The word "smakrt" appears in the sentence:
"Unicode encodings contain all of the characters used in all of the natural languages, including readability characters such as smakrt quotes."
I presume the intent was "smart"?
Page 64 gives the Necessity "No verb concept role designation is a term.".
In SBVR verb concepts role are noun concepts, even though they are not general noun concepts. SBVR is deficient in that it doesn’t show terms as being for both general noun concepts and verb concept roles.
Also ISO 1087-1 does not exclude concepts that SBVR considers to be verb concept roles from its concept ‘concept’ and therefore from being designated by ‘terms’.
According to the diagram on p. 26 (Figure 8.5), element of guidance and rule are not mutually exclusive. But Figure 16.1 shows they are. That's an error. A proposition can be both a rule and an element of guidance.
The definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR is "set of designations and verb concept wordings primarily drawn from a single language
to express concepts within a body of shared meanings".
The definition does not explicitly indicate that definitions of concepts are part of a vocabulary. Most business people would probably assume they are.
SBVR 1.2, Annex B, references to diagramming conventions
Annex B has a number of references to diagramming conventions that are too colloquial. The implication is that the reader is already familiar with the UML or CDG diagramming conventions, but this is not appropriate, since the whole point of the Annex is to be explanatory at this level. For example:
B.3.5. “UML’s arrow style for ‘instantiation’” What is this arrow style? Where is it explained?
B.3.5. The notation has been adapted from standard UML notation to make it more ‘business friendly’. For example, in UML, in instance (‘object’) would be labeled as, Canada: country.
This information does not belong here, but in Annex C.
B.3.5. “the box in box style”. Where is this explained? Is it UML or CDG?
Suggested solution: when referencing UML or CDG diagramming conventions, do not attempt to be descriptive of symbols or drawing conventions, but use ‘base’ references instead: all the diagramming information should be in one place, ie., in Annex C or I respectively, but not in Annex B. Make sure the same format is used for all references to Annexes C and I, and that the difference between the two diagramming techniques is signposted adequately. An even better, more practical solution would be in each case to depict the symbol(s) involved and to refer to the appropriate paragraph in Annex C or I for any textual explanation. This would cause duplication of symbols between the Annexes but it would make Annex B much more helpful.
Make the suggested improvements by removing the instructions for how to do the graphic styles from Annex B and by standardizing the Annex B referrals to the appropriate material in Annexes C and I.
see attached Word document
In recognizing that an organization is not necessarily interested in recording all information about the real world, the SBVR proposes that there be two models of the world: a ‘reality model’ (of the real world) and an ‘in-practice model’ (of the organization’s view of the real world), which leads to some bizarre rule statements, listed below. Surely there is only 1 model in which both real-world objects and representations of them exist. The relevant quote from the SBVR is “Suppose the following two fact types are of interest: Employee was born on Date; Employee has Phone Number. In the real world, each employee is born, and may have more than one phone number. Hence the reality model includes the constraint ‘Each Employee was born on at least one Date’ (sic) and allows that ‘It is possible that the same Employee has more than one Phone Number.’ [If] the business decides to make it optional whether it knows an employee’s date of birth, [and] is interested in knowing at most one phone number for any given employee,
the in-practice model excludes the reality constraint ‘Each Employee was born on at least one Date’, but it includes the following constraint that does not apply in the reality model: ‘Each Employee has at most one Phone Number’. ”
I believe there should be one model (not two), in which for each fact type there may be multiple rules reflecting specific requirements. Considering just dates of birth, the assertion “Each Employee was born on at least one Date” (which might be better worded as “Each Employee was born on exactly one Date”, “Each person has exactly one date of birth” or perhaps “Each person has a date of birth”) is a statement about the real world.
Consider an insurance business that decides that it must collect the date of birth of each customer purchasing personal life insurance but does not need it for those purchasing only home insurance. Following the logic expressed in the SBVR (as quoted above) the ‘in-practice model(s)’ contain a new constraint: “Each person purchasing personal life insurance has a date of birth” (or “Each person purchasing personal life insurance must have a date of birth”) and an advice: “Each person purchasing only home insurance may not have a date of birth”.
In fact the original assertion (“Each person has a date of birth”) still applies in the world view of the business, even to persons purchasing only home insurance. What is required is an additional constraint, which may be worded in one of the following forms “Each person who purchases personal life insurance must supply the date of birth of that person.” or “Each application for personal life insurance must specify the date of birth of the applicant.” and an advice “A person who purchases home insurance need not supply the date of birth of that person.”
Wording is part of Formal Theory for SBVR and not part of the "SBVR Vocabulary"
see attached Word document
The Date Time Vocabulary specification contains several Definitions and Necessities that use subscripted terms, e.g.,
Necessity: For each time interval(2) and each time interval(3) that finishes time interval(2), the duration of the time interval(1) that starts time interval(2) complementing time interval(3) is equal to the duration of time interval(2) minus the duration of time interval(3).
time point1 to time point2 specifies time period
Definition: time point(1) is the first time point of a time point sequence and time point(2) is the
last time point of the time point sequence and there is a time point(3) that is just before time point(2) in
the time point sequence and time point(1) through time point(3) specifies the time period
Each case introduces a subscripted term that is used to denote the same ‘referent’ ‘thing’ elsewhere in the definition/necessity. In the Necessity, all the subscripts are introduced terms. In the Definition, time point(1) and time point(2) refer to placeholders in the verb concept wording being defined, but time point(3) is an introduced term. These introduced terms were patterned on a usage of subscripts in SBVR clause 8.5.2 that introduces similar “local names”. SBVR Annex C does not describe such usages. Without them, it is not possible to formulate these definitions and necessities in SBVR Structured English.
Is it the intent of SBVR SE to support such usages? If yes, then SBVR Annex C needs wording to support them. If no, then DTV needs to convert these formulations to plain text.
Subscripting is now in Annex A
see attached Word document
The use of UML described in the Annex does not represent any known UML tool nor the UML specification. The examples are UML-like diagrams presumably created with a drawing tool.
Clarify that the Diagrams in Clauses 7-21 do not depict UML conventions or semantics
(see attached Word document)
SBVR should use the latest MOF rather than sticking with MOF 2.0.
State even more directly that SBVR uses MOF as a Syntax for SBVR Semantics + use MOF 2.4.2 and XM 2.4.2
see attached documents
SBVR 1.2, Formal Specification
Problem: In Annex B.2.3 the term ‘sentential form’ is used with a different meaning than defined for this term in Clause 8.4.4.
· In Annex B, it means the standardised form or ‘handle’ by which a verb concept is known in a presentation format such as a glossary. Going by this meaning, ‘customer rents car’ is the sentential form (Annex B uses ‘primary reading’ as a synonym) for the verb concept in question, and “car is rented by customer” is not a sentential form of the verb concept.
· In Clause 8.4.4, it means any verb concept wording that is available for a given verb concept, except noun forms. Going by this meaning, as the examples provided make clear, “car is rented by customer” and “customer rents car” are alternative sentential forms.
Suggested solution: Keep 8.4.4 as it is. Remove occurrences of ‘sentential form’ from Annex B, keeping only ‘primary reading’ in that context.
Discussion:
The dictionary basis for selecting the adjective ‘sentential’ in Annex B seems to be the meaning of ‘aphoristic’, as in ‘sentential saying’ or ‘sentential book’.
The dictionary basis for selecting the adjective ‘sentential’ in 8.4.4. seems to be the meaning ‘of a sentence, concerning a sentence’, i.e., the association with ‘sentence’ as a linguistic term.
The former use of ‘sentential’ in English seems to be the more common. This would explain why the issue has occurred. It also suggests that ‘sentential form’ in Clause 8 is not ideal.
‘Verb form’ as a complementary concept of ‘noun form’ would not have this problem but I agree that, because of cases where the wording contains no verb form at all, ‘verb form’ cannot be used. It could be said that ‘verb concept wording’ has the same problem, but I think it is more acceptable to say that a word like ‘of’ or ‘in’ is a “verb concept wording” than to say that it is a “verb form”.
All references to "sentential forn" removed
see attached Word document
SBVR should cover the concept of IRI as well as/instead of URI.
The URL/IRI standard is very much up in the air. No change until settled
(see attached Word document)
SBVR should re-consider the use of smart quotes
Made Clear that all UTF-8 characters including 'smart quotes' are accepted in SBVR content
see attached Word document
We're currently building a Corporate Vocabulary and our idea is to use the SVBR provided XML Schema for all source documents.
However, when trying the XSD-file available at the SVBR specification page in an XML Schema validator a got the error message:
Src-import.3.1: The Namespace Attribute, 'http://schema.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.1', Of An <import> Element Information Item Must Be Identical To The TargetNamespace Attribute, 'http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/20071213', Of The Imported Document.
The XML Schema validator is available at the URL:
http://www.freeformatter.com/xml-validator-xsd.html
I have a sceen dump as well that I can send via email.
I downloaded the XSD-file and changed the namespace to match the namespace in the import element.
But it only resultet in a new fault.
Any ideas?
Fixed in SBVR v1.4
see attached Word document
The description in C.4.2 leaves it very ambiguous as to whether “has” is to be assumed or not. In particular
Again, no UML tool will be able to add/remove “has” in diagrams.
Merged into SBVR 15-08
(see attached Word document)
Page 8 currently includes the following Note.
Note: As indicated in 2.4.1, an SBVR producer may produce instances of concepts not defined in SBVR as well. In such a case, the SBVR fact model would be only a part of the exchange document.
SBVR proper does not use the term “fact model”. The second sentence of the Note should probably read as follows:
“In such a case, the instances of concepts specified in the SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema (Clause 25.3) would be only a part of the exchange document.”
Replaced "fact model" wording with appropriate wording to clarify sentence
see attached Word document
From SBVR v1.3, clause 8.7:
term denotes thing
Definition: the thing is an instance of the concept that is represented by the term
thing has name
Definition: the thing is the instance of the individual noun concept that is represented by the name
Synonymous Form: name references thing
Note: A use of an individual noun concept by its name denotes the thing that is in the extension of the individual noun concept.
statement denotes state of affairs
Definition: the statement indicates the state of affairs that is posited by the proposition that is expressed by the statement
SBVR does not define ‘name’ at all. But, the UML diagram 8.12 shows ‘name’ as a category of ‘designation’, and the definition of ‘thing has name’ says that a ‘name’ represents a concept, which would make it a designation, and how it might differ from a term in that regard is not clear. In fact, the whole idea of a ‘name’ is that it denotes a thing, usually without regard to any concept, whereas a term designates a concept and indirectly denotes things.
But most of the vocabulary in 8.7 contradicts the notations on the semiotic triangle figure in 8.1.1. In the semiotic triangle, an ‘expression’ denotes a ‘thing’, but a ‘term’ is not an ‘expression’ in SBVR, and a ‘statement’ is not an expression in SBVR. All of that proceeds from the dual use of ‘designation’ in ISO 1087 to mean both “the state of designating” and “the thing that designates”. This needs to be fixed. A term must be an expression in order to denote a thing, and a statement must be an expression in order to denote a state of affairs.
SBVR has been changed since Issue was submitted to deal with all points.
see attached Wrod document
In SBVR 1.4 (pg. 34), in the first Note for the entry 'proposition is true', change "A proposition is true if and only the" to "A proposition is true if and only if the".
Add a missing 'if'
Add the missing 'if'.
SBVR 1.2, 'role': 'ranges over' vs. 'specializes'.
Clause 8, entry for ‘role’. Should the addition at the end of the second Example text: "(which generalizes the role)" read: "(which the role ranges over)"? As I understand it, you mean to say that the role shipment ranges over the general concept shipment. The reverse reading of "ranges over" is not "generalizes" (there is a specific Note at the lemma "role ranges over general concept" that warns against this confusion).
Fix wording in the referenced example
(see attached Issue Disposition document)
In SBVR clause 8.5.2, the following Necessity appears:
Necessity: If a concept[sub]1 is coextensive with a concept[sub]2 then the extension of the concept[sub]1 is the extension of the concept[sub]2.
(where [sub] is used to show subscripts).
There are three problems with this Necessity:
1. This Necessity just restates the definition of ‘concept is coextensive with concept’ in 8.1.1.1. It adds nothing.
2. It is the only occurrence in SBVR v1.1 of the use of a subscript outside of a placeholder term, and that use is not defined in Annex C.
3. The meaning of the article ‘a’ before concept (1) and concept (2) is universal in this case, not existential, which contradicts Annex C.
Delete it!
Delete the Necessity that duplicates the definition, adding nothing to it
(see attached Issue disposition document)
Figure C.11 the right-hand diagram is not clear since both renter and driver seem to be independent roles (a renter, even of a car, may or may not drive it)
Diagram with the problem was already removed by different Issue
(see attached Word document)
Figure C.8: it should seem that composition in UML (black diamond) should be used for “contains”.
*A non-UML diagram convention is now used for partitive verb concepts *
(see attached Word Document)
Section C.10 states that the default assumed multiplicity for an unannotated association end is *. That’s a terrible idea since the UML default is 1 (i.e. 1..1).
Merged into SBVR 15-08
(see attached Word document)
SBVR 1.2, Annex G, G 6.2.8, lemma ‘rental is open’
There is a color-coded occurrence of ‘end date/time is in the future’ but there is no such declared concept.
Discussion: The way this Annex has been set up suggests that each colour-coding is meant to imply that the colour-coded concept is either explicitly listed or specifically adopted from a different vocabulary.
The only like concept is in G.8.5, ‘period is future’. SBVR 1.1 Annex E used to have a concept ‘date/time is in the future’.
Current version of Annex G no longer contains problem entry
(see attached Word document)
"vocabularies" is miss-spelled "vocabulaires" in the sixth paragraph of clause 10.1.1 in convenience document 8.
Fix Typo in clause 10.1
Correct the spelling from 'vocabulaires' to 'vocabularies'. (see attached Word Document)
C.5.2, including the diagram, should use single guillemet characters not >> and <<
Merged into SBVR 15-08
(see attached Word document)
SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:
Some issues: 2) No relationship is defined between the clause 8 concepts and the clause
11 concepts. Is a body of shared concepts based on a conceptual schema?
How does a fact model relate to a terminological dictionary?
Close - Already solved in SBVR v1.3
(see attached Issue Disposition document)
SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:
Some issues:
1) Clause 8 does not include the concepts needed to represent itself, even
though clause 2 says clause 8 is a standalone compliance point. Clause 8
claims to be a vocabulary, but the concept "vocabulary" is in clause 11,
not clause 8. Hence an implementation of clause 8 cannot model clause 8
itself.
Close - Already solved in SBVR v1.3
(see attached Issue Disposition document)
In SBVR clause 8.x, in the entry for 'at least n quantification', the Definition ends with the term ‘logical fomulation kind’, which makes no sense in the context.
What was intended is a new paragraph:
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Move text to Concept Type: sub-entry where it belongs
(see attached Issue Disposition document)
SBVR 1.2, p. 225, the Index entry for ”proposition” appears twice (and once out of alpha order).
Fix typo - duplicated entry in Index (p. 225)
This typo is not in SBVR 1.4. (see attached Word Document)
Issue: Can a Noun Form Be Created on the Basis of a Unary Verb Concept
Resolution:
Indicate explicitly yes or no, and include an example if yes.
The answer is "yes' to "Can a Noun Form be Created on the Basis of a Unary Verb Concept?"
(see attached Word document)
Issue: Stand-Alone 'Must' in a Necessity
The second Necessity for "adopted definition" on p.137 includes a stand-alone "must". Use of a stand-alone "must", with its inherent sense of obligation, in Necessities is inappropriate. (In reviewing the whole document, this is the only case I find of its use in a Necessity.)
Resolution
Change:
Necessity: Each adopted definition must be of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
to
Necessity: Each adopted definition is of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
Close - Already solved in SBVR v1.4
(see attached Issue Disposition document)
Correctly style the text at the end of the Definition text of two entries on p. 36. The styling should not be all in ’keyword’ style.
Correct the styling errors in Definition text
Correct the styling errors in the Definition text for the entries "element of guidance necessitates state of affairs" and "element of guidance obligates state of affairs" (see attached Word Document)
Acceptance of the Resolution for 19840 under Ballot 4 in the second half of 2016 resulted in the following text being substituted for a Note in the entry for Advice of Possibility.
