DTV 1.2 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

DTV12 — new DTV issue: Clause 4 has no semantics

Open Closed All
  • Key: DTV12-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19463
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: General Electric ( Mark Linehan)
  • Summary:

    None of the concepts listed in Clause 4 have any semantics other than “

    {adopted concept}”, yet other aspects of DTV depend upon the “missing” semantics. For example, the Necessity “Each absolute time point corresponds to exactly one time interval.” appears in clause 8.5. This depends upon “meaning corresponds to thing” via the fact that ‘absolute time point’ is a concept because ‘time point’ is a concept type. But clause 4 does not show that ‘concept’ is a category of ‘meaning’, so the relationship among these is missing in DTV. This particularly matters when translating DTV to OWL, since “{adopted concept}

    ” has no semantics. Note that the symbol “

    {adopted concept}” is not defined either in SBVR-SE or DTV clause 5.



    Recommendation – adopt one of these two solutions:

    1. Formally specify the meaning of “{adopted concept}

    ”.

    2. Duplicate the entire glossary entries of the adopted concepts from SBVR.

    3. Add “General Concept” captions to these adopted concepts to capture the primary SBVR type hierarchy.
  • Reported: DTV 1.0 — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DTV 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The RTF agrees that the form of Clause 4 is unsatisfactory.
    SBVR does not specify what the form of an excerpt from another vocabulary, including selective adoption of terms should be. Further, the SBVR RTF does not agree that the form of Clause 4 is an appropriate form for a vocabulary. Therefore, the RTF determined that the form of Clause 4 should be consistent with ISO practice, which is to identify the source standard and cite the terms adopted from it. This requires the reader to be familiar with the source standard (SBVR), and that is not an unreasonable requirement for a reader of DTV.
    Clause 4 is rewritten in ISO style, and not as an SBVR vocabulary.
    Issue 19445 identifies a number of missing concepts in Clause 4, and those are incorporated in the revised text below.
    The RTF also notes that the term ‘business designation’ is not an SBVR term. The title of the DTV Index should be Index of Date Time Designations.
  • Updated: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:40 GMT