SBVR 1.5 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR15 — SBVR Issue: Definitions should be tagged by language

  • Key: SBVR15-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19829
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Edward Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    Specification SBVR v1.3

    Summary:

    The distinction between text that is not intended to be completely marked up as well-defined SBVR SE and text that is intended to be natural English should be somehow noted in the paragraph tag or some text annotation, and similarly distinguished in the XML file. Otherwise the recipient tool cannot determine whether the ‘text’ object is intended to be interpretable. SBVR Structured English is not English; it is a formal language that one might expect a receiving tool to parse and interpret, while that cannot be expected for arbitrary business English. SBVR SE is not unique in this regard. It is important to tools that define their own restricted natural languages to be able to label definitions and necessities as having that particular form, so that they can know to parse it. The text markup tricks that distinguish the languages in the SBVR specification do not transfer into the XML file. Some means of identifying a 'controlled' natural language for a given definition or necessity should be provided in the XML, and possibly in the terminological entry presentation.

    The examples in clause 27.3 describe patterns for definitions in XML that are based on the non-normative markup conventions used in SBVR. Those distinctions are not specified as SBVR concepts and are not necessarily supported by conforming tools. So the text is unclear about the normative requirement. There is only one pattern for definitions. The intent is that, regardless of the form of the definition, if the tool knows the more general concept, it should provide the ‘specializes’ fact, and may provide an LRMV representation.

  • Reported: SBVR 1.2 — Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:49 GMT