SBVR 1.5 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR15 — Conflation of Proposition with "Proposition + Performative " plus Disconnect between Concept and Proposition

  • Key: SBVR15-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14029
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Rule ML Initiative ( Donald Chapin)
  • Summary:

    There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1:
    1. a conflation of 'proposition' with "'performative' + 'proposition'"
    2. a disconnect between 'concept' and its subcategories and 'proposition' and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing.

    Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"

    • 'proposition' meaning that is true or false (the "semantic content"
      part in 'proposition' + performative')
    • 'proposition' + 'performative' (where the 'performative' part is the
      "communicative function") e.g.:

    o proposition + "deontic" performative = behavioral guidance
    o proposition + "alethic" performative = definitional rule
    o proposition + "taken to be true" performative = fact

    The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept 'fact' at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements – which are really out of scope for a standard for "concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries". Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative "taken to be true") so that fact statements can be used as examples.

    Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories

    Clause 8.1 defines two concepts ('concept' and 'proposition') as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing:

    · general noun concept = open (existential) proposition
    · individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition
    · general verb concept = open (relational) proposition
    · individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition
    (this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs)

    Resolution:
    Remove the Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
    1. Add the concept (definition) for "performative" and term it "communicative function" [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 "Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts".
    2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: "taken to be true", "true by definition", and behavioral guidance.
    3. Add the concept (definition) for "performative' + proposition" and term it "dialogue act" [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2.
    4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition.
    5. Review all references to 'proposition' to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition).
    Remove the Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
    1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories.
    2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both 'concept' and 'proposition' as more general concepts for the subcategories.
    3. Replace all current uses of 'individual concept' to 'individual noun concept'.

    Revised Text:
    …to follow, including redrawn diagram(s)

  • Reported: SBVR 1.0 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 28 May 2019 00:41 GMT