SBVR14 — SBVR Issue - Context for understanding representations

Context for understanding representations

A definition given for a fact type commonly refers to the roles of the fact type using placeholders from a form of expression of the fact type. But the SBVR vocabulary provides no relationship between a definition and the form of expression for which the definition makes sense (the one having the placeholders used in the definition). A new fact type must be added to SBVR in order to capture this relationship. Otherwise there is insufficient context to interpret the definition. The problem occurs because there can be many forms of expression for a fact type, and these can uses different designations for placeholders.

A similar problem occurs where a note or example for a concept only makes sense in relation to a particular designation or form of expression, such as when the example or note refers to the designation or a placeholder of the form of expression. Similarly, the expression of a reference supporting a concept often does not include the designation used in a source document because the reference is given in relation to that particular designation for the concept. But if there are many designations for the concept, the reference cannot be adequately interpreted with respect to the source document.

Also, a note about a rule might make sense only in the context of a particular statement of the rule because the note refers to specific words used in the rule. But the same rule can be represented by many different statements.

Recommendation: Add a new fact type to the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary after ‘representation represents meaning’:

representation relates to representation

And explain that the first representation is understood in the context of the second representation.

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.