SBVR — Body of Shared Meanings

The dictionary basis of ‘body of shared meanings’ is the dictionary definition of ‘universal set’, which is way off track and can only produce confusion. No body of shared meanings is the universal set.

Since ‘body of shared meanings’ is defined with respect to “a given semantic community”, why isn’t it a ‘role’. A set of concepts and guidance that is a body of shared meanings of one community is not necessarily a body of shared meanings for another community, but it is still a set of concepts and guidance.

Either the second necessity listed under ‘semantic community understands body of shared meanings’ is incorrect or there needs to be a definition of that fact type that gives a particular meaning of “understands” that is different from normal usage. The contradiction is seen in a simple example. Assume a semantic community EU-Rent has a subcommunity EU-Rent Mechanics. EU-Rent Mechanics’ body of shared meanings includes everything in EU-Rent’s and more. Both EU-Rent and EU-Rent Mechanics understand the body of shared meanings that is understood by EU-Rent, which contradicts the necessity that “Each body of shared meaning [sic] is understood by exactly one semantic community”.

I suspect that the necessity is what is intended and that making ‘body of shared meanings’ a role and simply using the verb “has” rather than “understands” will clear things up.

Remove the Dictionary Basis under 'body of shared meanings'.
Replace 'semantic community understands body of shared meanings' with 'body of shared meanings unites semantic community' and add a note.