Note: Every definitional rule implies an advice of possibility. Consider the definitional rule expressed as:
It is necessary that each rental has exactly one car group.
Alternatively:
Each rental always has exactly one car group.
This definitional rule implies an advice of possibility that can be expressed as:
It is possible that a rental has exactly one car group.
Alternatively:
A rental can have exactly one car group.
There is no practical reason, however, to express the advice of possibility implied by a definitional rule explicitly. In such cases, best practice generally favors keeping the number of elements of guidance to be managed to a minimum.
The equivalent substitution needs to be done for Advice of Permission. It’s just a clarification of the Note, which is otherwise somewhat hard to decipher
Clarify Note for Advice of Permission
Clarify wording and add two examples to Note (see attached Word Document)
The line for 'operating country' reflects the styling of a 'Definition:' caption. It should be styled as a vocabulary entry term.
This can be confirmed by checking this entry in the Word docx source, where this line (paragraph) has the correct style of 'term'.
Fix SBVR SE styling in SBVR Annex G: EU-Rent Example terminological entry
(see attached Issue Disposition document)
The entry for "Definitional Rule" in SBVR lacks an example. Here is an appropriate one.
EU-Rent requires that a rental is for one car group (economy, compact, full-size, etc.). This definitional rule can be expressed as:
It is necessary that each rental has exactly one car group.
Alternatively:
Each rental always has exactly one car group.
Add Example for Definitional Rule
Add two examples (see attached Word Document) (see attached Word Document)
The SBVR entries for the various statement forms present Example(s) that illustrate the particular statement kind. Most of the entries provide two examples, to illustrate both the verbose and the more-compact statement styles. However, two of the entries only provide one example (the verbose style).
Resolution: Add a 2nd example statement, parallel to each of the current examples, to the entries ’non-necessity statement’ and ’permission statement’, illustrating the use of ’not always’ and ’need not’ (respectively).
Add 2 Statement Examples
Add a 2nd example statement, parallel to each of the current examples, to the entries ’non-necessity statement’ and ’permission statement’, illustrating the use of ’not always’ and ’need not’ (respectively). (see attached Word Document)
New SBV issue: Distinguishing the senses of infinitive and present tense
From Don Baisley
There are many verbs for which the present tense of a verb conveys a particularly different sense than the infinitive. The difference I refer to is not about "the present time", but about "occurring at least occasionally". For example, the statement that "Pam surfs" (present tense) combines the meaning of "to surf" (the infinitive) and the meaning that “it happens at least occasionally”.
For such verbs, there is a challenge when using SBVR's typical pattern of defining verb concepts in the present tense. It tends to conflate the infinitive sense of a verb with the different sense meant by the present tense. That conflation causes problems. This is not an issue for ORM or other approaches that do not try to support natural language tense in a generic way. The problem has no apparent impact for many verbs where the present tense sense of "occurring at least occasionally" is inconsequential or inapplicable. The problem is especially troublesome for eventive verbs. Most SBVR verbs are stative, so the problem has tended to go unnoticed in the SBVR vocabulary itself.
If supporting tense in a generic way, in logical formulations, the other tenses should be built on objectifications that start with the infinitive sense of a verb, not with the present tense. Also, modal operations like obligation build on the infinitive sense.
For examples below, I define verb concept forms for generic "tense" concepts using the verb "occurs" (where the there is a role that ranges over the concept 'state of affairs'). The choices of signifier and form are arbitrary (not necessary), but seem to convey the sense of the tenses naturally.
Example:
'person surfs' (present tense)
'person surf' (the infinitive sense)
Where someone puts 'person surfs' in a business glossary, there is an underlying verb concept that has the sense of "to surf", the infinitive. I show it here in examples as 'person surf' (leaving out the infintizing "to"). This underlying verb concept is necessary to correctly formulate other tenses, and even necessary to formulate use of the present tense in some cases, which I will show later.
Here are several examples of statements and interpretations using generic tense concepts built on the verb "occur". To be terse, I show objectification using brackets.
Pam surfs.
[Pam surf] occurs
Pam is surfing.
[Pam surf] is occurring
Pam was surfing.
[Pam surf] was occurring
Pam has been surfing.
[Pam surf] has been occurring
Pam surfed.
[Pam surf] occurred
Pam will be surfing.
[Pam surf] will be occurring
Pam will surf.
[Pam surf] will occur
Pam will have been surfing.
[Pam surf] will have been occurring
The second example above, "Pam is surfing", can serve to illustrate the need to build on the infinitive rather than the present tense sense. To build on the present tense would be to say the thing that “is occurring” is Pam surfing at least occasionally, which is incorrect. The present continuous and other tenses do not include the present tense sense of occurring at least occasionally, so they cannot rightly be built upon a concept that conveys that sense.
I said above I would show where the infinitive sense is sometimes needed even for the present tense. Here is a case where the infinitive 'person surf' concept is needed to formulate a statement that uses "surf" only in the present tense:
Pam talks while she surfs.
Wrong Interpretation I1: [Pam surfs] occurs while [Pam talks] occurs
I1 misses the key sense of the statement, because [Pam surfs] (present tense) means that surfing is something Pam does at least occasionally and [Pam talks] means that talking is something that Pam does at least occasionally. I1 applies 'state of affairs1 occurs while state of affairs2 occurs' to the wrong states of affairs (the states in which Pam occasionally surfs and Pam occasionally talks).
Right Interpretation I2: [[Pam surf] occur while [Pam talk] occur] occurs
I2 correctly factors out the tense and applies it at an outer level (as we often do with modal operations). The conjunction joins objectifications of the underlying sense of "to surf" and "to talk" without the added meaning of the present tense (that the surfing or talking is at least occasional). The sense of present tense (happening at least occasionally) is then added at the outside where it applies to the simultaneous actions.
SBVR does not prevent verbs concepts from being defined in glossaries in the infinitive , as is typical of dictionary definitions of verbs. That approach has always been available. But that approach is not used in SBVR’s own glossary and examples. In general, the sense of “occurs at least occasionally” is absent from SBVR’s own verb concepts, so the distinction is unimportant. But business rules and facts run into the problem. E.g., a EU-Rent rule about whether a renter smokes vs. a rule about whether he is smoking when in a rental car.
Recommendation:
It will be best to resolve this in a way that does not disturb the business-friendly approach of showing verb concept readings in the present tense. It might be possible to define a pattern in SBVR Structured English by which verb concepts with an infinitive sense are implied where present tense versions are explicitly presented in a glossary.
Examples of formulations need to show the distinction. Existing examples should be examined and fixed as needed. New formulation examples might be helpful to demonstrate using generic tense concepts to build on a root verb concept.
None of this changes the meaning of 'state of affairs' or 'objectification', but understanding this issue and its solution might help bring clarity to some of the examples that have been discussed.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The problem statement: The Annex is out of date with respect to RuleSpeak notation, probably the newly released version of EU-Rent, and perhaps newer aspects of SBVR itself.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined. This would address two concerns:
1. Allow the definition-based model to have an open-world assumption and the fact model to have a closed-world assumption.
The proposed resolution is:
1. Define that Clause 10 ‘fact models’ are by default closed world models
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In SBVR clause 8.4.4, there is a necessity in the entry for ‘placeholder’: “Each placeholder is in exactly one verb concept wording”. Now, immediately before section 8.4.4, in the entry for ‘statement expresses proposition’, there is a synonymous form: ‘proposition has statement’. So, ‘statement’ is the text of two placeholders. A.4.12 (Synonymous forms) tries to say that these two different placeholders refer to the same verb concept role, but the statement is garbled: “The ones using the same designation as placeholders of the primary form represent the corresponding verb concept roles ” The ‘designation used by a placeholder’ is the representation of the range concept by a signifier for that concept, per 8.4.4 ‘placeholder uses designation’. What is intended here is: “A placeholder that has the same expression as a placeholder of the primary verb concept wording represents the same verb concept role.”
Further, in that same example entry, there is a Definition: “the statement represents the proposition”. According to A.4.2.3, the expression ‘statement’ refers to a placeholder in the verb concept wording, but that is ambiguous, since there are two verb concept wordings. That text should say the primary verb concept wording, so as to disambiguate the reference.
Again, in A.4.12, the following sentence appears: “The order of placeholders for verb concept roles can be different.” What does that mean? By the necessity above, the placeholders are different, so they cannot be reordered. The intent is that the relative positions of the placeholders for the same verb concept role may be different.
Finally, all of this is an elaborate convention to maintain the given Necessity. It seems that it would be much easier to make the placeholder a representation of the verb concept role throughout the terminological entry, as distinct from having it denote the verb concept role in the primary entry and in the Definition(s), but not in Synonymous forms, Descriptions, Notes, etc. The only function of that Necessity is to make a single ternary fact type: “Verb concept wording has placeholder at starting character position” into two binary fact types that each convey half the concept. A great deal of effort is expended to explain use of a business-friendly syntax that violates the stated model of a purely syntactic concept the intent is that the placeholder expression represents the same verb concept role throughout the entry. And verb concept wordings are ONLY about expressions. The underlying problem is that the concept ‘terminological entry’ is not part of the clause 8 vocabulary, and is therefore not available to be the scope of a placeholder. But then, the concept ‘primary verb concept wording’ is not in the clause 8 vocabulary, either.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
understand you will be discussing the topic of packaging SBVR tomorrow, and I want to provide a perspective on this topic and make a request.
In my view, the key packaging concepts “fact model” and “conceptual schema” need to be in the normative SBVR metamodel to support widespread sharing and reuse of SBVR models. We want to promote the development of libraries of SBVR fact models and conceptual schemas and to compose fact models and conceptual schemas from other fact models and conceptual schemas. The ability to package these in a standard way is crucial to this end. A normative approach to globally identifying these models is needed to support their sharing and reuse. Concepts of packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas are preferably included in Clause 8. As the most basic compliance point, Clause 8 needs to be expressible in terms of itself, and to include concepts for packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas. I understand a proposal is under consideration to move “fact model” and “conceptual schema” entries to Clause 10. This would be a mistake, as we would then have no normative way of specifying the packaging.
The definition of “conceptual schema” should be refined to reflect the fact that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. The distinction between a conceptual schema and other fact models is that a conceptual schema includes at least one fact that asserts the existence of a concept. Other fact models that are not conceptual schemas contain only ground facts. The text of SBVR makes it clear that a conceptual schema is a fact model, that every SBVR interchange document is a fact model. That “conceptual schema” specializes “fact model” should be reflected in the definition of “conceptual schema.”
The term “vocabulary” is not used in the SBVR specification consistently with its definition as a “set of designations and fact type forms ” Each of the normative clauses of SBVR, called a “Vocabulary,” is actually an annotated conceptual schema. A conceptual schema comprises a “combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them) ” The designations and fact type forms in each SBVR normative “Vocabulary” constitute the vocabulary of that “Vocabulary”. The definitions and necessities in the SBVR entries are statements of schema facts. The notes and examples are annotations of the conceptual schema. Ability to include annotations is crucial to practical development and use of any model, and is universally provided for in other and modeling and programming languages. It should be possible to normatively include annotations in a SBVR conceptual schema or fact model. Accordingly, it is recommended that “description” and related concepts of notes and examples in Clause 11.2.2 be moved to Clause 8 to support annotation of fact models. With respect to the semantic formulations of a conceptual schema, it is preferred that Clause 8 only include statements of the definitions and schema facts, and leave it to Clause 9 to include the semantic formulations of these. Either “vocabulary namespace” and fact types that use the term should be moved to Clause 11, or “vocabulary” should be moved to Clause 8. The concept “vocabulary” is not necessary in Clause 8 but might be conveniently located there. Namespaces adequately serve the purpose of organizing designations and fact type forms. It is suggested the RTF consider providing recommendations for naming conventions for URIs of namespaces and related conceptual schemas that define and constrain the concepts represented by the designations and fact type forms in the namespaces.
Here are some suggested entries for Clause 8 that show how the concepts described above might be modeled:
conceptual schema
Definition: fact model that includes at least one existential fact asserting a concept
Note: This definition extends the definition of ‘conceptual schema’ in SBVR to formalize that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. This is evident in the specification text, but is not included in the current definition.
Note: The facts of a conceptual schema in addition to the concept existential facts describe what is possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world of the domain being modeled.
Note: Two levels of formalization of fact models (including conceptual schemas) are possible. 1) A fact model may contain only statements of definitions and other facts and not their semantic formulations. In this case, the fact model can meet the Meaning and Representation compliance point, 2.2.1. 2) A fact model may contain semantic formulations of its definitions and facts, in which case the fact model can meet the Logical Formulation of Semantics compliance point, 2.2.2.
fact model1 includes fact model2
Note: This fact type enables recursive composition of fact models and conceptual schemas.
Necessity: This fact type is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive, i.e. related fact models are at least partially ordered.
fact model includes description
Note: This fact type enables the annotation of fact models and conceptual schemas.
thing has URI
Note: This fact type enables modeled things to be identified globally for future reference.
I am requesting that these concepts, or some refinement of them, be included in the next release of SBVR.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
(a) Clause 11 should include the verb concept "thing has property". This verb concept should appear in figure 11.5.
(b) Property needs to be indicated as an abstract concept in Clause 13 (since it is in the universe of discourse, not the model).
Add Verb Concept ‘thing has property’
Include a Note (see attached Word Document)
The title of this issue is an example of common problem in SBVR Structured English.
Impossibility: An SBVR SE statement contains a qualifier whose subject is a property of the referent.
Given the verb concept 'sequence has member' aka 'thing is member of sequence', how is the following definition to be written in SBVR SE: "sequence each member of which is a time point"?
The referent of the pronoun 'which' is the sequence, but the subject of the qualifier clause is a quantified property of the referent. But SBVR SE only permits the (anaphor) pronoun to be 'that' or 'who' and apparently requires it to follow the referent noun immediately.
SBVR SE does not permit: "sequence of which each member is a time point".
And it does not provide a 'where' or 'such that' construct that would allow the back reference to be represented by 'the sequence', as in: "sequence where each member of the sequence is a time point".
Even the simpler case of a reference to a unique property of the referent in the qualifier clause --"shipment whose delivery date has passed" – requires a circumlocution ("shipment that has a delivery date that has passed"), because 'whose' is not an SBVR SE keyword. And the cascading 'that's interfere with the expression of compound qualifiers (using 'and that ').
In our experience, this shortcoming significantly limits the clear expression of definitions and rules in SBVR SE.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR Clause 9.2 defines: ‘semantic formulation’ as ‘a conceptual structure of meaning’.
And then closed semantic formulation is defined as 'semantic formulation that includes no variable without binding'
But no SBVR concept associates semantic formulation (in general) with variables. And some other conceptual structure of meaning, e.g., phrased in SBVR structured English or OWL, might not have any notion of ‘variable’ or ‘binding’ at all. So the definition appeals to a delimiting characteristic that may be meaningless for the general concept, and thereby admit semantic formulations that were not intended.
Every structure of meaning presumably formulates a meaning; otherwise it formulates nonsense. But clause 9.2 has only ‘closed semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which suggests that open semantic formulations (involving free variables) formulate nonsense. That is simply not true of a ‘structure of meaning’ formulated in CLIF. What is really meant is that LRMV ‘closed logical formulations’ formulate propositions, and LRMV ‘closed projections’ formulate concepts. But those are special cases.
The definition of ‘closed semantic formulation’ should be ‘closed logical formulation or closed projection’, which makes it clearly an LRMV concept, and then those concepts must state their relationship to free variables.
The general idea for all conceptual structures of meaning is ‘semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which would allow other semantic formulations, e.g., in SBVR SE, OWL, etc., to be related to the meanings they formulate. If an LRMV projection or logical formulation that is not closed does not formulate a meaning, that is a LRMV Necessity for those specific concepts.
