SBVR 1.4 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR14 — 'categorization scheme' and 'categorization type' are related

  • Key: SBVR14-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19549
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hendryx & Associates ( Stan Hendryx)
  • Summary:

    'categorization scheme' and 'categorization type' are related, yet SBVR says nothing about this relationship.

    Upon comparing the entries for these terms in, it is seen they are coextensive; the extension of each is a set of concepts; they could be defined having the same extensions. Compare the examples in each entry.

    A difference is that categorization schemes are restricted to categorizing general concepts, whereas categorizations types are not so restricted.

    Another difference is that categorization schemes define partitionings, whereas categorization type are not so restricted.

    Accordingly, it seems like the definition should be:
    categorization scheme: categorization type that defines a partitioning of one or more general concepts.

    'categorization type' is defined in such a way that it is not meaningfully different from 'concept type' (p.22); compare the definitions on p.22 with that on p.149. A concept, by its very nature and definition, defines a category of things. See 'concept', p.21. 'categorization type' should be made a synonym of 'concept type'.

    'Categorization scheme' is involved in the verb concept 'categorization scheme is for general concept'. The general concept(s) are inferred by the general concepts of the concepts in a categorization scheme or a categorization type coextensive with the it. This verb concept is not necessary.

    'Categorization scheme' is involved in verb concept 'categorization scheme contains category'. Either can be defined to have the same extension, by an extensive definition. This verb concept is not necessary.

    The two verb concepts mentioned above are redundant; their purpose is more simply served by providing extensional definitions of categorization types and categorization schemes, as suggested by the examples. They could be deprecated or deleted, as they do not add any new information to a model. They increase the complexity and maintenance burden on the model.

    The changes suggested here would affect Figure 11.2 on p.146.

  • Reported: SBVR 1.2 — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 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