SBVR 1.5 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR15 — Problems with denotation

  • Key: SBVR15-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19837
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Edward Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    From SBVR v1.3, clause 8.7:

    term denotes thing

    Definition: the thing is an instance of the concept that is represented by the term

    thing has name

    Definition: the thing is the instance of the individual noun concept that is represented by the name

    Synonymous Form: name references thing

    Note: A use of an individual noun concept by its name denotes the thing that is in the extension of the individual noun concept.

    statement denotes state of affairs

    Definition: the statement indicates the state of affairs that is posited by the proposition that is expressed by the statement

    SBVR does not define ‘name’ at all. But, the UML diagram 8.12 shows ‘name’ as a category of ‘designation’, and the definition of ‘thing has name’ says that a ‘name’ represents a concept, which would make it a designation, and how it might differ from a term in that regard is not clear. In fact, the whole idea of a ‘name’ is that it denotes a thing, usually without regard to any concept, whereas a term designates a concept and indirectly denotes things.

    But most of the vocabulary in 8.7 contradicts the notations on the semiotic triangle figure in 8.1.1. In the semiotic triangle, an ‘expression’ denotes a ‘thing’, but a ‘term’ is not an ‘expression’ in SBVR, and a ‘statement’ is not an expression in SBVR. All of that proceeds from the dual use of ‘designation’ in ISO 1087 to mean both “the state of designating” and “the thing that designates”. This needs to be fixed. A term must be an expression in order to denote a thing, and a statement must be an expression in order to denote a state of affairs.

  • Reported: SBVR 1.2 — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:19 GMT
  • Attachments: