SBVR11 — Example of quantity vs. quantification

In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins:
"'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.'
In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’.
The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification.
. The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300."

This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification.
"At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 litres of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities – the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read:
"EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kilolitres."

In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept – an amount of time. "300 kilolitres" is also an individual concept – a 'quantity value'.

If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance – a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns – petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl – but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example.

In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example – that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage – would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example.

The example is replaced by a straightforward example of mentioning a concept.