SBVR_ — Examples in the normative part of spec should use SBVR Structured English

Examples in the normative part of the specification should be given using the "SBVR Structured English" expression form described in Annex C. This avoids confusion by using one way to express the examples.

It may be desirable in some cases to provide alternative expressive forms of some examples. Such cases should be clearly labelled as using RuleSpeak (Annex F) or UML Notation (Annex H) or whatever. Such cases should also always be additional to giving the same examples in "SBVR Structured English" so that readers will not be forced to learn these alternative forms in order to understand the examples.

Note: this issue is NOT requesting that examples always be given in prefix form. Mixed-fix form is described in Annex C and thus should be fine for use in examples.

Specific sections that should be addressed in this issue include:

clause 12.1.2 in the entry for "business policy"
clause 12.1.4 in the entry for "admonition"
clause 12.1.4 in the entry for "affirmation"
clause 12.2.1 in the entry for "admonition statement"
clause 12.2.1 in the entry for "affirmation statement"
clause 12.2.2 in the entry for "impossibility business rule statement"
clause 12.2.2 in the entry for "restricted possibility business rule statement"

I scanned all the other examples in the normative section of the specification, and in Annexes C and E. There are remarkably few rule examples. The list above identifies the ones I could find that are not expressed in "SBVR-SE".

Examples will remain in natural language and not be styled based on SBVR Structured English or any other notation. A note is added to explain that natural language is used for examples.