SBVR11 — Move Fact Model Container Concepts from Clause 8 to Clause 10 (Spin-off from Issue 12540)

Please see attached Word document for Issue details.

This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions:

• the proposed resolution of this spin-off Issue which will be posted when it has a number;

• the proposed resolution to Issue 12540; and

• the proposed resolution of the 11296-1a / 11303-b spin-off Issue which will be posted when it has a number.

1. Sub-clause 8.5 is, for all practical purposes, disconnected from the rest of Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 in that the terms (i.e. conceptual schema, fact model) defined in Sub-clause 8.5 are hardly used at all in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12, and none of those uses are styled.

Conversely Clause 10.1.1 “SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation” (as well as the non-normative Annex L: “A Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the NIAM2007 Procedure to Specify a Conceptual Schema”) makes high use of the terms defined Sub-clause 8.5.

The vocabulary entries in Sub-clause 8.5 are moved to the context where they are used normatively i.e. in Clause 10.

2. Clarify that the uses of “conceptual schema” and “fact model” in Clause 2 “Conformance” refer to their use in Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI”.

3. Make clear that the uses of “conceptual schema” and “fact model” in Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI” are as defined in Sub-clause 10.1.2.1

4. Clarify that the Sub-clause 8.6.2 necessities are about the distinction between what is in the SBVR model and what is the Universe of Discourse of the SBVR Model