Finally, note that a (clause 8) Definition is always a representation of a conceptual structure of meaning that formulates a concept. The important idea in ‘definition serves as designation’ in clause 11.2.3 is that the representation of a semantic formulation (a conceptual structure of meaning) is used to refer to the concept itself, rather than just the properties contained in the formulation. This idea of semantic formulation as conceptual structure of meaning is fundamental to the notion ‘definition’, and should not be buried in the LRMV.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In clause A.2.2, the keyword 'another' is introduced, with the interpretation:
(used with a term that has been previously used in the same statement) existential quantification plus a condition that the referent thing is not the same thing as the referent of the previous use of the term
The idea "existential quantification plus" is an unnecessary and undesirable addition. The useful keyword is 'other'. As described, "other X" means "instance of the general concept X that is not the same thing as the referent of the previous occurrence of the term X". But "another" is just a conventional spelling of "an other", and might equally have been spelled "some other". The term 'other' can be usefully quantified by quantifiers other than "an". Each other, at least n other, at most n other, exactly n other, and no other are all valid uses of 'other' with the given interpretation, less the "existential quantification plus".
Defining only the portmanteau keyword 'another' greatly and unnecessarily limits the expressiveness of SBVR Structured English in this area.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR v1.1 Clause 8 says:
Note: in the glossary entries below, the words “Concept Type: role” indicate that a general concept being defined is a role.
Because it is a general concept, it is necessarily a situational role and is not a verb concept role.
How does one declare an attributive role that is not a general concept?
SBVR v1.1 appears to use such declarations to also declare roles that are attributive roles of a given noun concept and thus also in the attributive namespace of the noun concept. For example, clause 8.6 declares 'cardinality', which is an attributive role of integers with respect to 'sets', in a glossary entry with Concept type: role. But 'cardinality' is not a general concept; nothing is a 'cardinality', full stop. An integer can only be a 'cardinality' OF something. it is a purely attributive term. As a term for a general concept, 'cardinality' is thus a term in the Meaning and Representation namespace; it has no 'context'.
The problem arises in defining attributive roles of general noun concepts, such as 'occurrence has time span' and 'schedule has time span', where the definitions of the two roles are importantly different because they are attributes of different general concepts that are only similar in nature. Neither is a situational role. That is, neither is a general concept. No time interval is a 'time span', full stop. A time interval must be a time span OF something. One 'time span' is in the attributive namespace of 'schedule', and a different 'time span' designation is in the attributive namespace of 'occurrence'. Neither is in the DTV.Situations vocabulary namespace per se. How can this be declared using SBVR conventions? Declaring them both in glossary entries with Concept Type: role apparently makes them conflicting designations for 'situational roles' in the DTV.Situations vocabulary.
Does simply declaring the verb concept 'occurrence has time span' declare the attributive role? If so, how is the range of the role declared? And where does the definition of the attributive role go?
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The notion of “well-formedness” in compliance point 1 should be defined
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Title: SBVR needs a consistently applied policy for styling or not styling signifiers
Source:
John Hall, RuleML Initiative
john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk
Summary:
There is some inconsistency in the SBVR specification regarding which signifiers are styled and which are not.
A policy needs to be agreed and applied consistently through the SBVR specification.
Resolution:
1. Style each use of the signifier of a concept (e.g. ‘thing’, ‘meaning’) where that use has the specific meaning defined in its SBVR entry;
2. If the signifier of a defined concept has an everyday English meaning that is different from its SBVR definition, don’t style uses of it where the everyday meaning is intended;
3. Add a paragraph to the introduction explaining the basis for styling/not styling.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The current definition of "categorization scheme contains category" is poorly constructed and therefore hard to understand.
Current Definition: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories divided into by the scheme
Perhaps the definition means the following?
Possible Revision: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories into which the scheme divides things
I think a better definition would perhaps include the verb concept " ... classifies ... ".
Current definition of "categorization scheme contains category" is poorly constructed and therefore hard to understand
Change the definition of "categorization scheme contains category" (see attached Word Document)
SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The
definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only
singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in
some way.
Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains
whether individual things can recur. Add examples.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The first statement in Annex A.4.2.3 is misleading:
A definition given for a verb concept is an expression that can be substituted for a simple statement expressed using a verb
concept wording of the verb concept.
Unlike a noun concept definition, the definition of a verb concept cannot simply be substituted for an occurrence of the verb concept wording. Like the verb concept wording itself, it is a structured pattern with placeholder parameters, and the substitution process is complex. In “substituting the definition expression for a simple statement expressed using the verb concept wording”, it is also necessary to substitute the role phrases that are used in the verb concept wording in that simple statement for the corresponding placeholders in the definition. That is significantly different from what happens in the noun concept case.
In the same subclause, the sentence:
“A definition of a verb concept can generally be read using the pattern below ...
A fact that ... is a fact that ...”
is not quite general enough. The definition characterizes the same state of affairs, even when it is not a fact. It could be written:
A state of affairs in which ... is a state of affairs in which ...
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In clause 8.3.4, the term 'verb concept wording' is defined as:
"representation of a verb concept by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept and signifiers for its verb concept roles"
In the same clause, the term 'noun form' is defined as:
"verb concept wording that acts as a noun rather than forming a proposition"
One would expect therefore, that a noun form of a verb concept would be a gerund, such as 'car transfer' for 'branch1 transfers car to branch2', where the 'noun form' denotes the same actualities as the verb concept.
But only the last Example (which is hard to understand because of a particularly bad choice of verb) is said to be about gerunds. The other examples clearly are not. The first Example is: "'transferred car of car transfer' for the verb concept 'car transfer has transferred car'. This form yields a transferred car."
The instances of 'car transfer has transferred car' are actualities of a car being involved in a car transfer. But the cited text says the instances of the 'noun form' 'transferred car of car transfer' are cars, not actualities. Similarly, the interpretation of the other two examples of 'noun forms' correspond to numbers, not actualities.
So the instances of a noun form of a verb concept need not be instances of the verb concept! The noun form therefore cannot be a 'verb concept wording'. The noun form does not represent the verb concept!
It appears that there are two different concepts here. Noun form 1 is "verb concept wording that acts as a noun." That is the gerund in the last Example. In the other examples, the noun form represents a derived concept that is what SBVR calls a 'situational role'. The intent of 'noun form 2' is "representation of a situational role by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept that the role is derived from and signifiers for some of its verb concept roles".
Finally, use of noun form 2 in declaring a glossary item for a situational role would be preferable to using only the role designation. In particular, the explicit appearance of other role placeholders in the noun form would permit them to be used directly in defining the situational role.
For example:
cardinality
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in a given set or collection
could be declared with the noun form:
cardinality of set
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in the set
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Clause 11 includes an entry for 'rulebook' (specifically, in 11.2.2.4). To maintain the separation of vocabulary-related items from rule/governance-related items (which has been the convention for Clauses 11 and 12), this should appear in Clause 12 rather than Clause 11.
Resolution: Move 'rulebook' to Clause 12.
[issue requested in the telcon of Mar. 18 2011]
Move 'rulebook' to Clause 12
This was taken care of in the major restructuring of the SBVR document in v1.3 (see attached Word document)
Resolution:
Substitute the word "allocating" for "partitioning" in the definition of Categorization Scheme.
Confusing Use of 'Partitioning' in the Definition of Categorization Scheme
Substitute the word "allocating" for "partitioning" in the definition of 'categorization scheme'. (see attached Word Document)
The figure on p. 6 of Annex E (SBVR 1.2) contains an error (use of 'fact type'). Ref. leftmost box in the screenshot below.
If you can supply the image source I will make the correction
Use of obselete signifier "fact type" Error in Annex E figure (p. 6)
Correct the figure to remove the use of 'Fact Types'. (see attached Word Document)
Problem: The current definition of "representation uses vocabulary" is "the representation is expressed in terms of the vocabulary". I think the un-styled "term" (in terms of) is a bad choice for the definition. A better choice might be based on.
Resolution:
Change the definition of "representation uses vocabulary" to: "the representation is expressed based on the vocabulary".
Definition of ‘representation uses vocabulary’ Confusing
Change the definition of "representation uses vocabulary" (see attached Word Document)
Discussion: The current definition of "element of guidance is practicable" is the following:
the element of guidance is sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the element of guidance can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood
It's not "how something is understood". It's "how some concept is understood".
Definition of Practicable re Concepts Seems to be Incorrect
"to what things a concept corresponds" was agreed as a better wording than "how something is understood". (see attached Word Document)
In SBVR clause 8.3.4, in the entry for ‘placeholder’, it is stated that a placeholder exists in only one verb concept wording, and it refers to some role of the verb concept in that wording. It follows that the two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ in ‘concept1 specializes concept2’ and in the Synonymous form: ‘concept2 generalizes concept1’ (in 8.1.1.1) refer to two roles of the verb concept being defined. Since these two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ are different designations, how are they related?
Annex C.3.1 does not say anything about the relationship between placeholders in the primary verb concept wording and placeholders in synonymous forms. (It just says something about subscripts being used to differentiate placeholders.) The intent is that the placeholder expression represents the SAME verb concept role in ALL primary and synonymous forms. That is, the placeholder is the SAME DESIGNATION in all verb concept wordings for the same verb concept. The text of 8.3.4 contradicts this intent, saying that the placeholder only has meaning within a given verb concept wording. If the text is correct, it is necessary to state some rule about the meaning of the same placeholder expression (the distinct designation) in the different synonymous forms.
Further, in the Definition of ‘concept1 specifies concept2’, the expression ‘concept1’ appears. Since that expression only refers to a verb concept role within a verb concept wording, it is utterly meaningless in the Definition! There are no placeholders in a Definition, and ‘concept1’ is not a signifier for any concept. And yet, the intent is that ‘concept1’ in the Definition is the placeholder expression and is intended to be interpreted as a reference to the thing that plays that verb concept role in an actuality of ‘concept1 specializes concept2’. Annex C says nothing about the use of placeholder expressions in Definitions, and 8.3.4 makes these usages meaningless, but they appear in every verb concept definition in SBVR.
It appears that the real intent is that a placeholder expression refers to one and the same verb concept role throughout the terminological entry for the verb concept, including at least all synonymous forms and definitions. Whether it also refers to the verb concept role in embedded Necessities needs to be clarified (it is not clear that SBVR ever assumes that, but DTV apparently does). The only aspect of a placeholder that is specific to a given verb concept wording is the ‘starting character position’, which suggests only that that relationship should be ternary, i.e., placeholder has starting character position in verb concept wording.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Many business rules, laws of nature, etc., are given ‘names’ that are representations of those rules/laws as ‘individual concepts’.
For example, “Murphy’s Law” represents the proposition: Anything that can go wrong will. Similarly, “Newton’s First Law of Motion” represents the proposition: A body at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. (Laws like “Sarbanes-Oxley” are not just propositions, they are actually bodies of guidance.)
What is the SBVR relationship between these signifier expressions and the propositions? The expressions are very like designations, there are different expressions in different languages, and a few such ‘laws’ are known by different names in different subject areas. But it does not appear that they can be contained in Vocabularies or terminological dictionaries.
These representations cannot be ‘designations’. Propositions cannot be (individual) concepts, unless the dichotomy of ‘meaning’ (= concept xor proposition) is not valid. And they are clearly not ‘statements’.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Definite descriptions do not always define individual concepts
The entry for ‘definite description’ in SBVR 11.1.3 includes this structural rule:
Necessity: Each definite description is the definition of an individual concept.
The rule is incorrect. A definite description defining a concept in a schema might well be taken as defining an individual concept, but a definite description within a statement of a fact in a model need not define an individual concept because it need not identify the same individual in all possible worlds. It would identify an individual in the world described by the fact. Similarly, a definite description in the context of a rule statement might identify a single individual in each situation addressed by the rule, but not necessarily the same individual in all possible worlds. E.g., “the previous calendar month” definitely describes one month, but which month it describes depends on the current month, which can vary across possible worlds.
Also, a note should be added to the entry for “definite description” to point out that the one thing defined by a definite description can be a set (e.g., “the cars owned by EU-Rent”, which, by the way, is not the same set in all possible worlds).
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Date/Time Annex F is titled: Annex F Simplified Syntax for Logical Formulations.
First, the title is wrong. The Date/Time standard contains logical formulations in OCL and CLIF. This Annex is a syntax for SBVR 'logical formulations', and this language, like SBVR Structured English, is somehow related to the vocabulary of SBVR clause 9. It should be titled: Simplified Syntax for SBVR Logical Formulations.
Secondly, as a consequence, this Annex is totally out of place in the Date/Time Vocabulary specification. If this is a useful notation for SBVR formulations, and is used in the SBVR community, then it should surely be an informative annex to the SBVR v1.1 specification, and simply be referenced in the Date/Time Annex (E) that uses it. If it is not used in the SBVR community, then it is certainly inappropriate for Date/Time to include it.
Recommendation: Delete Annex F and refer to the OMG (SBVR) specification that actually includes it. Otherwise, use a standardized SBVR notation in Annex E.
The Date/Time final submission should have identified Annex F as a proposed addition to the SBVR specification – a new informative Annex, and we may assert that OMG adoption of the Date/Time submission constitutes adoption of Annex F as an addition to the SBVR specification.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR apparently assume that business terms are composed of natural language words, and that those words may have multiple morphemes that are nonetheless the same word and the same term. That is, a vocabulary term like 'purchase contract' may also have the form 'purchase contracts', and a vocabulary term like 'is owned by' may be expressed as 'has been owned by'. But SBVR says nothing about any of this in defining 'designation' or 'signifier'.
When a signifier for the same concept is in a formal language like OWL or CLIF, this idea of multiple morphemes is not (usually) part of the language syntax. So this should be carefully addressed.
For the SBVR Structured English language, Annex C.1 explicitly says that these alternate morphemes are "implicitly available for use", which may mean they are treated as equivalent, or just that they are recognized as uses of the same designation.
In natural language, such morphemes carry additional meaning , e.g., plurality or tense or mood. And a morphological variant of the same designation may or may not carry additional meaning, This is important, because SBVR examples assume that plurals are conventional and irrelevant, but the Date Time Vocabulary says that the use of verb tenses in natural language conveys indexical time intent. That is:
'John is in London' and 'John was in London' have different meanings in English. Do they have different meanings in SBVR SE?
And if so, do they always have different meanings? Natural language convention requires that a statement that dates a past event uses the past tense, e.g., 'John was in London in 2008.' Is it meaningful in SBVR SE to say (in 2012) 'John is in London in 2008'? And does that mean a different proposition from 'John was in London in 2008'?
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Inadequate, Overlapping and Disorganized Specifications for Sets and Collections of Concepts, Meanings, and Representations
Problem:
Assumptions
Two assumptions are basic to the eight points of this problem statement:
SBVR must provide a business vocabulary for business people and business analysts to talk clearly and precisely about terminological dictionaries and rulebooks and what they represent.
The various aspects of this Issue must be addressed holistically. They can be resolved only by unifying, normalizing and completing all related specifications. (Thus, the need for a new unifying Issue.)
Problems
1. A known problem in SBVR is that the current version does not make clear what the fundamental unit of interoperability in SBVR is. No matter how that issue is resolved the unit should:
Be identifiable from a business point of view.
Not always have to be the full, non-redundant set of concepts, meanings, or representations.
The existing content of Clause 11 does not currently provide an adequate term for the second of these. This Issue proposes “collection” for that purpose.
Note: The term “collection” in the following discussion is never actually used on its own. Rather, it always appears with qualification e.g., ‘collection of representations’.
2. Another known problem in SBVR centers on the use of the word “container” in e-mails and discussion. (Use of the signifier “container” per se is not part of this Issue.) It is unclear (to some) whether “container” refers to the ‘thing that contains’, to ‘what is contained’, or to both. The term is easily misused and misinterpreted. Also there are many variations of what is (or could be) contained (e.g., sets, collections, etc.). SBVR needs a precise, non-overlapping vocabulary for these things from a business point of view.
3. Another known problem in SBVR is that the existing content of Clause 11.2.2.3 “communication content” (a.k.a. “document content”) is not adequate for all purposes to which it might be put. SBVR needs a richer (but still minimal) set of concepts to address this area.
4. Certain existing terms in the existing content of Clause 11 (e.g., ‘terminological dictionary’ and ‘rulebook’) conflate ‘completeness and non-redundancy’ (i.e., being a set) with ‘primary purpose’ or ‘essence’. This conflation needs to be eliminated. In the real world for example, a rulebook does not have to be complete (e.g., it may contain only what is appropriate for a given audience), and it does not have to be non-redundant. It can contain the same rule statements in different sections, the intent being to provide the greatest clarity when being used by members of some speech community.
