SBVR 1.6 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR16 — SBVR Issue: Erroneous normative requirements for SBVR XML

  • Key: SBVR16-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19830
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    Specification SBVR v1.3

    Clause 23.7

    In the second paragraph of clause 23.7, we find:

    " The XML patterns provide a normative definition of which SBVR concepts are represented by each use of SBVR Structured English in the vocabulary descriptions and entries contained in Clauses 7 through 21. The general principles used for the patterns are these: First, the facts of what is presented using SBVR Structured English are represented using XML."

    This suggests that the normative requirements for XML representation are based on the use of the non-normative SBVR SE. That is obviously wrong, and could not be the intent, but unfortunately this misconception carries through into the 'example' patterns.

    In particular, noun concepts have multiple forms of Definition, but the distinctions are based on use of SBVR SE markup. There should be only one XML form.

    Also, if the patterns are normative, as the cited paragraph says, then the inclusion of the LRMV representation of a noun concept as a projection is apparently required. If the following XML elements are optional, the text does not say so:

    <sbvr:closedProjectionFormalizesDefinition closedProjection="def-formal-projection" definition="def-formal"/> <sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesNounConcept closedProjection="def-formal-projection" nounConcept="meaning"/>

    Similarly, the unary verb pattern contains the XML element:

    <sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="eis-p" designation="example"/>

    Presumably this element is optional, and not meaningful if the placeholder does not 'use' some other designation. Is there some normative significance to the appearance of a term within a placeholder expression? Is a placeholder expression required to contain some other term? (There is a convention in clause 12, but no normative statement about this convention.)

    And the verb definition pattern contains:

    <sbvr:closedProjectionFormalizesDefinition closedProjection="efe-projection" definition="efe-def-formal"/> <sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesverbConcept closedProjection="efe-projection" verbConcept="meaning"/>

    <sbvr:variableMapsToVerbConceptRole variable="efe-var1" verbConceptRole="efe-r1"/>

    <sbvr:variableMapsToVerbConceptRole variable="efe-var2" verbConceptRole="efe-r2"/>

    Are these parts of a verb Definition required?

    The patterns for Necessities and Possibilities similarly apparently require logicalFormulation elements, but they should be optional.

    The whole problem here is that the text provides examples that are examples, not the normative patterns that the cited paragraph says they are. The text has to clarify what parts of the patterns are required (under what circumstances), and what parts are optional.

    Note also that the pattern for the synonymous form seems to be missing a sbvr:verbConceptRoleDesignation element for the first placeholder.

    Finally, Clause 23 provides no pattern for verb concept wordings that involve more than two roles. So they have no defined XML representation at all, and one cannot expect successful exchange of such verb concepts.

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