SBVR 1.4 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR14 — SBVR Issue: Problematic necessity in 8.5.2

  • Key: SBVR14-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18824
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In SBVR clause 8.5.2, the following Necessity appears:

    Necessity: If a concept[sub]1 is coextensive with a concept[sub]2 then the extension of the concept[sub]1 is the extension of the concept[sub]2.

    (where [sub] is used to show subscripts).

    There are three problems with this Necessity:

    1. This Necessity just restates the definition of ‘concept is coextensive with concept’ in It adds nothing.

    2. It is the only occurrence in SBVR v1.1 of the use of a subscript outside of a placeholder term, and that use is not defined in Annex C.

    3. The meaning of the article ‘a’ before concept (1) and concept (2) is universal in this case, not existential, which contradicts Annex C.

    Delete it!

  • Reported: SBVR 1.1 — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SBVR 1.4b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:51 GMT