There is no reason that contracts can’t have harmonized taxonomies.  Note the plurals.  There are:  an external taxonomy –  of the kinds of contracts; and an internal taxonomy – of the provisions of the contract.  And different groups will at least start with different taxonomies (both external and internal).   Even if network benefits (Klausen et al, Triantis), history, and common sense demonstrate that in the field of law it will all converge.

But as a matter of process, it is important that there be room for various solutions at all levels of the stack.  No exclusivity.  Exclusivity is procrustean and requires meetings.  In FOSS, they speak of the cathedral and the bazaar. Bazaars are fast and broad.

I’ll focus on internal taxonomies for the moment because order comes best from the inside out and the internals will affect how we view externals.

The deepest commonality among agreements is the frame.  I invite you to look at Model_Agt_Frame.  (If you don’t have a password, use Temporary as your log in and Today as your password.)  From that you will see some other ideas about taxonomies.  Note even that within the system taxonomies are not exclusive.  From the home page, go to the Model Stock Purchase Agreement and note the simplicity of on-boarding using section numbers.  Names can be mapped to the numbers.  And Kingsley has very developed ideas about taxonomies.

If you have a sustained thought about a different way (one you think, at least provisionally, might be better) please feel free to fork Model_Agt_Frame by creating a new page (named perhaps with your Twitter handle in the URL?) and letting us know. You or I can cross-reference it on the site and maybe here.

I’m suggesting we use the Mediawiki platform at because it is really simple and familiar to Wikipedia users.   It has an extremely limited version of the data model, but is sweet-natured.