Title: I&#x27;m a pro bono attorney, and have been really interested in making the law easier to understand. I also see a ton of government resources online in varying degrees of usability. And for sure, there&#x27;s no interoperability between them.<p>This is an international legal dictionary, an experiment in improving the situation: glossaries are scraped and parses from official sources: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;public-law&#x2F;open-gov-crawlers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;public-law&#x2F;open-gov-crawlers</a>. The results are saved as datasets in well formed JSON with Dublin Core metadata: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;public-law&#x2F;datasets" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;public-law&#x2F;datasets</a><p>I add Library of Congress subject headings to the sources, to enable filtering (still to come).<p>The web app is basically an old-school mashup, which I&#x27;ve always liked.<p>Another experiment is using the Dale-Chall readability formula to improve the reader&#x27;s experience. Here&#x27;s an example of it at work:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.public.law&#x2F;dictionary&#x2F;entries&#x2F;amicus-curiae" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.public.law&#x2F;dictionary&#x2F;entries&#x2F;amicus-curiae</a><p>This is an experiment, using readability as a <i>relative</i> metric. I.e., not extracing an absolute grade-level score as its normaly used. Instead, using it to compare different definitions of the same phrase. My theory is, there&#x27;s strong scientific validity for this use, even when applied to very short passages: All I simply want is to figure out, &quot;Which is more readable? Passage A or B?&quot; And then, my code sorts the definitions in order of readability to (theoretically) produce a newspaper-article-like effect: A reader can read the first couple of sentences to get an overview of the story.
Upvote: