[NEW]: Parent/categorial concepts for regulations

[bact]

Specs

LEGAL (e.g., IE, US)

New Concept(s)

Split from #428, as a response to the question:

Do we have/need a parent concept for "AI regulation"? (with potentially EU AI Act, S.Korea AI Basic Act, Taiwan AI Basic Act as children).
Or in general, do parent terms for legal concepts exist/make sense?

@coolharsh55's answer and initial proposal

We don't have a concept for AI law, neither for Data Protection / Privacy laws.
I think we can do this for v2.4, though there are two options:

# Option 1 -- classes
legal-eu:law-GDPR a dpv:DataProtectionLaw .
legal-eu:law-AIAct a dpv:AILaw .
# Q: why not Privacy Law?
# A: in EU legal terms, this is a law for data protection, e.g. the word privacy isn't used anywhere in the GDPR.

# Option 2 - scope based
legal-eu:law-GDPR a dpv:Law ; dpv:hasScope dpv:PersonalData . # law regulations personal data
legal-eu:law-AIAct a dpv:Law ; dpv:hasScope ai:AI .
# Q: should we specify "processing of personal data"?
# A: IMHO no, because then we get into complex modelling of scope

[coolharsh55]

I'm thinking more about this and have a few questions to discuss this later:

1. Why do we want to model these concepts? What utility will it provide? (other than helping with organisation of concepts maybe). One usefulness could be to have a list of all privacy laws across jurisdictions.
2. If broadly we count GDPR as a PrivacyLaw and AI Act etc. as AILaw, then what should EHDS, NIS2, DGA, Data Act, etc. be considered?
3. If we tie laws to a concept as the scope/subject as in Option 2, the usefulness in pt.1 above is still possible e.g. get all laws about Personal Data. For EHDS, the concept is HealthData, for NIS2 it is Cybersecurity, and DataAct it is Data.

[bact]

We can ask "in which jurisdictions are X and Y regulated by the same agency?" (maybe more interesting if we perceived that X and Y could be conflicting). This is also possible by scope.