I hope this is the right forum for such questions. As I've argued in the CRMsoc group (http://forum.dataforhistory.org/node/165), I would like to model legal provisions as a kind of E89 Propositional Object. In the mentioned post, I have argued for a separation of the legal rule and the E90 Symbolic Object in which the provision is somehow formulated. However, the issue is probably more complicated. Especially in judicial discourse, the actual and concrete formulation of the text is essential to the concept that is the normative rule.
When I tried to model this, I ended up with an E31 Document that P70-documented the rule, but I feel this may not be adequate - without being able to make my unease more explicit.
One of the problems may be that I somehow expected the "physical" document to be reachable via a shorter path. And this I imagine must be a more common problem, therefore my question: how do you typically model the relation between propositional object, document, symbolic object, physical object - either with or without FRBRoo?
Thanks for any insights!