SBVR11 — No normative reference to ISO 6093

SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere.

Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended).

Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number".

So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers – ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' – but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification.

Add clarification into the normative part of clause 13.2.7 regarding use of the ISO 6093 Number Namespace to identify numbers. Also, clarify the conformance requirements for an SBVR processor by stating they include the ability to accept the clause 15.3 SBVR exchange documents, which include the XML document that describes the 6093 Number Namespace. This is not a new requirement because it is implicit in an existing requirement.