-
Key: SBVR11-111
-
Legacy Issue Number: 15805
-
Status: closed
-
Source: General Electric ( Mark Linehan)
-
Summary:
Problem:
In clause 14.3, page 193, the example XML is wrong because it relates roles to the objectTypes ranged over using <sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2> instead of <sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType> as required in the remainder of the specification, as shown in the diagram on page 192, and as shown in the "XML Patterns for Fact Types" in clause 13.6.4. I believe this is an editorial error that remains from when the SBVR FTF created the "role ranges over object type" verb concept.
Also, the <sbvr:factType> element should be <sbvr:binaryFactType> and the <sbvr:designation> element should be <sbvr:factSymbol>
On page 192, in the diagram, the box labelled ": fact type" should instead be labelled ": binary fact type", and the box labelled ": designation" (the one that is connected to the text box with "value=appoints") should instead be labelled ": fact symbol".
Proposed Resolution:
Update the diagram on page 192 as follows:
- replace the text in the box labelled ": fact type" with the replacement text ": binary fact type:
- replace the text in the box labelled ": designation" that is connected to the text box with "value=appoints", with the replacement text ": fact symbol"
See this screen shot to identify the boxes that should be updated:
Make these changes to the example XML on page 193:
<sbvr:factType xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/> --> <sbvr:binaryFactType xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/>
<sbvr:designation xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/> --> <sbvr:factSymbol xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="cao-r1" concept2="company-c"/> --> <sbvr:RangesOverObjectType role="cao-r1" objectType="company-c"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="cao-r2" concept2="officer-c"/> --> <sbvr:RangesOverObjectType role="cao-r2" objectType="officer-c"/> -
Reported: SBVR 1.0 — Fri, 5 Nov 2010 04:00 GMT
-
Disposition: Resolved — SBVR 1.1
-
Disposition Summary:
The example is revised as proposed. However, the <sbvr:designation> element is not replaced with <sbvr:factSymbol> to avoid introducing a clause 11 concept into the example.
-
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT