge' of 'accepted practice' depending on various jurisdictions) which aren't actually written down or encoded anywhere.
Because anyone who would be in a position to see that and write those down usually has a job instead acting as an oracle machine for decisions made based on that knowledge.
And that's just one of the gotchas where that's concerned. Taking the 'ideal' solution of just encoding 'common practices' ad-hoc as issues arise, you might as well just roll your own at that point.