SBVR12 — Re-Sequencing SBVR

For many years, I have been critical of the organization of SBVR. It's overall structure was neglected during the periods of rapid development. As a result the SBVR document proves difficult to approach – needlessly so.

Earlier this year, I was tasked with working on re-sequencing the material. After months of careful consideration, my proposed reorganization is attached. The work is directly based on, and builds from, team discussion and consensus from earlier this year.

In place of the three existing Clauses 8, 11 and 12, I am proposing the following 9 replacements:

• 8 Vocabulary for a Community's Meanings
• 9 Vocabulary for a Community's Representations
• 10 Vocabulary for a Community's Terminology
• 11 Vocabulary for Concept System Structure
• 12 Vocabulary for an Authority's Business Rules
• 13 Vocabulary for an Authority's Business Rule Statements
• 14 Fundamental Principles for Business Rules
• 15 Vocabulary for Collections of Meanings and Representations
• 16 Vocabulary for Adoption

Ironically, I personally do not agree with some of the placement of entries and sections. However, I tried to take into account the concerns and preferences (at least as far as I understand them) of all team members. I have proposed a holistic solution, so please understand and evaluate it that way.

Notes and Observations

• The resequencing did not require as many Clauses as I earlier anticipated. There are only 3x more than at present.

• Nowhere does the material dip below 3 levels of structure (2 levels of subclauses). For approachability, I strongly recommend staying within 3 levels.

• I did not strictly adhere to the rule of "no use of a term in definitions until the term is itself defined". The Chair advised that even ISO had not done this. However, it's certainly a good rule of thumb to follow. whenever possible.

• Before the new Clauses 15 & 16, which are focused on different themes than the new Clauses 8-14, I stuck to the strict rule of not mixing meanings and representations in the same Clause. I think that rule dramatically improves approachability for those Clauses.

• Although the new proposed headings and subheadings are not normative (I believe), they are crucial for understanding and accessibility. I considered all choices carefully. I purposely prefixed all 1st and 2nd level (sub)headings with "Vocabulary for ...". I think a constant reminder of what SBVR is about will prove very helpful. (Some subsets of terminology are 'deep'.) Since non-normative (unless I'm wrong), I chose optimal descriptiveness over compulsive precision.

• The hardest work is likely to be with the very first new Clause (8). These are very fundamental entries from early on in SBVR's development and have suffered from the most entropy. (So don't be discouraged after looking at only that document.)

• I found a few outlier entries that seemed wildly out of place in their current positions (not too many). You might or might not notice their proposed new placement.

• I included a lot of attention points to omitted stylings of terms in definitions. (I probably didn't catch them all.) It's very important that we clean this up. I believe it's pure editorial work? (I might be wrong.)

• The proposed re-sequencing needs to be carefully checked for inadvertent omissions. I did the best I could using documents previously created and others available to me.

• I have purposely included a number of suggestions and recommendations that either already are, or would need to be, issues. (They are are carefully highlighted in red.) In general, they are mostly related to improving approachability, (In particular I have included notes about my own issues. This is my way of tracking them, as they never seem to bubble up to the agenda. They should not be considered part of the resequencing work per se, although obviously related.)

• I did not try to address Clauses 9, 10 and 13 (and 14 and 15). All 5 of these Clauses should come after the 9 proposed Clauses above. IMO, I don't think these 5 Clauses should be sequenced as at present. I feel confident there is some overall logical sequencing to be found for them (too). I do feel that existing Clause 10 should be broken into 4 separate Clauses, along the lines of its current 4 subclauses. I haven't studied Clause 9 well enough to know what to recommend there.

Even though the Chair initiated this whole-document resequencing initiative, I'm not sure there's actually an issue for it. (My original issues applied only to resequencing Clauses 8 and 11 individually.) Obviously there needs to be an issue (if none at present).

Finally, I am currently on an around-the-world speaking 'tour' including South Africa and Australia for the next 3+ weeks. Please carefully consider the proposal as a whole. I believe the real SBVR shines through.

Merger with Issue 18377