SBVR 1.4 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR14 — 'necessity' and 'obligation' are missing SBVR concepts

  • Key: SBVR14-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19840
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In SBVR clause 8.3, the definition of ?rule? uses the term ?necessity? and ?obligation? with markup that indicates that these terms are defined in one of the SBVR vocabularies. These terms are used again several times in Clause 17, also with markup. But I can not find a glossary entry for either term anywhere in the specification, and they do not appear in the Index of business designations.

  • Reported: SBVR 1.2 — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SBVR 1.4b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The terms ‘necessity and ‘obligation’ have always been defined in the vocabulary in Clause 24.2 which defines the terms in Clause 24.1 “SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation”. These terms have never been part of the SBVR Vocabulary. For this reason they should never have been fundamental to the definitions of ‘rule’, ‘advice’, and other rule-related concepts central to the standard. The vocabulary entries and definitions in Clause 8.6 “Connections between Kinds of Meaning and States of Affairs in the Business” should have been used in the rule-related concepts from the beginning.
    Appropriate definitions for the rule-related concepts should be as business-friendly as possible. The guiding SBVR principle in this regard is: “This specification is conceptualized optimally for business people rather than automated processing.” (SBVR Clause 1.2). The current dictionary basis for ‘rule’ clearly indicates the original intent for ‘rule’ in the standard:
    Dictionary Basis: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity ... a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing, or prescribing what is possible or allowable. [ODE]
    The rule-related concepts in SBVR fundamentally address states of affairs and actualities. Their definitions should be framed on that basis. Central to the set of rule-related concepts are “definitional rule” and “behavioral business rule”, which should therefore be defined as follows.
    definitional rule
    Definition: rule that necessitates a given state of affairs
    behavioral business rule
    Definition: business rule that obligates a given state of affairs
    The verb concept element of guidance obligates state of affairs already exists in SBVR (see Clause 8.6.3) and is defined as “the element of guidance entails that the state of affairs must be an actuality”. This definition, with the addition of “in all acceptable worlds” at the end, is exactly suited for the definition of “behavioral business rule” above.
    An appropriate definition of ‘rule’ therefore becomes:
    Definition: proposition that obligates a given state of affairs or that necessitates a given state of affairs
    For the definition of ‘advice of permission’, SBVR already includes the appropriate verb concept in Clause 8.6.3, as follows:
    element of guidance gives permission for state of affairs
    The word ‘permission’ should be replaced in this verb concept since it is a modal operator like 'necessity' and 'obligation'. The revised verb concept becomes:
    element of guidance permits state of affairs
    Based on that verb concept, the appropriate definition of ‘advice of permission’ is:
    advice of permission
    Definition: advice that permits a given state of affairs

    Currently in SBVR the verb concept element of guidance permits state of affairs is given as a synonymous form of element of guidance authorizes state of affairs. However, only in a ‘dark world’ do permissions become authorizations (SBVR Clause 16.4.1). Therefore, the main entry for this business concept should be element of guidance permits state of affairs rather than element of guidance authorizes state of affairs.

    It is explicitly noted that the following Notes and Examples are correct (and remain unchanged by this issue):
    1. The Note and three Examples for 'definitional rule statement' (p. 111).
    2. The Note and three Examples for 'behavioral business rule statement' (p. 120).

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