SBVR16 — SBVR Issue: 'partitive verb concept' is ill-defined

Specification: SBVR v1.3

Title: 'partitive verb concept' is ill-defined

Summary:

Clause 14.1.2 defines ‘partitive verb concept’ as “verb concept where each instance is an actuality that a given part is in the composition of a given whole.” The examples include ‘car model is in car group’, which is a logical grouping, and ‘barrel is included in mechanical pencil’, which is a physical composition. In several upper ontologies, these concepts – logical grouping and physical composition – are significantly different; that is, the group-member relationship is not considered to be a whole-part relationship. And UML distinguishes them as “aggregation” and “composition”.

The following all involve some business concept of “part of”:

A line item is part of a budget.

A disc is part of a brake assembly.

A triangle has 3 sides and 3 internal angles.

Answering the phone is part of the receptionist’s duties.

John was a part of the team that designed Curiosity.

John is a member of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is an outspoken segment of the Republican Party.

What is it that they all have in common? What rule applies to all of them?

If the reader understands what the relationship is, saying that it is partitive conveys nothing s/he does not know. If the reader does not clearly understand the verb concept, what can s/he conclude from the statement that it is 'partitive'? Is it subjective?

Edward J. Barkmeyer

Thematix Partners

Email: ebarkmeyer@thematix.com

Phone: +1 240-672-5800