5. SBVR currently provides no means to talk about a collection of representations that is complete with respect to one or more specific concepts, but not complete with respect to all concepts in the body of shared meanings. Example: A listing of all baseball rules that address the concepts “strike” and “ball” only.
6. With respect to interoperability there is a minimum set of pragmatic business specifications (such as completeness, effective date, shelf life, mutability, etc.) needed for things communicated. SBVR does not currently support such specifications.
Note: There is no intent or need to get into document management or rule management. The dividing line is this: SBVR does not get into organizational issues (e.g., author, sponsor, reviewer, etc.), workflow issues (e.g., status, pre-approval distribution, sign-off, impact assessment, etc.), motivation (rationale, goals, risks), etc. SBVR must, however, provide minimum viability criteria for any sets or collections communicated. Otherwise the communicated content is not really useful and trustworthy on the receiving end. Consequently the purpose of interoperability is defeated.
7. Certain kinds of collections relevant to inter-operability are missing from the current content of Clause 11 most notably ‘record’ (not IT ‘records’). Proper incorporation of this and other kinds of collections is needed.
8. Issue 16103, which addresses “speech community representation”, needs to be worked into a holistic solution.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The precedence of logical operators ("and", "or", etc.) in Structure English is unspecified which may make some rules ambiguous. Furthermore, they sould be called "operators" and not "operations".
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The objectification example “EU-Rent reviews each corporate account at EU-Rent Headquarters” in SBVR v1.1 clause 9.2.7 (as modified per the resolution to issue 16309), is expressed in the usual sequence of sentences. The formal logic interpretation of those sentences is:
For each corporate account A, there exists a state of affairs S such that
S objectifies “EU-Rent reviews A”,
and S occurs at EU Rent HQ.
Now, per Clause 8 there is only one such state of affairs; and its existence is a given, that is, for every proposition of the form ‘company reviews account’, the corresponding state of affairs necessarily exists. But nothing is said here about that state of affairs being actual. Moreover, since there is probably more than one “occurrence” of that state of affairs, the definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ would be less than obvious. Or is it the intent that there is only one review of each corporate account? Whatever it means for an abstract state of affairs (that might be a set, including the empty set) to ‘occur at a place’, it is not clear, and it is important to the example of objectification what is the state of affairs that it produces.
In SBVR v1.0, the variable S ranges over the verb concept ‘company reviews account’, because the instances of the verb concept were then said to be actualities. The resolution of Issue 14849 makes instances of a verb concept ‘states of affairs’ instead of actualities. But states of affairs need not be actual. It is obvious that some thought was given to this example, because v1.1 changed it. What is not clear is whether it is any closer to what was intended.
A definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ should probably follow the DTV pattern for ‘state of affairs occurs at time’. In DTV parlance, what was intended is: Each occurrence of the state of affairs “EU Rent reviews A” ‘occurs at’ EU Rent HQ. But SBVR lacks the vocabulary to express that.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1:
1. a conflation of 'proposition' with "'performative' + 'proposition'"
2. a disconnect between 'concept' and its subcategories and 'proposition' and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing.
Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
o proposition + "deontic" performative = behavioral guidance
o proposition + "alethic" performative = definitional rule
o proposition + "taken to be true" performative = fact
The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept 'fact' at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements – which are really out of scope for a standard for "concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries". Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative "taken to be true") so that fact statements can be used as examples.
Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
Clause 8.1 defines two concepts ('concept' and 'proposition') as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing:
· general noun concept = open (existential) proposition
· individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition
· general verb concept = open (relational) proposition
· individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition
(this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs)
Resolution:
Remove the Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
1. Add the concept (definition) for "performative" and term it "communicative function" [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 "Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts".
2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: "taken to be true", "true by definition", and behavioral guidance.
3. Add the concept (definition) for "performative' + proposition" and term it "dialogue act" [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2.
4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition.
5. Review all references to 'proposition' to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition).
Remove the Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories.
2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both 'concept' and 'proposition' as more general concepts for the subcategories.
3. Replace all current uses of 'individual concept' to 'individual noun concept'.
Revised Text:
to follow, including redrawn diagram(s)
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR 1.2 beta annex G (EU Rent Example) adopts concepts from the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) but deliberately gives them names that are both inconsistent with DTV and in fact are confusingly similar to the names of other concepts that are defined in DTV. Although any business can use any vocabulary terms desired, an OMG standard should maintain consistency with other OMG vocabularies for reasons of quality and to avoid user confusion. Especially a portion of a standard that is specifically intended to "to provide an aid to help them understand the specification " (annex G.2).
The Annex is also inconsistent in its own terminology with respect to dates and times. For example, "maximum rental period" (Annex G.6.6) is a kind of "duration" even though G.8.6 defines "period" as a kind of "time interval" and a "rental period" (G.6.8.3) is a kind of "period".
This annex also defines its own concepts that relate states of affairs to time, and for quantities – rather than using the corresponding concepts defined by the Date-Time Vocabulary. It fails to give definitions for these concepts, which means they are subject to varying interpretations. The example would be stronger if it used the carefully worked-out concepts defined in the Date-Time Vocabulary.
Specifically:
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, the entries for ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ contain reference schemes that refer to the concept ‘closed projection’ and related fact types that do not appear in the MRV itself. In the MRV per se, these are undefined terms. I am told, but do not find in SBVR v1.2, that if only the MRV is implemented, such Reference Schemes are ignored, while clause 13.4.2 explicitly says that the UML/MOF classes must have the corresponding properties. If properly documented, this approach may be fine for the specification of SBVR itself. In general, however, this approach assumes that the speech community that develops a formal vocabulary is omniscient about reference schemes used by speech communities who ADOPT the original vocabulary. In general, an adopting community might add new fact types about an adopted concept that result in new reference schemes for the concept. Also, the adopting community might add new synonyms or synonymous forms for an adopted concept. There is no reason to suppose that the original speech community is even aware of the adoption, and there is no way these additional elements can have been present in the original terminological entry. So, the approach used in SBVR itself is unworkable for general use.
When a concept is adopted by another vocabulary, it should be expressly possible for the “adopting entry” to include new reference schemes and synonymous forms, and possibly other elements of a terminological entry.
Further, if such a mechanism is introduced, the SBVR vocabularies themselves should use it, rather than incorporating reference schemes in the base terminology entry that refer to fact types that don’t exist in that vocabulary per se. For example, the LRMV should formally adopt the MRV concepts and add the reference schemes involving closed projections in the ADOPTING ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ entries.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form
"fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role
is in fact type".
Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing
to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous
form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate
that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly
not in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has
role".
Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed
to "fact type has fact type role".
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
'categorization scheme' and 'categorization type' are related, yet SBVR says nothing about this relationship.
Upon comparing the entries for these terms in 11.2.2.3, it is seen they are coextensive; the extension of each is a set of concepts; they could be defined having the same extensions. Compare the examples in each entry.
A difference is that categorization schemes are restricted to categorizing general concepts, whereas categorizations types are not so restricted.
Another difference is that categorization schemes define partitionings, whereas categorization type are not so restricted.
Accordingly, it seems like the definition should be:
categorization scheme: categorization type that defines a partitioning of one or more general concepts.
'categorization type' is defined in such a way that it is not meaningfully different from 'concept type' (p.22); compare the definitions on p.22 with that on p.149. A concept, by its very nature and definition, defines a category of things. See 'concept', p.21. 'categorization type' should be made a synonym of 'concept type'.
'Categorization scheme' is involved in the verb concept 'categorization scheme is for general concept'. The general concept(s) are inferred by the general concepts of the concepts in a categorization scheme or a categorization type coextensive with the it. This verb concept is not necessary.
'Categorization scheme' is involved in verb concept 'categorization scheme contains category'. Either can be defined to have the same extension, by an extensive definition. This verb concept is not necessary.
The two verb concepts mentioned above are redundant; their purpose is more simply served by providing extensional definitions of categorization types and categorization schemes, as suggested by the examples. They could be deprecated or deleted, as they do not add any new information to a model. They increase the complexity and maintenance burden on the model.
The changes suggested here would affect Figure 11.2 on p.146.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR provides for a speech community to adopt a definition, or an element of guidance, but no clear way for a vocabulary to adopt a term and its definition from another vocabulary. The Date Time Vocabulary (clause 4) formally adopts a set of terms from the SBVR specification with the intent that the term means the definition given in SBVR and has whatever other associations that term may have to other adopted SBVR terms. (This is the usual practice for adopted terminology in an ISO standard.) But SBVR does not provide a formal expression for this. Instead, it appears that DTV must introduce all the required SBVR terms and their definitions and then cite SBVR as the Source of the definitions. (This is a practice ISO recommends against, because of the problem of synchronization of changes.) We believe that this is a shortcoming in SBVR.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined.
The underlying issue is:
1. SBVR’s metamodel is defined in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Its instances (domain models) are linguistic models of meanings.
2. The model defined in Clause 10 is included in the normative SBVR model to support a formal logic interpretation of SBVR’s metamodel. Its instances (domain models) are fact models.
The proposed resolution is:
1. State, in introductory text in Clauses 8 and 10, that the models are different
2. Somewhere in Clause 10:
a. List the major differences between the two models
b. Describe informally what transformation would be needed to derive a domain fact model from a corresponding linguistic model. It is probably beyond the scope of this RTF to develop a formal specification
Resolution:
1. Add a subclause to Subclause 10.1.1 to discuss to an appropriate level of detail all aspects of the relationship between the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 and the formal interpretation in Subclause 10.1.1, as well as removing ambiguity from Clause 10.1.1 by consistent use of terms intension, extension, fact population, and the set of all possible facts..
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Rectifying the Relationship Between SBVR and ISO 1087 Terms "Concept System" and "Relation"
SBVR uses two terms "concept system" and "relation" found in ISO 1087 but extends these notions in important ways. Specifically, SBVR supports more "elements of concept system structure" than ISO 1087 does – especially, but not exclusively, associations (verb concepts). ISO 1087 defines only some kinds of relation, such as 'generic relation', 'partitive relation', 'hierarchical relation'. Use of the terms "concept system" and "relation" in SBVR should be rectified.
1. "Concept System" appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:
2. "Relation" (in the ISO sense roughly meaning 'connection') appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:
RESOLUTION
1. "Concept System" is a synonym in SBVR for "Body of Shared Concepts" and should be explicitly treated as such.
2. "Concept System" should be indicated as the preferred term for the concept "Body of Shared Concepts". ("Body of Shared Concepts" is awkward and not memorable.)
3. A Note should be added to the entry for "Body of Shared Concepts" indicating ISO 1087 as the source for the term "concept system". Note: The ISO definition should not be indicated as the Basis for the entry since the ISO meaning is much more restricted.
4. Replace "relation" with "connection" in the definition of Body of Shared Meaning (p. 142) and in a note for that entry.
5. Replace "relation" with "connection" in the definitions of Category (p. 148) and More General Concept (p. 148).
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Describing the facts of a fact model, SBVR’s clause 10 says, “Population facts are restricted to elementary and existential facts.”
This “restriction” appears to be a restriction on the clause 10 mapping to a relational database, requiring a sort of normalization. It is certainly not a restriction discernable from SBVR’s definition of “fact model”. Nor is it a restriction on formal interpretation of fact models for knowledge bases in general. Facts that do not fall into those two categories (elementary and existential) can occur in fact models and can be mapped to formal logic. They can be formulated using concepts in a fact model’s conceptual schema, even if they cannot be formulated using those concepts in a way that is considered existential or elementary. Facts can be formulated using disjunction, universal quantification, etc.
A fact model can have a fact like the following, not as a rule in its schema, but simply as a fact:
“Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”.
Whether this is a “good” fact in terms of being structured according to best practices is not relevant. Once we have a fact model, then we can use tools or guidelines to measure quality and recommend improvements. But that comes after we have fact model to examine.
Is the fact elementary? Not if it can break into “Every son of Mary has a car” and “Every son of Mary has a kayak”.
Is it existential? I cannot see it that way.
But it can map to formal logic, so clause 10 of SBVR should accommodate that mapping. It does not map directly into a relational table, but there is no reason to limit SBVR’s formal underpinnings to relational modeling.
As it turns out, clause 10 would handle the fact, “Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”, just fine as long as it is formulated using a unary fact type as would be represented by a unary predicate like this: EverySonOfHasACarAndAKayak(Mary). That sort of contrived fact type is not likely to be found in a conceptual schema made up of meanings of words in a business vocabulary. Requiring a fact model with a business origin to have such a contrived fact type in its conceptual schema is inappropriate for SBVR, even though such contriving is sometimes part of database design. Conceptual schemas based on business vocabularies, rather than database design, involve meanings of words used by business people. Use of such vocabularies starts with an assumption that basic language works (quantifiers, conjunction, disjunction, restriction, demonstration, etc.) for putting words together to make statements. So formulations of facts so stated can tend towards complex formulations involving various sorts of quantifications, objectifications, logical operators, etc. Mapping such fact models into normalized databases is great, but requiring a direct mapping is not and must not be a limitation imposed by SBVR.
Some confusion is created in clause 10 from using the words “elementary” and “existential” as attributes of facts, when they seem to be attributes of formulations of facts, not of the facts themselves. For example, if the characteristic ‘employee number is assigned’ is define as “there exists an employee that has the employee number”, then by definitional substitution, these are two statements of the very same fact:
Employee number 777 is assigned.
There exists an employee that has the employee number 777.
So we have one fact that appears to be both elementary and existential. The difference is in formulation, not the fact.
It would be more clear for clause 10 to apply the ideas of “ground”, “elementary” and “existential” to formulation of facts rather than to facts. “Population” in the clause 10 sense seems to be strictly tied to formulation. It gives an example: “pop(Employee drives Car)= set of (employee, car) pairs ”.
Recommendation:
Remove the clause 10 general “restriction” to elementary and existential facts. Any such restriction should apply only to the clause’s relational mappings.
In clause 10, clarify how the concepts of “ground”, “elementary”, “existential” and “population” are tied to formulation.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
OMG Issue No: 16685
Title: Fix Entries in Subclause 10.1.2.1 to Align with Subclause 10.1
Source:
SBVR Co-chair, Donald Chapin [Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com]
Summary:
Spin-off from Resolution of Issue 15623 (and 14843 which was Merged into it)
Fix the entries in SBVR Subclause 10.1.2.1 to bring them in line with what Clause 10.1 says as revised by the resolution to Issues 15623 & 14843.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Annex H provides detailed guidance on the representation of SBVR vocabulary concepts in UML diagrams. Much of that guidance produces invalid UML constructs per UML 2.4.
H.1 "If there are additional terms for the concept they can be added within the rectangle, labeled as such – e.g., “also: is-category-of
fact type” as depicted in Figure H.1." There is no UML syntax for this.
H.2 "Alternatively, an individual concept can be depicted as an instance of its related general concept (noun concept), as in Figure H.3." The diagram uses an unidentified Dependency, which has no meaning. It should be formally stereotyped.
H.3.1 shows three representations of the fact type 'semantic community shares understanding of concept'. The third is invalid – an association can have only one name. Also the name of the association is 'shares understanding of'; it does not include the placeholder terms.
H.3.1 Figure H.4 shows associations that are navigable in both directions, inducing unnamed UML properties on 'semantic community' and 'concept' that are not intended. (This is a vestige of UML v1 ambiguity.) It should show no navigable ends, using UML 2.4 syntax.
H.3.4 Figure H.9 depicts an invalid relationship symbol; an association is required to have 2 or more roles.
H.4.2 Figure H.11 shows a stereotype <<is role of>> on a Generalization. I'm not sure this is valid UML, but in any case such a stereotype would have to be defined in a formal Profile. (Semantically, some "roles" are object types that specialize more general concepts, others are association ends (verb concept roles), and others are things in their own right that have the property 'role has occupant'.)
H.4.3 suggests that there is no consistent mapping for association names. In any case, the UML model of a 'fact type role' is a named association end, regardless of ownership.
H.6.1 Figure H.14. It is not clear what UML element has the name "Results by Payment type", and the text does not say. It may be a GeneralizationSet.
H.6.2 Figure H.16. ":modality" appears to be a TagValue associated with some unnamed and undefined Tag, or it may just be another string that names no model element.
H.8 In, Figure H.17 there is a meaningless dashed line between 'car recovery' and a ternary association (verb concept). It is said to represent 'objectification'. That dashed line should be a Dependency that has a stereotype indicating the nature of that relationship, e.g., <<objectification>>, defined in a Profile.
H.9 says that the default multiplicity on association ends is 0..*. According to the UML metamodel v2.4, the default multiplicity on a UML association end is 1..1, i.e., exactly one. This makes most of the SBVR UML diagrams implicitly erroneous.
So Annex H needs to be rewritten, and if it is to include standard stereotypes and tag values, it needs a standard UML Profile that defines them.
Further, it demonstrates the need for minor repairs to the UML diagrams throughout SBVR, to make them match the MOF model described in Clause 13.
Most or maybe all points are fixed by resolution of SBVR 15-08 - Review in SBVR v1.6
(see attached Word document)
When DTV v1.0-alpha was adopted, it contained a proposed simplified text representation for SBVR LRMV constructs (as distinct from the long and involved sequences of sentences used in SBVR examples, that make references to undefined concepts like'first variable'). The DTV FTF resolved issues about the disposition of the annex containing this SBVR LRMV notation by improving the description of the notation, but also revising the informative text that used the notation in such a way that the notation is no longer used in DTV. This LRMV notation therefore no longer has a use in DTV and is out of scope for the DTV specification. It is likely that the annex (DTV v1.1 Annex F) will be deleted from DTV v1.2.
The simplified LRMV notation has value for the wider SBVR community, and its description should be an informative Annex to SBVR. It is within the expertise and purview of the SBVR RTF to address any problems with the notation specification, and to maintain alignment with the SBVR specification generally. Accordingly, the SBVR RTF should maintain the adopted text of DTV Annex F as an Annex to SBVR.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Clause 10 of SBVR provides a formal logic interpretation of SBVR in terms of Object Role Modeling (ORM).
There has been a long-standing agreement within the OMG community to provide a formal interpretation in terms of Common Logic (CL). CL is an ISO standard (ISO 24707) for which there is an OMG standard metamodel in the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) specification, and which is being used as a basis for logical interpretation in the OMG Date Time vocabulary.
A partial interpretation of SBVR in CL is given in clause 10.2, but significant work is needed to complete this grounding. Completion is essential to supporting downstream alignment of OMG specifications that are expressed in terms of other logic languages, to reuse of SBVR vocabularies by commercial rule engines, and to facilitate interoperability with other work in the ISO community. It may also be needed to support development of new vocabularies in SBVR, such as potential financial services vocabularies related to the FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology) effort in the Finance DTF.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Issue Description:
1. Spin-off Issue for items not resolved In Issue 9959 because of lack of time:
a. Adding terms and definitions used in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 and remove terms in Clause 10.1.2 no longer needed
b. Remove tutorial material from Clause 10.1.1
c. Add ISO 24707 terms to 10.1.2 if permission is received from ISO
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR Clause A.2.6 provides syntax for a concept called ‘intensional role’, but there is no such terminological entry and no clear definition.
In one of the business usage examples for DTV, we have encountered a usage of ‘time period’ in two intensional roles: ‘fixed period’ and ‘variable period’, but we can’t declare them: Concept type: intensional role.
As A.2.6 says, intensional roles arise when a concept designation is used with verbs of specification and change, and possibly others. The reference is to an unspecified thing of that will satisfy the concept. When one ‘specifies the rental period for X’, the rental period does not denote any time period. The whole idea is that one associates the concept ‘rental period for X’ with an extension that will only exist when the specifying action completes. Similarly, one cannot ‘change the rental period’, one can only change which time period “the rental period for X” denotes. With these verbs, the “intensional role” is equivalent to an ‘answer’ (at least in structure): one specifies “what time period the rental period is”.
The same idea seems to apply to a verb like ‘prevents’. If someone “prevents a forest fire”, there is no forest fire that is prevented; rather the concept ‘forest fire’ is not instantiated. But unlike the above, one does not prevent “what forest fire it is.” And if one ‘orders 1000 widgets’, they may or may not already exist so that they can be ordered. What one orders is a characterization of objects that are to be instantiated.
So, the intensional role seems to be a valuable concept for verb concept wordings, because it has real business use
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Problem: If "body of shared concepts" were defined as [the set of] all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings", then I dont think the following entry would be needed: "body of shared concepts includes concept".
Resolution:
1. Change the definition of "body of shared concepts" to: the set of all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings"
2. Eliminate the entry: body of shared concepts includes concept
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR is not clear about how markup should or should not be embedded within
Representation Expressions.
The specification needs to be clear about exactly what is included in basic
Representation Expressions, especially Fact Type Forms, which contain no
embedded markup. It also needs to be clear about the kinds of markup that
can be embedded in Representation Expressions and how to communicate which
markup specification is being used.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR Issue – Clean up and Complete Vocabulary for Clause 10.1.1 (Was Issues 11296-1a and 11303-b) (Part of Separating 11296 & 11303 into Manageable Pieces)Please see attached Word document for Issue details.
This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions:
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Disposition: Resolved
OMG Issue No: ????
Title: Need business-oriented verb concepts to support "local closure"
Source:
Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research
Summary:
Clause 10.1.1.3 has an extensive discussion of "Open/Closed World Semantics". In particular, the penultimate paragraph near the bottom of page 94 of version 1.0 of the specification says:
"For any given schema, the business might have complete knowledge about some parts and incomplete knowledge about other parts. So in practice, a mixture of open and closed world assumptions may apply. We use the term “local closure” (or “relative closure”) for the application of the closed world assumption to just some parts of the overall schema. One might assume open world semantics by default, and then apply local closure to specific parts as desired; or alternatively, assume closed world semantics by default and then apply “local openness.” We adopt the former approach as it seems more realistic when modeling real business domains."
In SBVR 1.0, local closure is supported by the verb concepts "fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema" and "concept is closed in conceptual schema" in clause 8.5. The resolution of issue 13138 moves clause 8.5 to clause 10, thus making these verb concepts no longer available in the normative specification or in the clause 15 supporting documents. The result is that the specification no longer supports the semantics mentioned in the quote given above. This issue requests that similar functionality be added to clause 11.
The original clause 8.5 verb concepts used designations that are not meaningful to business people. The resolution of this issue should adopt business-oriented terminology. Discussions have identified at least four possible approaches:
1. A verb concept "set is completely known", meaning that the semantic community knows all the elements of the set. This would be particularly useful when applied to a set as the extension of a concept.
2. A verb concept "concept has completely known extension". Similar to the above, but applying specifically to the extension of concepts.
3. A verb concept such as "semantic community completely knows concept".
4. Building on the concept "communication concept" in clause 11.2.2.3 to define closure with respect to an information record.
Example use cases for local closure include the following:
Example 1
This example is about a concept called order that includes a list of line items, where each line item has a quantity, a catalog id, etc. A minimal vocabulary is shown here, just enough to illustrate the example.
order
Definition: A customer request for one or more products and a promise to pay the total cost of the order.
line item
Definition: Details about an order for a particular product.
quantity
Definition: positive integer that is the number of units of the product that is desired by the customer
catalog id
Definition: text that identifies the product desired by the customer
line item has quantity
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one quantity.
line item has catalog id
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one catalog id.
order includes line item
Necessity: Each order includes at least one line item.
"order includes line item" is internally closed in the business xx conceptual schema
The "internally closed" fact says that the business knows all the line items that are included in each order: there are no other line items. Consider a rule such as "Each order must be shipped within 24 hours if the order does not include a line item that has quantity greater than 100." As described in clause 10.1.1.3, this rule makes no sense with the default SBVR "open world" semantics because under those semantics, the business cannot know that no "line item that has quantity greater than 100".
Example 2
Consider a business that has a vocabulary about employees. The business considers it knows all its employees; there are no employees that it does not know.
employee
Definition: person that works for the business
Under SBVR's default open world semantics, the glossary entry given above is insufficient because it does not capture the business sense that it knows all its employees. To accomplish that, the vocabulary needs the following:
"employee" is closed in the business xx conceptual schema
Example 3
Continuing example 2, suppose the business needs concepts relating to employee names and work phone numbers:
employee name
Definition: text that identifies an employee
work phone number
Definition: number used to phone an employee at work
The business requires that it knows the employee name of each employee because the government requires this information on tax and employment reports. So the employee name is authoritative.
The business knows that, in practice, it does not know the work phone number of each employee. These change too often to keep up with.
SBVR needs verb concepts to express the idea that the employee name is reliably know, but the work phone number is not reliably known.
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Disposition:
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Inconsistent use of terminology when relating facts to fact types
It has been noted that there are a few places in clause 10 where the relationship between facts and fact types are described using inconsistent language. SBVR makes clear that not every fact is of a particular fact type obviously, some facts are formulated using quantifiers, logical operators, etc. SBVR makes clear that instances of fact types are actualities, not facts. SBVR describes concepts as having instances, but not facts as having instances. A few places in clause 10 can be lead to confusion in this regard. They are listed below with recommended rewordings.
Thanks go to Mark Linehan who graciously went through clause 10 last September and located these places.
Recommended changes:
1. In the third paragraph of the introduction to clause 10, REMOVE the sentence that says:
A ‘Fact’ is of a particular ‘Fact Type.’
2. REPLACE the third paragraph of 10.1.1.2, which says this:
The conceptual schema declares the fact types (kinds of facts, such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.
With this:
The conceptual schema declares the fact types (such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.
3. In the last paragraph of page 89 (in 10.1.1.2) there is a sentence that says:
The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of fact instances that instantiate the fact types in the schema).
REPLACE it with this:
The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of facts that are formulated using the fact types and other concepts in the schema).
4. Just above figure 10.1 on page 90 there is the following sentence.
Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (instances of domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.
REPLACE it with this:
Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (formulated using domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The Structured English keyword "another" is sometimes ambiguous. For an example, in the following rule, it is formally not clear whether "another <person3>" refers to <person1> and/or <person2>:
It is prohibited that a <person1> <is married to> <person2>, if that <person1> <is married to> another <person3>.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
'quantity' is defined informally. A formalization of the existing definition is proposed, along with changes in terminology and related entries that would be affected by the change.
The proposed changes unify some fundamental concepts in SBVR and application domains and significantly enhance the ability to reason about SBVR models.
Full details are provided in a paper I authored but am unable to attach to this message because of limitations of this OMG Web site, which does not accept attachments. Please contact me if you would like to review the paper, and I'll send it by email.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In SBVR v1.3, clause 8.7, Figure 8.12, 'expression denotes thing' represents the bottom edge of the semiotic triangle, but unlike 'represents' and 'corresponds to', which represent the other two edges of the semiotic triangle, 'expression denotes thing' is not an SBVR verb concept. Instead, we have 'term denotes thing', 'name references thing', 'statement denotes state of affairs'. But none of 'term', 'name', and 'statement' is (said to be) an expression. So, none of the SBVR concepts actually represents the 'denotes' concept in the semiotic triangle. And apparently an SBVR verb symbol cannot denote anything!
This is completely inconsistent with established linguistic and semiotic practice, and it is inconsistent with ISO 1087. Yes, SBVR distinguishes expressions by their roles – term, name, verb symbol, definition, statement – but they all denote things. The idea of the diagram 8.12 is that each role of expression constrains the things that it can denote, but that model is incomplete. Verb symbols and definitions are also roles of expressions in representing concepts and can thus denote the things to which the concept corresponds. Further the use of 'references' instead of 'denotes' for 'name denotes thing' is a pointless inconsistency, which reduces the clarity of the specification.
Note also that the term 'denotes' (without markup) is incorrectly used in the definition of 'designation'. 'denotes' is correctly used in the definition of 'placeholder', but that use assumes the missing generic concept 'expression denotes thing', because a role expression can be anything from a simple term/name to a quantified definitional expression. That is, SBVR uses the common understanding of the term 'denotes' but the SBVR concept system does not contain that concept.
[This is a replacement for Issue 19715, which is confused.]
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)
Title: What is a 'terminological entry'
Summary:
SBVR clause 6.2 (How to read this specification) says:
"This specification describes a vocabulary, or actually a set of vocabularies, using terminological entries. Each entry
includes a definition, along with other specifications such as notes and examples."
But the term 'terminological entry' is not defined anywhere in the text of SBVR. In particular, it does not appear in Clause 19.3 in relationship to 'terminological dictionary'.
Clause 19.3 says a 'terminological dictionary' is a collection of representations, that it "includes representations" and "presents a vocabulary". But then a vocabulary is a "set of designations", and is apparently related to them by 'thing is in set', because there is no other stated verb concept to relate them. So the vocabulary is a subset of the "set of representations" that is included in a terminological dictionary that presents it? But a 'terminological entry' seems to be none of the above, and a 'terminological dictionary' does not include them? This set of circumlocutions completely fails to present a clear model for the exchange of a vocabulary or of a terminological dictionary. The central idea in a terminological entry, if SBVR is any indication, is a concept, and representations of it, and related commentary.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Annex A.4.5 says: "The 'General Concept' caption can be used to indicate a concept that generalizes the entry concept."
In point of fact, the General Concept caption represents three entirely different verb concepts in different contexts:
Further, it is possible for a role concept to specialize another role concept, as 'first member' (of a list) specializes 'member' (of a list). But the range of 'first member' is whatever the list is a list of. Similarly, 'captain (of ship)' specializes 'officer (of ship)' but both range over 'person'. So, overloading General Concept in the way SBVR does makes it less capable of conveying the semantics of roles.
[Note that UML and MOF distinguish between the range of an association end (role) -- the class (general concept) to which it is connected -- and any association end (role) that it subsets/redefines (specializes). SBVR apparently cannot.]
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)
Title: Annex A is a mistitled grab bag
Annex A is titled "SBVR Structured English", and every paragraph of A.1 is about that topic, except for the last, which indicates that every subsection after A.2 is about other topics. In particular, A.3 and A.4 are about the structure of the SBVR specification as a terminological dictionary, and A.5 and A.6 are guidance for creating 'rule set' structures.
It is imperative that A.3 and A.4 be packaged as a section, either in section 6.2 (How to read this specification), or in an Annex that 6.2 points to. Those two sections are "how to read the SBVR specification" and interpret the terminological entries in it. This issue arose from trying to find that guidance.
Guidance for creating rule sets (A.5 and A.6) is not a characterization of either SBVR SE or the structure of the SBVR specification. It is a separate topic, associated with clauses 16 thru 18.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The following SBVR metamodel formal logic-based errors and omissions need to be dealt with as we ran out of time to deal with them:
a. A reference scheme is needed for individual concept.
b. The entries in Clause 8.5 “Conceptual Schemas and Models” need to be corrected to agree with the first paragraphs of Clause 10.
c. In Clause 8.6 “Extensions” and other sections of Clauses 8-12 the definition of “corresponds to” in “meaning corresponds to thing” and all the relationship and necessities between all the subcategories of meaning and all the subcategories of thing, especially the meaning of “proposition corresponds to state of affairs” and “ individual concept corresponds to thing” need to be clarified or added. How the relationship between concept and thing is different between the “use” and the “mention” of the concept needs to be made clear.
d. Thee reference scheme for individual concept needs to be fixed to include the “mention” of object types, roles, fact types, propositions and subcategories of them.
e. Definitions that cover all the uses of “individual” in Clauses 8-12 need to be added.
f. The meaning of Henkin semantics needs to be specified as it applies to the SBVR metamodel.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
The ‘involvement’ Issue is as follows (from my email sent on Saturday):
Issue Submitter’s Name: Donald Chapin
Issue Submitter’s Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair)
Issue Submitter’s Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com
Issue Name: The Notion of “Involvement” has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR
Document No: dtc/06/03/01
Document Revision Date: March 2006
Document Version No: —
Chapter/Section: 8.1.1
Page No(s): 16
Nature of Issue: Revision
Severity of Issue: Major
Issue Description:
The notion of Involvement has not totally been taken into account by the resolution of Issue 9948 as stated in that resolution.
Several clarifications are needed regarding Involvement such as the nature of instance of roles (see the sum example in the initial 9948 statement).
