SBVR — What is the "business vocabulary" in 10.3

Clause 10.3 says it is a mapping from "the selected subset of (important) SBVR business terms" to the formal logic terms in 10.1.2. It is not clear how these terms were selected. They are all drawn from clause 8 and 9, but they don't correspond to any defined vocabulary, and they are not complete with respect to clause 8 or 9. Those terms that are defined in Clause 9 should apparently be mapped in 10.2. Those coming from clause 8 should represent an organized set of concepts.

All of 8.1 is covered except for 'concept' and 'question'.
8.2 is not covered.
8.3 is not covered at all, except for 'statement'.
8.4 is covered, but the mapping is nonsense. Reference schemes have no counterpart in mathematical logic.
8.5 is covered.
8.6 is covered.
8.7 is covered.

9.1[only] is covered but the mapping is nonsense. A "semantic formulation" doesn't necessarily correspond to a logical proposition or predicate; it may be defined by the mathematics of sets or arithmetics or functions.
9.1.1 is covered, except for question nominalization and answer nominalization.
9.1.2 is covered in theory, but the mapping is nonsense. A projection is an operation on sets that has no logical result, although it may involve a logical formulation.

Many terms that are said to be adequately mapped by their supertypes in 10.3.3 are not, in that the subtype creates an importantly different mathematical logic interpretation.

And most of the subtypes of quantification defined in clause 9 have no image in mathematical logic. (Clause 10 would have to introduce set theory and model cardinality and basic arithmetic to support these.)

Recommendation:

a. Move and correct the mappings of terms defined in clause 9.1.1 from 10.3 into 10.2. (This may depend on other issues related to clause 9.1.1.)

b. Define the 'sub-vocabulary' of Clause 8 for which what remains in 10.3 defines a mapping, complete and correct the mapping of that vocabulary.

c. Delete the mappings for the terms from 9.1[only] or 9.1.2.

Resolved by the resolution to Issue 9959.