MVP of dictionaries direct dependency on other dictionaries on the Cōdex format

[fititnt]

• Examples cited here (some links may change over time)
  • [1603:63:101] //Dictiōnāria basibus dē rēbus vītālibus necessāriīs//
    • https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ih3ouvx_n8W5ntNcYBqoyZ2NRMdaA0LRg5F9mGriZm4/edit#gid=1462297555
  • [1603:44:86] //Dictiōnāria basibus dē tortūrīs//
    • https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ih3ouvx_n8W5ntNcYBqoyZ2NRMdaA0LRg5F9mGriZm4/edit#gid=447110259
  • [1603:44:101] /Dictiōnāria basibus dē sceleribus contrā persōnam/
    • https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ih3ouvx_n8W5ntNcYBqoyZ2NRMdaA0LRg5F9mGriZm4/edit#gid=1448713891
  • [1603:44:111] /Dictiōnāria basibus dē sceleribus contrā ūnam commūnitātem ab rēctōribus/
    • https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ih3ouvx_n8W5ntNcYBqoyZ2NRMdaA0LRg5F9mGriZm4/edit#gid=2086282985

---

From this tweet https://twitter.com/fititnt/status/1503494979922153474, while we're already aware Cōdex about human rights violations could be complex, it turns out that even the most basic Cōdex (the generic ones) cannot be done without dependencies.

The [1603:63:101] //Dictiōnāria basibus dē rēbus vītālibus necessāriīs// (which at this moment goes over 950 pages in A5 format) is somewhat borderline viable to create an MVP as single codes, but human rights violations are quite challenging.

Let's use this as example, from very top to bottom

Example use cases

Crimes Against Humanity

With a quick look, we can obviously compile terms, such as "genocide" and even do basic categorization about types of genocide.

This can work pretty well to use dictionaries for translation of terms.

However, it doesn't help to explain what can be considered genocide. Yes, it is possible to write down some standard definition, but then it would need to start explaining the terms of this definition.

Also, beyond have translations such as type of genocides, our draft already have as concepts international treaties which explain in deep general ideas. So some dictionaries already could reference external documents.

Also note that there's a difference between the terms for "genocide" when we translate, and what have go to a forma trial on international courts. So at this level, we already need to start breaking dictionaries.

Human Rights Violations (at individual level)

The idea of crimes against humanity needs at least dictionaries about crimes against humans (not because they're part of a collective of humans, and not done by people which have responsibility to protect them).

On this dictionaries, again, we can start have concepts such as crimes like "rape". And then start break by types of have we can find translations and are immediately useful for internal data exchange as a strict single concept.

But then, again, a problem: while breaking rape into more focused concepts, this do allow translations, but we miss the opportunity necessary on data collection of individual facts that can be attested before the conclusion of if is or not "rape".

Note that even the act which other person is killed can have several terms, it can go from self defense, to planned assassination. Even types of suicide can be from simple suicide to murder suicide, or political suicide. Or suicide bombing. Even if we distribute translations, and they are accurate, the decision behind them depends on several factors.

Also, we have cases where it is not possible to collect evidence directly. Common case is not being able to tell if the person is killed because we need a concept of forced disappearance and likely several others to allow some conclusion if some could assume the person as dead. Similar findings could be draw about rape when despite not be viable collect evidence, would be need concepts which could used on why the evidence was not collected (such as person be detained for longer time before direct evidence be collected).

Again, I'm not saying it is impossible to use the terms. It is. But to maximize dictionaries usability, it makes sense to have more dependencies. Another good reason for this is that implements (the ones with access to very sensitive daga) start to allow cross comparisons between jurisdictions and depend less on ad hoc translations. The concepts which allow more details, should have them. And this is easier on more observable events than conclusion about such events.

Generic dictionaries about torture methods

While torture methods could go on deeper level of details (waterboarding, for example, could be done in several ways) here we can start to have dictionaries which are more direct usable.

Generic dictionaries about ways of death

This one, again, may by itself, be broken into smaller parts. However, it is more easily observable, but when no intention of hiding evidence exists.

But is one necessary as part of data collection with more details.

Burial method (including cremation and types of unmarked graves)

This one is very relevant for data collection of more serious human rights. And even mass graves need differentiation between, for example, if it was for reasons of epidemic, so by dedicated codes, this can start to be more detailed.

[fititnt]

Ok, we have something. Just not sure where to put the information. For now is on Preface.