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points:
o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1
o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Specification SBVR v1.3
Summary:
The distinction between text that is not intended to be completely marked up as well-defined SBVR SE and text that is intended to be natural English should be somehow noted in the paragraph tag or some text annotation, and similarly distinguished in the XML file. Otherwise the recipient tool cannot determine whether the ‘text’ object is intended to be interpretable. SBVR Structured English is not English; it is a formal language that one might expect a receiving tool to parse and interpret, while that cannot be expected for arbitrary business English. SBVR SE is not unique in this regard. It is important to tools that define their own restricted natural languages to be able to label definitions and necessities as having that particular form, so that they can know to parse it. The text markup tricks that distinguish the languages in the SBVR specification do not transfer into the XML file. Some means of identifying a 'controlled' natural language for a given definition or necessity should be provided in the XML, and possibly in the terminological entry presentation.
The examples in clause 27.3 describe patterns for definitions in XML that are based on the non-normative markup conventions used in SBVR. Those distinctions are not specified as SBVR concepts and are not necessarily supported by conforming tools. So the text is unclear about the normative requirement. There is only one pattern for definitions. The intent is that, regardless of the form of the definition, if the tool knows the more general concept, it should provide the ‘specializes’ fact, and may provide an LRMV representation.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
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
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
SBVR clause 21.3 (Logical formulations) says:
"Each meaning formulated by a closed logical formulation is a proposition".
This statement is false. If we assume the existence of a verb concept 'person is in location', then in a statement like: "John is in London on Tuesdays", the logical formulation of "John is in London" is closed – it contains no variables. But this usage is not intended to formulate a proposition. No assertion is made that "John is in London" is true or false, or that anyone cares. The 'meaning' that this closed logical formulation formulates is a concept – a category of 'state of affairs', whose instances are states in which John is in London.
By comparison, assuming that we also have 'state of affairs occurs on time interval', the whole sentence also has a closed logical formulation: For each Tuesday t, there is an instance of the concept "John is in London" that occurs on t. And that formulation IS intended to formulate a proposition.
When a closed logical formulation is used to represent a proposition, the interpretation as a proposition produces either 'true' or 'false', and the interpretation of the same closed logical formulation as a category of state of affairs produces a concept that corresponds to at most 1 actuality. So the SBVR statement that a true proposition corresponds to an actuality is consistent with both interpretations, and the idea that a false proposition does not correspond to an actuality is also consistent.
Now, SBVR asserts that a false proposition corresponds to a state of affairs that is not an actuality. But the closed logical formulation of a false proposition when it is interpreted as a category of state of affairs is simply a concept that does not correspond to any actuality. There is no need for it to correspond to some fictitious event or situation.
For "XYZCo needs to have an office in Miami", i.e., "XYZCo needs that XYZCo has an office in Miami", "XYZCo has an office in Miami" has a closed logical formulation that is not intended to represent a proposition, but rather a category of states of affairs. XYZCo does not need a fictitious instance of that category, it needs the category to correspond to an actuality. It is the nature of verbs like "needs" and "wants" to refer to a category with that intent. And it is no different from "XYZCo needs an XYZCo office in Miami" – "XYZCo office in Miami" refers to a concept with the intent that it should have at least one instance. There is no existing or fictitious 'XYZCo office in Miami' that XYZCo needs.
Similarly, if "Mary prevents Jimmy from playing with matches", what Mary prevents is "a 'playing with matches' by Jimmy", or equivalently, the situation 'Jimmy plays with matches'. The latter form is a closed logical formulation that is not intended to represent a proposition. It represents the same category of state of affairs that "a 'playing with matches' by Jimmy" does. Mary does not prevent one fictitious instance of that concept, but rather that the concept has any instances at all. It is the nature of "prevents" to refer to a category of states of affairs with that intent. In a similar way, one can "prevent forest fires". There is no need for the concept "forest fire" to have a fictitious instance that is prevented.
Technically, these latter usages mean is that the verb concept wording for "needs" should be:
thing1 needs thing2*
where the asterisk indicates an "intensional role" as described in SBVR A.2.6. And similarly for "prevents", "wants", etc. Similarly, the concept of occurrence should be worded:
state of affairs* occurs on time interval
The use of the intensional role makes it clear that when the thing2 or state of affairs role is played by a closed logical formulation, the intended interpretation is a concept, not a proposition.
Understanding this dual role of closed logical formulations (and the corresponding English and Structured English formulations) is critical to resolving a number of conflicts about states of affairs between SBVR and other OMG business specifications. It allows us to distinguish 'category of state of affairs' from 'state of affairs' in usages, and to recognize that 'state of affairs' and 'actuality' have exactly the same instances.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
In some situations, a community is governed by a rulebook owned by another community. This frequently occurs in contracts. For example:
There are often rules for the owning and governed communities that are related. For example:
The noun concept "governed community" and the verb concept "rulebook is for governed community" should be added to SBVR
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Specification: SBVR v1.3
Summary:
Experience with DTV teaches that the SBVR markup practices are very expensive in editor time, and do not improve readability of definitions and necessities in OMG specifications. The marked up text can only usefully be output from an authoring tool; the author should be able to input plain text for definitions and necessities. And, in the case of complex definitions, the markup reduces the readability of the text.
The function of the markup as output from a tool is twofold:
In the absence of a tool that can recognize vocabulary and keywords in plain text and generate the marked up form, it should not be the practice of OMG specifications to use the markup. Further, even when it is possible, the use of the markup in definitions and necessities reduces readability, partly as a consequence of oversize sans-serif font, which is known to disrupt the visual flow of text to readers. In short, SBVR itself “leads by bad example” in this area.
SBVR should be clear that its use of markup is what one might expect a tool to be able to do, but not what one would expect an author to provide. And it should be made clear that the use of SBVR has nothing to do with using the markup, while the vocabulary headings are important. (The best example would have been not to use it in the SBVR spec.)
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
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.
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
"Behavioral rule" is not infrequently used in discussion and writing. For example, in SBVR itself it appears in the the first line of the Note at the top of p.119. It also appears 4 times in headings and figure titles.
However, SBVR doesn't currently recognize the term. There is (and can be) no such thing as a behavioral rule that is not a business rule. SBVR should indicate explicitly that "behavioral rule" is simply a synonym for "behavioral business rule".
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest
This core SBVR concept needs an example.
Example: Eu-Rent has cars that people rent. The verb concept “rents” includes placeholders for two verb concept roles, one for the person renting and one for the car rented. Two verb concept role designations are specified for these verb concept roles: “renter” and “rented car”, respectively.
This entry needs an example.
I suggest the following ...
Example: The situational role 'negotiator' is the part a person plays, or function a person assumes, in the situation 'resolution of contractual disputes'.
Issue:
In the current definition of verb concept role designation, the phrase “is recognizable in use in the context of another role of the same verb concept” is obscure. As currently worded, the definition also precludes designations for unary verb concept roles. In addition, the definition fails to express the inherent and necessary linkage in meaning between a verb concept role designation and the verb concept itself. Finally, figure 11.2 is misleading because it omits “noun concept” as being the more general concept of “role”.
Resolution:
1. Change the definition of ‘verb concept role designation’ to:
designation that is of a verb concept role and that has an expression whose representation of the verb concept role is meaningful only in the context of the verb concept that has the verb concept role
2. Add “noun concept” as being the more general concept of “role” in figure 11.
3. Add these examples before the existing example for the entry:
Example: In the verb concept "party rents property", “renter” might be the verb concept role designation for party, and “rented property” might be the verb concept role designation for property.
Example: In the unary verb concept "shipment is late", “late shipment” might be the verb concept role designation for shipment.
Problems:
1. By my count, the verb "classifies" appears 8 times in SBVR in stylized font, indicating there should be a defined verb concept for it. However, I do not find one.
2. These 8 instances do not appear to me to necessarily conform to a single meaning. They should be reviewed if kept in stylized font.
3. Issue 15-28 (was 19631) "Definition of 'categorization scheme contains category'" addressed a minor wording improvement for this verb concept. It has been noted that "divides" in that definition should probably be replaced by "classifies". However, that point was deferred to this new issue.
Discussion:
In SBVR, “classification” is a relationship between two concepts. That meaning is generally not what 'classification' means in natural language. Any formal definition of "classifies" should align itself with the existing meaning of "classification". Doing so, however, is likely to result in further misinterpretations.
Recommendations:
1. Remove the styling from the 8 existing uses of 'classifies'.
2. Change "divides" in the definition of "categorization scheme contains category" to "classifies" (unstyled).
On physical page p. 45 of Version 1.4 of SBVR, the Necessity listed under the entry for Implied Characteristic includes ”logical implication” as a defined (styled) term. However, there is no definition entry for “logical implication” in SBVR 1.4.
Logical implications underlie a very important form of (business) rules. A standard covering rules from the business perspective is incomplete without appropriate treatment. Such treatment must fully explain what “logical implication” means and does not mean selectively for both behavioral and definitional rules. SBVR needs to address the fundamental semantics of rules based on implications.
SBVR clause 21.3 (Logical formulations) says:
"Each meaning formulated by a closed logical formulation is a proposition".
This statement is false. If we assume the existence of a verb concept 'person is in location', then in a statement like: "John is in London on Tuesdays", the logical formulation of "John is in London" is closed – it contains no variables. But this usage is not intended to formulate a proposition. No assertion is made that "John is in London" is true or false, or that anyone cares. The 'meaning' that this closed logical formulation formulates is a concept – a category of 'state of affairs', whose instances are states in which John is in London.
By comparison, assuming that we also have 'state of affairs occurs on time interval', the whole sentence also has a closed logical formulation: For each Tuesday t, there is an instance of the concept "John is in London" that occurs on t. And that formulation IS intended to formulate a proposition.
When a closed logical formulation is used to represent a proposition, the interpretation as a proposition produces either 'true' or 'false', and the interpretation of the same closed logical formulation as a category of state of affairs produces a concept that corresponds to at most 1 actuality. So the SBVR statement that a true proposition corresponds to an actuality is consistent with both interpretations, and the idea that a false proposition does not correspond to an actuality is also consistent.
Now, SBVR asserts that a false proposition corresponds to a state of affairs that is not an actuality. But the closed logical formulation of a false proposition when it is interpreted as a category of state of affairs is simply a concept that does not correspond to any actuality. There is no need for it to correspond to some fictitious event or situation.
For "XYZCo needs to have an office in Miami", i.e., "XYZCo needs that XYZCo has an office in Miami", "XYZCo has an office in Miami" has a closed logical formulation that is not intended to represent a proposition, but rather a category of states of affairs. XYZCo does not need a fictitious instance of that category, it needs the category to correspond to an actuality. It is the nature of verbs like "needs" and "wants" to refer to a category with that intent. And it is no different from "XYZCo needs an XYZCo office in Miami" – "XYZCo office in Miami" refers to a concept with the intent that it should have at least one instance. There is no existing or fictitious 'XYZCo office in Miami' that XYZCo needs.
Similarly, if "Mary prevents Jimmy from playing with matches", what Mary prevents is "a 'playing with matches' by Jimmy", or equivalently, the situation 'Jimmy plays with matches'. The latter form is a closed logical formulation that is not intended to represent a proposition. It represents the same category of state of affairs that "a 'playing with matches' by Jimmy" does. Mary does not prevent one fictitious instance of that concept, but rather that the concept has any instances at all. It is the nature of "prevents" to refer to a category of states of affairs with that intent. In a similar way, one can "prevent forest fires". There is no need for the concept "forest fire" to have a fictitious instance that is prevented.
Technically, these latter usages mean is that the verb concept wording for "needs" should be:
thing1 needs thing2*
where the asterisk indicates an "intensional role" as described in SBVR A.2.6. And similarly for "prevents", "wants", etc. Similarly, the concept of occurrence should be worded:
state of affairs* occurs on time interval
The use of the intensional role makes it clear that when the thing2 or state of affairs role is played by a closed logical formulation, the intended interpretation is a concept, not a proposition.
Understanding this dual role of closed logical formulations (and the corresponding English and Structured English formulations) is critical to resolving a number of conflicts about states of affairs between SBVR and other OMG business specifications. It allows us to distinguish 'category of state of affairs' from 'state of affairs' in usages, and to recognize that 'state of affairs' and 'actuality' have exactly the same instances.
Specification: SBVR v1.3
Summary:
Experience with DTV teaches that the SBVR markup practices are very expensive in editor time, and do not improve readability of definitions and necessities in OMG specifications. The marked up text can only usefully be output from an authoring tool; the author should be able to input plain text for definitions and necessities. And, in the case of complex definitions, the markup reduces the readability of the text.
The function of the markup as output from a tool is twofold:
In the absence of a tool that can recognize vocabulary and keywords in plain text and generate the marked up form, it should not be the practice of OMG specifications to use the markup. Further, even when it is possible, the use of the markup in definitions and necessities reduces readability, partly as a consequence of oversize sans-serif font, which is known to disrupt the visual flow of text to readers. In short, SBVR itself “leads by bad example” in this area.
SBVR should be clear that its use of markup is what one might expect a tool to be able to do, but not what one would expect an author to provide. And it should be made clear that the use of SBVR has nothing to do with using the markup, while the vocabulary headings are important. (The best example would have been not to use it in the SBVR spec.)
In SBVR v1.3, clause 8.7, Figure 8.12, 'expression denotes thing' represents the bottom edge of the semiotic triangle, but unlike 'represents' and 'corresponds to', which represent the other two edges of the semiotic triangle, 'expression denotes thing' is not an SBVR verb concept. Instead, we have 'term denotes thing', 'name references thing', 'statement denotes state of affairs'. But none of 'term', 'name', and 'statement' is (said to be) an expression. So, none of the SBVR concepts actually represents the 'denotes' concept in the semiotic triangle. And apparently an SBVR verb symbol cannot denote anything!
This is completely inconsistent with established linguistic and semiotic practice, and it is inconsistent with ISO 1087. Yes, SBVR distinguishes expressions by their roles – term, name, verb symbol, definition, statement – but they all denote things. The idea of the diagram 8.12 is that each role of expression constrains the things that it can denote, but that model is incomplete. Verb symbols and definitions are also roles of expressions in representing concepts and can thus denote the things to which the concept corresponds. Further the use of 'references' instead of 'denotes' for 'name denotes thing' is a pointless inconsistency, which reduces the clarity of the specification.
Note also that the term 'denotes' (without markup) is incorrectly used in the definition of 'designation'. 'denotes' is correctly used in the definition of 'placeholder', but that use assumes the missing generic concept 'expression denotes thing', because a role expression can be anything from a simple term/name to a quantified definitional expression. That is, SBVR uses the common understanding of the term 'denotes' but the SBVR concept system does not contain that concept.
[This is a replacement for Issue 19715, which is confused.]
Specification SBVR v1.3
Summary:
The distinction between text that is not intended to be completely marked up as well-defined SBVR SE and text that is intended to be natural English should be somehow noted in the paragraph tag or some text annotation, and similarly distinguished in the XML file. Otherwise the recipient tool cannot determine whether the ‘text’ object is intended to be interpretable. SBVR Structured English is not English; it is a formal language that one might expect a receiving tool to parse and interpret, while that cannot be expected for arbitrary business English. SBVR SE is not unique in this regard. It is important to tools that define their own restricted natural languages to be able to label definitions and necessities as having that particular form, so that they can know to parse it. The text markup tricks that distinguish the languages in the SBVR specification do not transfer into the XML file. Some means of identifying a 'controlled' natural language for a given definition or necessity should be provided in the XML, and possibly in the terminological entry presentation.
The examples in clause 27.3 describe patterns for definitions in XML that are based on the non-normative markup conventions used in SBVR. Those distinctions are not specified as SBVR concepts and are not necessarily supported by conforming tools. So the text is unclear about the normative requirement. There is only one pattern for definitions. The intent is that, regardless of the form of the definition, if the tool knows the more general concept, it should provide the ‘specializes’ fact, and may provide an LRMV representation.
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.
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
"Behavioral rule" is not infrequently used in discussion and writing. For example, in SBVR itself it appears in the the first line of the Note at the top of p.119. It also appears 4 times in headings and figure titles.
However, SBVR doesn't currently recognize the term. There is (and can be) no such thing as a behavioral rule that is not a business rule. SBVR should indicate explicitly that "behavioral rule" is simply a synonym for "behavioral business rule".
