SBVR11 — Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules

All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR – namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution.

Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules

Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com

Summary:

SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement).

The current definition of “community” is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common

The current definition of “semantic community” is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with

By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ...

Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities.

Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the “business” part of “business rule”. This omission is a significant one.

In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the “under business jurisdiction” test in the definition of “business rule”.

Resolution:

Add a category of “community” called “governed community” as follows.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Definition: community that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules

Dictionary Basis [MWUD “govern”]: 1a: to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in

Examples: societies, chartered organizations, businesses, government bodies

Example: EU-Rent is a legal entity, makes business rules for itself, and is therefore a governed community. Eu-Rent is also a member of each governed community (country) where it does business, as well as the European Union, a yet broader governed community.

Note: A governed community can adopt sets of business rules (and advices) as-is, just like vocabulary. The decision to adopt business rules ‘as-is’ is an act of free will and therefore satisfies the “under business jurisdiction” test in the definition of “business rule”.

Note: The “business” part of “business rule” is a popular, informal term for “governed community”.

Note: The question “Who makes the rules?” for a governed community is outside the scope of SBVR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Revised Text:

Previously, I did a search of Clause 12, and sent my findings and recommendations. There are 5 segments of text where “semantic community”, “community” or “communities” appear. Below are (revised) recommendations for each.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance

Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings uniting a semantic community that takes the elements of guidance as true

RGR: This definition is problematic. Alethic elements of guidance might “unite” a semantic community (no real opinion), but I don’t see deontic elements of guidance as (a) “uniting” anything, or (b) pertaining to semantic community at all (unless the semantic community just happens to be a society, organization or business).

Also, from a business perspective (as appropriate for Clause 11), a “community” doesn’t “take … elements of guidance to be true”. That’s a logician’s view. It would be more accurate to say ‘recognizes … as applicable’.

Recommendation: Delete the phrase starting “uniting ...”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2] business rule

Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction

General Concept: rule, element of guidance

Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3.

RGR: There are 3 instances of “semantic community” in this note.

Recommendation: I would change this note to read as follows:

Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[3] advice of contingency

Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency

Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past.

RGR: There is one instance of “semantic community” in this note and one instance of “community”.

Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by “governed community”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[4] advice of optionality

Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality

Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past.

RGR: There is one instance of “semantic community” in this note and one instance of “community”.

Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by “governed community”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[5] Section 12.5, page 178, the paragraph that reads:

In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement, there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions. Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what characteristics are incorporated by concepts.

RGR: There is one instance of “community” in this section and one instance of “communities”.

Recommendation: I have no strong feelings at present about whether these instances should be changed or stand.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing:
• A new noun concept (general concept): ‘authority’
• Two new roles: ‘adopting authority’ and ‘owning authority’
• Four new verb concepts:
1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it)
2. authority authors guidance statement
3. authority defines element of guidance
4. adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference
• Notes , stating that:
1. Elements of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract. They must be adopted via representations – guidance statements.
2. If elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings.