SBVR11 — "The Signifier "Fact Type" Badly Misrepresents the Clause 8.1.1 Concept as Defined and Needs to be Replaced"

The concept in SBVR Clause 8.1.1 defined as:

“concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities”

has as its preferred term the signifier “fact type” This signifier, “fact type,” badly represents this concept and its definition. It is an example of bad term formation practice and is causing great confusion in the interpretation of the SBVR specification by contradicting the definition.

Good term formation practice results in the best word or phrase that quickly and most reliably brings to mind the definition of the concept.

In addition, this same signifier, “fact type,” is used as the term for a quite difference concept in Clause 10; thereby further increasing confusion in the SBVR specification.

Recommended Resolution:

Remove “fact type” as a term for the concept in SBVR Clause 8.1.1 that it currently represents, and replace it with the signifier “actuality type” as that is what the definition is defining.

The ambiguity referred to in this issue is that 'fact type':
1. is defined in Clause 8 as "concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities"
2. is used in Clause 10 with a different meaning - not formally defined, but used in the text with the meaning 'kind of facts e.g. “Employee works for Department”' (in parentheses in paragraph 3 of 10.1.1.2).

When Terry Halpin was asked recently to clarify the Clause 10 meaning, he responded "A fact type is the set of all possible facts of interest, using "fact" in the sense that I gave you. In logical terms, a fact type corresponds to a set of one or more typed predicates, where I use 'predicate' in a semantic sense, rather than a syntactic sense (i.e. predicate reading)."
In RTF discussion there has been some resistance to removing the signifier 'fact type' from either the SBVR metamodel (Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12, 13) or from Clause 10. If we follow SBVR's own guidance, the signifiers for the two meanings of 'fact type' need disambiguation, such as 'fact type (actualities)' and 'fact type (facts)'.

The resolution is:
1. Remove the ambiguity from the term “fact type” and ‘object type’ (Clause 10: ‘ type of individual’) as currently used in Clause 8 and Clause 10 by distinguishing ‘verb concept’ and ‘fact type’:
a. Remove ambiguity surrounding the difference between the Clause 8 entry currently having the signifier “fact type’ with the Clause 10 concept ‘fact type’:
i. In Clause 8 remove ambiguity surrounding the ‘fact type’ entry.
ii. In Clause 10.1.2.1: create a formal definition of 'fact type'. based on Terry's input (as above); continuing to use 'fact type' as the signifier throughout Clause 10.
b. Remove ambiguity surrounding the difference between the Clause 8 entry currently having the signifier “object type’ with the Clause 10 concept ‘fact type’:
i. In Clause 8: make 'general concept' the primary term and use 'general concept' in place of “object type” as the signifier throughout Clauses 1-9 and 11-13.
ii. In Clause 10.1.2.1: create a formal definition of 'object type'. based on wording in Clause 10.1.1.2 for “type of individual”; continuing to use 'object type' as the signifier throughout Clause 10 in place of “type of individual”.
2. Describe the relationship between ‘verb concept’ in Clause 8 and ‘fact type’ in Clause 10 and between ‘general concept’ in Clause 8 and ‘type of individual’ in Clause 10 at an overview level of detail. Create a spin-off Issue to add a subclause to Subclause 10.1.1 to discuss to an appropriate level of detail all aspects of the relationship between the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 and the formal interpretation in Subclause 10.1.1, as well as removing ambiguity from Clause 10.1.1 by consistent use of terms intension, extension, fact population, and the set of all possible facts..
3. Revise introductory text for Clause 10 and in Subclause 10.1.1.1 to make it clear that Clause 10 is not part of the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12, and has the purpose of providing formal interpretation / semantics for the concepts in SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12.
4. Create a spin-off Issue to correct the existing definitions in Clause 10.1.2.1
5. Update SBVR Scope-related Statements (un-styled use of “fact”)
6. Create a separate spin-off Issue to deal with the point about “defining that Clause 10 ‘fact models’ are by default closed world models”.