In some situations, a community is governed by a rulebook owned by another community. This frequently occurs in contracts. For example:
There are often rules for the owning and governed communities that are related. For example:
The noun concept "governed community" and the verb concept "rulebook is for governed community" should be added to SBVR
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)
Title: What is a 'terminological entry'
Summary:
SBVR clause 6.2 (How to read this specification) says:
"This specification describes a vocabulary, or actually a set of vocabularies, using terminological entries. Each entry
includes a definition, along with other specifications such as notes and examples."
But the term 'terminological entry' is not defined anywhere in the text of SBVR. In particular, it does not appear in Clause 19.3 in relationship to 'terminological dictionary'.
Clause 19.3 says a 'terminological dictionary' is a collection of representations, that it "includes representations" and "presents a vocabulary". But then a vocabulary is a "set of designations", and is apparently related to them by 'thing is in set', because there is no other stated verb concept to relate them. So the vocabulary is a subset of the "set of representations" that is included in a terminological dictionary that presents it? But a 'terminological entry' seems to be none of the above, and a 'terminological dictionary' does not include them? This set of circumlocutions completely fails to present a clear model for the exchange of a vocabulary or of a terminological dictionary. The central idea in a terminological entry, if SBVR is any indication, is a concept, and representations of it, and related commentary.
Annex A.4.5 says: "The 'General Concept' caption can be used to indicate a concept that generalizes the entry concept."
In point of fact, the General Concept caption represents three entirely different verb concepts in different contexts:
Further, it is possible for a role concept to specialize another role concept, as 'first member' (of a list) specializes 'member' (of a list). But the range of 'first member' is whatever the list is a list of. Similarly, 'captain (of ship)' specializes 'officer (of ship)' but both range over 'person'. So, overloading General Concept in the way SBVR does makes it less capable of conveying the semantics of roles.
[Note that UML and MOF distinguish between the range of an association end (role) -- the class (general concept) to which it is connected -- and any association end (role) that it subsets/redefines (specializes). SBVR apparently cannot.]
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)
Title: Annex A is a mistitled grab bag
Annex A is titled "SBVR Structured English", and every paragraph of A.1 is about that topic, except for the last, which indicates that every subsection after A.2 is about other topics. In particular, A.3 and A.4 are about the structure of the SBVR specification as a terminological dictionary, and A.5 and A.6 are guidance for creating 'rule set' structures.
It is imperative that A.3 and A.4 be packaged as a section, either in section 6.2 (How to read this specification), or in an Annex that 6.2 points to. Those two sections are "how to read the SBVR specification" and interpret the terminological entries in it. This issue arose from trying to find that guidance.
Guidance for creating rule sets (A.5 and A.6) is not a characterization of either SBVR SE or the structure of the SBVR specification. It is a separate topic, associated with clauses 16 thru 18.
The following SBVR metamodel formal logic-based errors and omissions need to be dealt with as we ran out of time to deal with them:
a. A reference scheme is needed for individual concept.
b. The entries in Clause 8.5 “Conceptual Schemas and Models” need to be corrected to agree with the first paragraphs of Clause 10.
c. In Clause 8.6 “Extensions” and other sections of Clauses 8-12 the definition of “corresponds to” in “meaning corresponds to thing” and all the relationship and necessities between all the subcategories of meaning and all the subcategories of thing, especially the meaning of “proposition corresponds to state of affairs” and “ individual concept corresponds to thing” need to be clarified or added. How the relationship between concept and thing is different between the “use” and the “mention” of the concept needs to be made clear.
d. Thee reference scheme for individual concept needs to be fixed to include the “mention” of object types, roles, fact types, propositions and subcategories of them.
e. Definitions that cover all the uses of “individual” in Clauses 8-12 need to be added.
f. The meaning of Henkin semantics needs to be specified as it applies to the SBVR metamodel.
The ‘involvement’ Issue is as follows (from my email sent on Saturday):
Issue Submitter’s Name: Donald Chapin
Issue Submitter’s Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair)
Issue Submitter’s Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com
Issue Name: The Notion of “Involvement” has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR
Document No: dtc/06/03/01
Document Revision Date: March 2006
Document Version No: —
Chapter/Section: 8.1.1
Page No(s): 16
Nature of Issue: Revision
Severity of Issue: Major
Issue Description:
The notion of Involvement has not totally been taken into account by the resolution of Issue 9948 as stated in that resolution.
Several clarifications are needed regarding Involvement such as the nature of instance of roles (see the sum example in the initial 9948 statement).
As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points:
o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1
o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs
Issue Description:
1. Spin-off Issue for items not resolved In Issue 9959 because of lack of time:
a. Adding terms and definitions used in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 and remove terms in Clause 10.1.2 no longer needed
b. Remove tutorial material from Clause 10.1.1
c. Add ISO 24707 terms to 10.1.2 if permission is received from ISO
SBVR Clause A.2.6 provides syntax for a concept called ‘intensional role’, but there is no such terminological entry and no clear definition.
In one of the business usage examples for DTV, we have encountered a usage of ‘time period’ in two intensional roles: ‘fixed period’ and ‘variable period’, but we can’t declare them: Concept type: intensional role.
As A.2.6 says, intensional roles arise when a concept designation is used with verbs of specification and change, and possibly others. The reference is to an unspecified thing of that will satisfy the concept. When one ‘specifies the rental period for X’, the rental period does not denote any time period. The whole idea is that one associates the concept ‘rental period for X’ with an extension that will only exist when the specifying action completes. Similarly, one cannot ‘change the rental period’, one can only change which time period “the rental period for X” denotes. With these verbs, the “intensional role” is equivalent to an ‘answer’ (at least in structure): one specifies “what time period the rental period is”.
The same idea seems to apply to a verb like ‘prevents’. If someone “prevents a forest fire”, there is no forest fire that is prevented; rather the concept ‘forest fire’ is not instantiated. But unlike the above, one does not prevent “what forest fire it is.” And if one ‘orders 1000 widgets’, they may or may not already exist so that they can be ordered. What one orders is a characterization of objects that are to be instantiated.
So, the intensional role seems to be a valuable concept for verb concept wordings, because it has real business use
Problem: If "body of shared concepts" were defined as [the set of] all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings", then I dont think the following entry would be needed: "body of shared concepts includes concept".
Resolution:
1. Change the definition of "body of shared concepts" to: the set of all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings"
2. Eliminate the entry: body of shared concepts includes concept
SBVR is not clear about how markup should or should not be embedded within
Representation Expressions.
The specification needs to be clear about exactly what is included in basic
Representation Expressions, especially Fact Type Forms, which contain no
embedded markup. It also needs to be clear about the kinds of markup that
can be embedded in Representation Expressions and how to communicate which
markup specification is being used.
SBVR Issue – Clean up and Complete Vocabulary for Clause 10.1.1 (Was Issues 11296-1a and 11303-b) (Part of Separating 11296 & 11303 into Manageable Pieces)Please see attached Word document for Issue details.
This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions:
Disposition: Resolved
OMG Issue No: ????
Title: Need business-oriented verb concepts to support "local closure"
Source:
Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research
Summary:
Clause 10.1.1.3 has an extensive discussion of "Open/Closed World Semantics". In particular, the penultimate paragraph near the bottom of page 94 of version 1.0 of the specification says:
"For any given schema, the business might have complete knowledge about some parts and incomplete knowledge about other parts. So in practice, a mixture of open and closed world assumptions may apply. We use the term “local closure” (or “relative closure”) for the application of the closed world assumption to just some parts of the overall schema. One might assume open world semantics by default, and then apply local closure to specific parts as desired; or alternatively, assume closed world semantics by default and then apply “local openness.” We adopt the former approach as it seems more realistic when modeling real business domains."
In SBVR 1.0, local closure is supported by the verb concepts "fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema" and "concept is closed in conceptual schema" in clause 8.5. The resolution of issue 13138 moves clause 8.5 to clause 10, thus making these verb concepts no longer available in the normative specification or in the clause 15 supporting documents. The result is that the specification no longer supports the semantics mentioned in the quote given above. This issue requests that similar functionality be added to clause 11.
The original clause 8.5 verb concepts used designations that are not meaningful to business people. The resolution of this issue should adopt business-oriented terminology. Discussions have identified at least four possible approaches:
1. A verb concept "set is completely known", meaning that the semantic community knows all the elements of the set. This would be particularly useful when applied to a set as the extension of a concept.
2. A verb concept "concept has completely known extension". Similar to the above, but applying specifically to the extension of concepts.
3. A verb concept such as "semantic community completely knows concept".
4. Building on the concept "communication concept" in clause 11.2.2.3 to define closure with respect to an information record.
Example use cases for local closure include the following:
Example 1
This example is about a concept called order that includes a list of line items, where each line item has a quantity, a catalog id, etc. A minimal vocabulary is shown here, just enough to illustrate the example.
order
Definition: A customer request for one or more products and a promise to pay the total cost of the order.
line item
Definition: Details about an order for a particular product.
quantity
Definition: positive integer that is the number of units of the product that is desired by the customer
catalog id
Definition: text that identifies the product desired by the customer
line item has quantity
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one quantity.
line item has catalog id
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one catalog id.
order includes line item
Necessity: Each order includes at least one line item.
"order includes line item" is internally closed in the business xx conceptual schema
The "internally closed" fact says that the business knows all the line items that are included in each order: there are no other line items. Consider a rule such as "Each order must be shipped within 24 hours if the order does not include a line item that has quantity greater than 100." As described in clause 10.1.1.3, this rule makes no sense with the default SBVR "open world" semantics because under those semantics, the business cannot know that no "line item that has quantity greater than 100".
Example 2
Consider a business that has a vocabulary about employees. The business considers it knows all its employees; there are no employees that it does not know.
employee
Definition: person that works for the business
Under SBVR's default open world semantics, the glossary entry given above is insufficient because it does not capture the business sense that it knows all its employees. To accomplish that, the vocabulary needs the following:
"employee" is closed in the business xx conceptual schema
Example 3
Continuing example 2, suppose the business needs concepts relating to employee names and work phone numbers:
employee name
Definition: text that identifies an employee
work phone number
Definition: number used to phone an employee at work
The business requires that it knows the employee name of each employee because the government requires this information on tax and employment reports. So the employee name is authoritative.
The business knows that, in practice, it does not know the work phone number of each employee. These change too often to keep up with.
SBVR needs verb concepts to express the idea that the employee name is reliably know, but the work phone number is not reliably known.
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Disposition:
Inconsistent use of terminology when relating facts to fact types
It has been noted that there are a few places in clause 10 where the relationship between facts and fact types are described using inconsistent language. SBVR makes clear that not every fact is of a particular fact type obviously, some facts are formulated using quantifiers, logical operators, etc. SBVR makes clear that instances of fact types are actualities, not facts. SBVR describes concepts as having instances, but not facts as having instances. A few places in clause 10 can be lead to confusion in this regard. They are listed below with recommended rewordings.
Thanks go to Mark Linehan who graciously went through clause 10 last September and located these places.
Recommended changes:
1. In the third paragraph of the introduction to clause 10, REMOVE the sentence that says:
A ‘Fact’ is of a particular ‘Fact Type.’
2. REPLACE the third paragraph of 10.1.1.2, which says this:
The conceptual schema declares the fact types (kinds of facts, such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.
With this:
The conceptual schema declares the fact types (such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.
3. In the last paragraph of page 89 (in 10.1.1.2) there is a sentence that says:
The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of fact instances that instantiate the fact types in the schema).
REPLACE it with this:
The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of facts that are formulated using the fact types and other concepts in the schema).
4. Just above figure 10.1 on page 90 there is the following sentence.
Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (instances of domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.
REPLACE it with this:
Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (formulated using domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.
The Structured English keyword "another" is sometimes ambiguous. For an example, in the following rule, it is formally not clear whether "another <person3>" refers to <person1> and/or <person2>:
It is prohibited that a <person1> <is married to> <person2>, if that <person1> <is married to> another <person3>.
'quantity' is defined informally. A formalization of the existing definition is proposed, along with changes in terminology and related entries that would be affected by the change.
The proposed changes unify some fundamental concepts in SBVR and application domains and significantly enhance the ability to reason about SBVR models.
Full details are provided in a paper I authored but am unable to attach to this message because of limitations of this OMG Web site, which does not accept attachments. Please contact me if you would like to review the paper, and I'll send it by email.
SBVR provides for a speech community to adopt a definition, or an element of guidance, but no clear way for a vocabulary to adopt a term and its definition from another vocabulary. The Date Time Vocabulary (clause 4) formally adopts a set of terms from the SBVR specification with the intent that the term means the definition given in SBVR and has whatever other associations that term may have to other adopted SBVR terms. (This is the usual practice for adopted terminology in an ISO standard.) But SBVR does not provide a formal expression for this. Instead, it appears that DTV must introduce all the required SBVR terms and their definitions and then cite SBVR as the Source of the definitions. (This is a practice ISO recommends against, because of the problem of synchronization of changes.) We believe that this is a shortcoming in SBVR.
Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined.
The underlying issue is:
1. SBVR’s metamodel is defined in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Its instances (domain models) are linguistic models of meanings.
2. The model defined in Clause 10 is included in the normative SBVR model to support a formal logic interpretation of SBVR’s metamodel. Its instances (domain models) are fact models.
The proposed resolution is:
1. State, in introductory text in Clauses 8 and 10, that the models are different
2. Somewhere in Clause 10:
a. List the major differences between the two models
b. Describe informally what transformation would be needed to derive a domain fact model from a corresponding linguistic model. It is probably beyond the scope of this RTF to develop a formal specification
Resolution:
1. Add a subclause to Subclause 10.1.1 to discuss to an appropriate level of detail all aspects of the relationship between the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 and the formal interpretation in Subclause 10.1.1, as well as removing ambiguity from Clause 10.1.1 by consistent use of terms intension, extension, fact population, and the set of all possible facts..
Rectifying the Relationship Between SBVR and ISO 1087 Terms "Concept System" and "Relation"
SBVR uses two terms "concept system" and "relation" found in ISO 1087 but extends these notions in important ways. Specifically, SBVR supports more "elements of concept system structure" than ISO 1087 does – especially, but not exclusively, associations (verb concepts). ISO 1087 defines only some kinds of relation, such as 'generic relation', 'partitive relation', 'hierarchical relation'. Use of the terms "concept system" and "relation" in SBVR should be rectified.
1. "Concept System" appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:
2. "Relation" (in the ISO sense roughly meaning 'connection') appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:
RESOLUTION
1. "Concept System" is a synonym in SBVR for "Body of Shared Concepts" and should be explicitly treated as such.
2. "Concept System" should be indicated as the preferred term for the concept "Body of Shared Concepts". ("Body of Shared Concepts" is awkward and not memorable.)
3. A Note should be added to the entry for "Body of Shared Concepts" indicating ISO 1087 as the source for the term "concept system". Note: The ISO definition should not be indicated as the Basis for the entry since the ISO meaning is much more restricted.
4. Replace "relation" with "connection" in the definition of Body of Shared Meaning (p. 142) and in a note for that entry.
5. Replace "relation" with "connection" in the definitions of Category (p. 148) and More General Concept (p. 148).
Describing the facts of a fact model, SBVR’s clause 10 says, “Population facts are restricted to elementary and existential facts.”
This “restriction” appears to be a restriction on the clause 10 mapping to a relational database, requiring a sort of normalization. It is certainly not a restriction discernable from SBVR’s definition of “fact model”. Nor is it a restriction on formal interpretation of fact models for knowledge bases in general. Facts that do not fall into those two categories (elementary and existential) can occur in fact models and can be mapped to formal logic. They can be formulated using concepts in a fact model’s conceptual schema, even if they cannot be formulated using those concepts in a way that is considered existential or elementary. Facts can be formulated using disjunction, universal quantification, etc.
A fact model can have a fact like the following, not as a rule in its schema, but simply as a fact:
“Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”.
Whether this is a “good” fact in terms of being structured according to best practices is not relevant. Once we have a fact model, then we can use tools or guidelines to measure quality and recommend improvements. But that comes after we have fact model to examine.
Is the fact elementary? Not if it can break into “Every son of Mary has a car” and “Every son of Mary has a kayak”.
Is it existential? I cannot see it that way.
But it can map to formal logic, so clause 10 of SBVR should accommodate that mapping. It does not map directly into a relational table, but there is no reason to limit SBVR’s formal underpinnings to relational modeling.
