DTV 1.1 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

DTV11 — DTV Issue: Reference Scheme problems

  • Key: DTV11-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19327
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: General Electric ( Mark Linehan)
  • Summary:

    I've noticed a number of problems with reference schemes in DTV:

    1) In clause 8.3, the reference scheme for 'duration' has a forward reference to the verb concept 'precise atomic duration value quantifies duration', which is in clause 9.2.2.
    2) In clause 8.5, the first reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'an occurrence at the time point', has a forward reference to the synonymous form 'occurrence at time interval', which is in clause 16.2.
    3) In clause 8.5, the second reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'a time coordinate that indicates the time point', has a forward reference to the verb concept 'time coordinate indicates time point', which is in clause 10.5.1.
    4) In clause 8.5, the third reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'the time scale of the time point and the index of the time point', makes no sense, since a time point can belong to multiple time scales (e.g. 'time of day'). Suggested form: a time scale that has the time point and the
    5) In clause 8.5, the fourth reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'a time point kind and an index', has a forward reference to the general concept 'time point kinds', which is in clause 10.3. Moreover, the reference scheme is not defined properly; it should read "a time point kind and an index of the time point'.
    6) In clause 8.5, the fifth reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'the name of the time point', refers to a verb concept 'time point has name' that does not exist. Perhaps it is intended as 'a representation of the time point', but considering that a 'time coordinate' is a representation of a time point, it appears that this fifth reference scheme duplicates the second reference scheme, which read 'a time coordinate that indicates the time point'.
    7) In clause 10.1, the reference scheme for 'calendar', which reads 'the time scales that are defined by a calendar', refers to a missing synonymous form of 'calendar defines time scale'. Proposed solution: define this synonymous form.
    8) In clause 10.4, the reference scheme for 'local calendar', which reads "a time offset by which the local calendar's day of hours-scale difference from the day-of-hours scale of UTC", has multiple problems: (a) the words 'by which' should be verb-styled; (b) apparently this is trying to use a synonymous form of 'calendar1 differs from calendar2 by offset' but the reference scheme talks about scales of calendar, whereas the verb concept is about calendars; (c) there is no such synonymous form. Proposed solution: define synonymous form 'time offset of calendar1 from calendar2' of existing verb concept 'calendar1 differs from calendar2 by time offset', and reword the reference scheme as "the time offset of the local calendar from UTC".
    9) In Annex D.3, the reference scheme for 'particular quantity', which reads 'A definite description of the particular quantity', depends upon a noun concept 'definite description' that is not listed in Clause 4. Proposed solution: Change the reference scheme to 'a definite description that represents the particular quantity'. Add 'definite description' to clause 4, per SBVR, as a kind of 'intensional definition', which should be updated to define it as a kind of 'definition'. And 'definition' should be added as a kind of 'representation'. Also, make sure that clause 4 defines 'concept' as a kind of 'meaning' and 'meaning' as a kind of 'thing'.

  • Reported: DTV 1.0 — Wed, 2 Apr 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DTV 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Entries 1, 2, 3: Forward references are made necessary because there is only one glossary entry for the concept. There are similar examples in SBVR itself.
    4. Clause 8.6, in the entry for ‘time scale has time point’, makes a time point a part of exactly one time scale.; ‘time of day’ and ‘calendar day’ are time point kinds, not time points.
    5. The cited reference scheme is invalid – a time point kind does not necessarily identify a scale, and thus the index is ambiguous. Consider ‘calendar day’ and 1.
    6. The redundant reference scheme will be deleted. (It is a vestige of a draft in which time coordinates did not include terms for time points.)
    7. The missing synonymous form will be defined.
    8. The suggested synonymous (noun) form will be defined.
    9. It is sufficient to adopt ‘definite description’ and ‘concept has definition’ from SBVR. (Note: intensional definition is already present)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT