SBVR_ — Clean Up based on resolution of issue 9467, 9258, 9934, 9882

There is some clean up needed with respect to completing changes introduced by previously accepted issue resolutions and which come from reading the updated interim specification. The clean up is combined here as one issue.

Per the accepted resolution of Issue 9467, implicit passive forms are not supposed to be explicitly shown in the SBVR specification. Many of these were removed in the editing instructions of that issue. There are some others that were missed:

Remove “Synonymous Form: concept is ranged over by variable”.

Change “Synonymous Form: bindable target is referenced by role binding” to “Synonymous Form: role binding references bindable target”, and change Figure 9.4 accordingly.

Remove “Synonymous Form: variable is introduced by quantification”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: quantification is restricted by logical formulation”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: logical formulation is scoped over by quantification”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: logical formulation is considered by objectification”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: logical formulation is considered by proposition nominalization”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: projection is constrained by logical formulation”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: definition is formalized by closed projection”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: concept is defined by closed projection”.

Remove “Synonymous Form: question is meant by closed projection”.

Replace the entry “speech community is of semantic community” with “semantic community has speech community” and then remove “Synonymous Form: semantic community has speech community”.

Replace the entry “subcommunity is of community” with “community has subcommunity” and then remove “Synonymous Form: community has subcommunity”.

The synonymous form ‘note comments on concept’ was missed in the resolution of Issue 9934. It needs to be changed to ‘note comments on meaning’.

Change “Synonymous Form: note comments on concept” to

“Synonymous Form: note comments on meaning” per Issue 9934.

In the definition of ‘necessity’, “fact” needs to be changed to “proposition”, and Figure 8.1 needs to be changed accordingly. This was widely agreed in light of the resolution to issue 9882.

In the first paragraph of clause 9 on page 37, the words “conjuncts, disjuncts, negands” are used, but those have been removed from the clause 9 vocabulary by the resolution to issue 9258. I recommend that the words be replaced (such as by “disjunction”) so that the concepts given by way of example in that paragraph are representative of actual content of clause 9.

Also in the introduction to clause 9, but in the middle of page 38 in the paragraph that starts, “Within the one …”, the final statement needs a little editing to be clear (no change in meaning). Change the sentence that says:

But the obligation claim has a meaning (the rule), and even the logical universal quantification within the obligation claim each has a meaning because each of those two formulations is closed.

to say this:

But the obligation claim has a meaning (the rule) and so does the universal quantification within the obligation claim because both are closed.

On page 39 in the last paragraph of the introduction to clause 9 that starts, “A propositional nominalization is …”, the last sentence can be made more clear and grammatically correct with some minor editing. Change the sentence that says:

Furthermore, rules about change often involve concept formulations, which are special formulations that allow concepts to be a subject or object of a proposition in much the same way that proposition nominalization allows propositions to a subject or object.

to say this:

Furthermore, rules about change often involve concept formulations, which are special formulations that allow a concept to be a subject or object of a proposition in much the same way that proposition nominalization allows a proposition to be a subject or object.

Make all of the recommended changes with the exception of the change in the definition of 'necessity' which must be considered when addressing Issue 9721.