SBVR_ — Distinguish Between Concepts

ISSUE TITLE: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept.

Classes in the SBVR Metamodel are changed to be abstract for cases where there should be no instance in a MOF-based SBVR model that is not an instance of a more specific class. In this way, things and states of affairs in general are excluded from an SBVR model, but the specific kinds of things in the SBVR subject area (like individual concepts and statements) can be included and can be interrelated. The generally defined fact types (e.g., ‘thing is in set’, ‘concept has extension’) will remain useful, but only for relating things that are in the SBVR subject area (e.g., a term is in a vocabulary, a concept is in the extension of a concept type).
The clause 15 files must be changed to reflect that certain classes in the SBVR metamodel are abstract.