Legacy Issue Number: 12437
Source: General Electric ( Mark Linehan)
In clause 188.8.131.52, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form
"fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role
is in fact type".
Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing
to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous
form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate
that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly
not in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has
Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed
to "fact type has fact type role".
Reported: SBVR 1.0 — Mon, 12 May 2008 04:00 GMT
Disposition: Deferred — SBVR 1.4b2
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
SBVR14 — Issue "fact type role is in fact type"
- Key: SBVR14-29
- OMG Task Force: SBVR 1.4 RTF