As it turns out, clause 10 would handle the fact, “Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”, just fine as long as it is formulated using a unary fact type as would be represented by a unary predicate like this: EverySonOfHasACarAndAKayak(Mary). That sort of contrived fact type is not likely to be found in a conceptual schema made up of meanings of words in a business vocabulary. Requiring a fact model with a business origin to have such a contrived fact type in its conceptual schema is inappropriate for SBVR, even though such contriving is sometimes part of database design. Conceptual schemas based on business vocabularies, rather than database design, involve meanings of words used by business people. Use of such vocabularies starts with an assumption that basic language works (quantifiers, conjunction, disjunction, restriction, demonstration, etc.) for putting words together to make statements. So formulations of facts so stated can tend towards complex formulations involving various sorts of quantifications, objectifications, logical operators, etc. Mapping such fact models into normalized databases is great, but requiring a direct mapping is not and must not be a limitation imposed by SBVR.
Some confusion is created in clause 10 from using the words “elementary” and “existential” as attributes of facts, when they seem to be attributes of formulations of facts, not of the facts themselves. For example, if the characteristic ‘employee number is assigned’ is define as “there exists an employee that has the employee number”, then by definitional substitution, these are two statements of the very same fact:
Employee number 777 is assigned.
There exists an employee that has the employee number 777.
So we have one fact that appears to be both elementary and existential. The difference is in formulation, not the fact.
It would be more clear for clause 10 to apply the ideas of “ground”, “elementary” and “existential” to formulation of facts rather than to facts. “Population” in the clause 10 sense seems to be strictly tied to formulation. It gives an example: “pop(Employee drives Car)= set of (employee, car) pairs ”.
Recommendation:
Remove the clause 10 general “restriction” to elementary and existential facts. Any such restriction should apply only to the clause’s relational mappings.
In clause 10, clarify how the concepts of “ground”, “elementary”, “existential” and “population” are tied to formulation.
OMG Issue No: 16685
Title: Fix Entries in Subclause 10.1.2.1 to Align with Subclause 10.1
Source:
SBVR Co-chair, Donald Chapin [Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com]
Summary:
Spin-off from Resolution of Issue 15623 (and 14843 which was Merged into it)
Fix the entries in SBVR Subclause 10.1.2.1 to bring them in line with what Clause 10.1 says as revised by the resolution to Issues 15623 & 14843.
Clause 10 of SBVR provides a formal logic interpretation of SBVR in terms of Object Role Modeling (ORM).
There has been a long-standing agreement within the OMG community to provide a formal interpretation in terms of Common Logic (CL). CL is an ISO standard (ISO 24707) for which there is an OMG standard metamodel in the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) specification, and which is being used as a basis for logical interpretation in the OMG Date Time vocabulary.
A partial interpretation of SBVR in CL is given in clause 10.2, but significant work is needed to complete this grounding. Completion is essential to supporting downstream alignment of OMG specifications that are expressed in terms of other logic languages, to reuse of SBVR vocabularies by commercial rule engines, and to facilitate interoperability with other work in the ISO community. It may also be needed to support development of new vocabularies in SBVR, such as potential financial services vocabularies related to the FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology) effort in the Finance DTF.
Definite descriptions do not always define individual concepts
The entry for ‘definite description’ in SBVR 11.1.3 includes this structural rule:
Necessity: Each definite description is the definition of an individual concept.
The rule is incorrect. A definite description defining a concept in a schema might well be taken as defining an individual concept, but a definite description within a statement of a fact in a model need not define an individual concept because it need not identify the same individual in all possible worlds. It would identify an individual in the world described by the fact. Similarly, a definite description in the context of a rule statement might identify a single individual in each situation addressed by the rule, but not necessarily the same individual in all possible worlds. E.g., “the previous calendar month” definitely describes one month, but which month it describes depends on the current month, which can vary across possible worlds.
Also, a note should be added to the entry for “definite description” to point out that the one thing defined by a definite description can be a set (e.g., “the cars owned by EU-Rent”, which, by the way, is not the same set in all possible worlds).
Date/Time Annex F is titled: Annex F Simplified Syntax for Logical Formulations.
First, the title is wrong. The Date/Time standard contains logical formulations in OCL and CLIF. This Annex is a syntax for SBVR 'logical formulations', and this language, like SBVR Structured English, is somehow related to the vocabulary of SBVR clause 9. It should be titled: Simplified Syntax for SBVR Logical Formulations.
Secondly, as a consequence, this Annex is totally out of place in the Date/Time Vocabulary specification. If this is a useful notation for SBVR formulations, and is used in the SBVR community, then it should surely be an informative annex to the SBVR v1.1 specification, and simply be referenced in the Date/Time Annex (E) that uses it. If it is not used in the SBVR community, then it is certainly inappropriate for Date/Time to include it.
Recommendation: Delete Annex F and refer to the OMG (SBVR) specification that actually includes it. Otherwise, use a standardized SBVR notation in Annex E.
The Date/Time final submission should have identified Annex F as a proposed addition to the SBVR specification – a new informative Annex, and we may assert that OMG adoption of the Date/Time submission constitutes adoption of Annex F as an addition to the SBVR specification.
Annex H provides detailed guidance on the representation of SBVR vocabulary concepts in UML diagrams. Much of that guidance produces invalid UML constructs per UML 2.4.
H.1 "If there are additional terms for the concept they can be added within the rectangle, labeled as such – e.g., “also: is-category-of
fact type” as depicted in Figure H.1." There is no UML syntax for this.
H.2 "Alternatively, an individual concept can be depicted as an instance of its related general concept (noun concept), as in Figure H.3." The diagram uses an unidentified Dependency, which has no meaning. It should be formally stereotyped.
H.3.1 shows three representations of the fact type 'semantic community shares understanding of concept'. The third is invalid – an association can have only one name. Also the name of the association is 'shares understanding of'; it does not include the placeholder terms.
H.3.1 Figure H.4 shows associations that are navigable in both directions, inducing unnamed UML properties on 'semantic community' and 'concept' that are not intended. (This is a vestige of UML v1 ambiguity.) It should show no navigable ends, using UML 2.4 syntax.
H.3.4 Figure H.9 depicts an invalid relationship symbol; an association is required to have 2 or more roles.
H.4.2 Figure H.11 shows a stereotype <<is role of>> on a Generalization. I'm not sure this is valid UML, but in any case such a stereotype would have to be defined in a formal Profile. (Semantically, some "roles" are object types that specialize more general concepts, others are association ends (verb concept roles), and others are things in their own right that have the property 'role has occupant'.)
H.4.3 suggests that there is no consistent mapping for association names. In any case, the UML model of a 'fact type role' is a named association end, regardless of ownership.
H.6.1 Figure H.14. It is not clear what UML element has the name "Results by Payment type", and the text does not say. It may be a GeneralizationSet.
H.6.2 Figure H.16. ":modality" appears to be a TagValue associated with some unnamed and undefined Tag, or it may just be another string that names no model element.
H.8 In, Figure H.17 there is a meaningless dashed line between 'car recovery' and a ternary association (verb concept). It is said to represent 'objectification'. That dashed line should be a Dependency that has a stereotype indicating the nature of that relationship, e.g., <<objectification>>, defined in a Profile.
H.9 says that the default multiplicity on association ends is 0..*. According to the UML metamodel v2.4, the default multiplicity on a UML association end is 1..1, i.e., exactly one. This makes most of the SBVR UML diagrams implicitly erroneous.
So Annex H needs to be rewritten, and if it is to include standard stereotypes and tag values, it needs a standard UML Profile that defines them.
Further, it demonstrates the need for minor repairs to the UML diagrams throughout SBVR, to make them match the MOF model described in Clause 13.
When DTV v1.0-alpha was adopted, it contained a proposed simplified text representation for SBVR LRMV constructs (as distinct from the long and involved sequences of sentences used in SBVR examples, that make references to undefined concepts like'first variable'). The DTV FTF resolved issues about the disposition of the annex containing this SBVR LRMV notation by improving the description of the notation, but also revising the informative text that used the notation in such a way that the notation is no longer used in DTV. This LRMV notation therefore no longer has a use in DTV and is out of scope for the DTV specification. It is likely that the annex (DTV v1.1 Annex F) will be deleted from DTV v1.2.
The simplified LRMV notation has value for the wider SBVR community, and its description should be an informative Annex to SBVR. It is within the expertise and purview of the SBVR RTF to address any problems with the notation specification, and to maintain alignment with the SBVR specification generally. Accordingly, the SBVR RTF should maintain the adopted text of DTV Annex F as an Annex to SBVR.
Many business rules, laws of nature, etc., are given ‘names’ that are representations of those rules/laws as ‘individual concepts’.
For example, “Murphy’s Law” represents the proposition: Anything that can go wrong will. Similarly, “Newton’s First Law of Motion” represents the proposition: A body at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. (Laws like “Sarbanes-Oxley” are not just propositions, they are actually bodies of guidance.)
What is the SBVR relationship between these signifier expressions and the propositions? The expressions are very like designations, there are different expressions in different languages, and a few such ‘laws’ are known by different names in different subject areas. But it does not appear that they can be contained in Vocabularies or terminological dictionaries.
These representations cannot be ‘designations’. Propositions cannot be (individual) concepts, unless the dichotomy of ‘meaning’ (= concept xor proposition) is not valid. And they are clearly not ‘statements’.
SBVR apparently assume that business terms are composed of natural language words, and that those words may have multiple morphemes that are nonetheless the same word and the same term. That is, a vocabulary term like 'purchase contract' may also have the form 'purchase contracts', and a vocabulary term like 'is owned by' may be expressed as 'has been owned by'. But SBVR says nothing about any of this in defining 'designation' or 'signifier'.
When a signifier for the same concept is in a formal language like OWL or CLIF, this idea of multiple morphemes is not (usually) part of the language syntax. So this should be carefully addressed.
For the SBVR Structured English language, Annex C.1 explicitly says that these alternate morphemes are "implicitly available for use", which may mean they are treated as equivalent, or just that they are recognized as uses of the same designation.
In natural language, such morphemes carry additional meaning , e.g., plurality or tense or mood. And a morphological variant of the same designation may or may not carry additional meaning, This is important, because SBVR examples assume that plurals are conventional and irrelevant, but the Date Time Vocabulary says that the use of verb tenses in natural language conveys indexical time intent. That is:
'John is in London' and 'John was in London' have different meanings in English. Do they have different meanings in SBVR SE?
And if so, do they always have different meanings? Natural language convention requires that a statement that dates a past event uses the past tense, e.g., 'John was in London in 2008.' Is it meaningful in SBVR SE to say (in 2012) 'John is in London in 2008'? And does that mean a different proposition from 'John was in London in 2008'?
Inadequate, Overlapping and Disorganized Specifications for Sets and Collections of Concepts, Meanings, and Representations
Problem:
Assumptions
Two assumptions are basic to the eight points of this problem statement:
SBVR must provide a business vocabulary for business people and business analysts to talk clearly and precisely about terminological dictionaries and rulebooks and what they represent.
The various aspects of this Issue must be addressed holistically. They can be resolved only by unifying, normalizing and completing all related specifications. (Thus, the need for a new unifying Issue.)
Problems
1. A known problem in SBVR is that the current version does not make clear what the fundamental unit of interoperability in SBVR is. No matter how that issue is resolved the unit should:
Be identifiable from a business point of view.
Not always have to be the full, non-redundant set of concepts, meanings, or representations.
The existing content of Clause 11 does not currently provide an adequate term for the second of these. This Issue proposes “collection” for that purpose.
Note: The term “collection” in the following discussion is never actually used on its own. Rather, it always appears with qualification e.g., ‘collection of representations’.
2. Another known problem in SBVR centers on the use of the word “container” in e-mails and discussion. (Use of the signifier “container” per se is not part of this Issue.) It is unclear (to some) whether “container” refers to the ‘thing that contains’, to ‘what is contained’, or to both. The term is easily misused and misinterpreted. Also there are many variations of what is (or could be) contained (e.g., sets, collections, etc.). SBVR needs a precise, non-overlapping vocabulary for these things from a business point of view.
3. Another known problem in SBVR is that the existing content of Clause 11.2.2.3 “communication content” (a.k.a. “document content”) is not adequate for all purposes to which it might be put. SBVR needs a richer (but still minimal) set of concepts to address this area.
4. Certain existing terms in the existing content of Clause 11 (e.g., ‘terminological dictionary’ and ‘rulebook’) conflate ‘completeness and non-redundancy’ (i.e., being a set) with ‘primary purpose’ or ‘essence’. This conflation needs to be eliminated. In the real world for example, a rulebook does not have to be complete (e.g., it may contain only what is appropriate for a given audience), and it does not have to be non-redundant. It can contain the same rule statements in different sections, the intent being to provide the greatest clarity when being used by members of some speech community.
5. SBVR currently provides no means to talk about a collection of representations that is complete with respect to one or more specific concepts, but not complete with respect to all concepts in the body of shared meanings. Example: A listing of all baseball rules that address the concepts “strike” and “ball” only.
6. With respect to interoperability there is a minimum set of pragmatic business specifications (such as completeness, effective date, shelf life, mutability, etc.) needed for things communicated. SBVR does not currently support such specifications.
Note: There is no intent or need to get into document management or rule management. The dividing line is this: SBVR does not get into organizational issues (e.g., author, sponsor, reviewer, etc.), workflow issues (e.g., status, pre-approval distribution, sign-off, impact assessment, etc.), motivation (rationale, goals, risks), etc. SBVR must, however, provide minimum viability criteria for any sets or collections communicated. Otherwise the communicated content is not really useful and trustworthy on the receiving end. Consequently the purpose of interoperability is defeated.
7. Certain kinds of collections relevant to inter-operability are missing from the current content of Clause 11 most notably ‘record’ (not IT ‘records’). Proper incorporation of this and other kinds of collections is needed.
8. Issue 16103, which addresses “speech community representation”, needs to be worked into a holistic solution.
The precedence of logical operators ("and", "or", etc.) in Structure English is unspecified which may make some rules ambiguous. Furthermore, they sould be called "operators" and not "operations".
The objectification example “EU-Rent reviews each corporate account at EU-Rent Headquarters” in SBVR v1.1 clause 9.2.7 (as modified per the resolution to issue 16309), is expressed in the usual sequence of sentences. The formal logic interpretation of those sentences is:
For each corporate account A, there exists a state of affairs S such that
S objectifies “EU-Rent reviews A”,
and S occurs at EU Rent HQ.
Now, per Clause 8 there is only one such state of affairs; and its existence is a given, that is, for every proposition of the form ‘company reviews account’, the corresponding state of affairs necessarily exists. But nothing is said here about that state of affairs being actual. Moreover, since there is probably more than one “occurrence” of that state of affairs, the definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ would be less than obvious. Or is it the intent that there is only one review of each corporate account? Whatever it means for an abstract state of affairs (that might be a set, including the empty set) to ‘occur at a place’, it is not clear, and it is important to the example of objectification what is the state of affairs that it produces.
In SBVR v1.0, the variable S ranges over the verb concept ‘company reviews account’, because the instances of the verb concept were then said to be actualities. The resolution of Issue 14849 makes instances of a verb concept ‘states of affairs’ instead of actualities. But states of affairs need not be actual. It is obvious that some thought was given to this example, because v1.1 changed it. What is not clear is whether it is any closer to what was intended.
A definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ should probably follow the DTV pattern for ‘state of affairs occurs at time’. In DTV parlance, what was intended is: Each occurrence of the state of affairs “EU Rent reviews A” ‘occurs at’ EU Rent HQ. But SBVR lacks the vocabulary to express that.
There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1:
1. a conflation of 'proposition' with "'performative' + 'proposition'"
2. a disconnect between 'concept' and its subcategories and 'proposition' and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing.
Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
o proposition + "deontic" performative = behavioral guidance
o proposition + "alethic" performative = definitional rule
o proposition + "taken to be true" performative = fact
The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept 'fact' at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements – which are really out of scope for a standard for "concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries". Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative "taken to be true") so that fact statements can be used as examples.
Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
Clause 8.1 defines two concepts ('concept' and 'proposition') as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing:
· general noun concept = open (existential) proposition
· individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition
· general verb concept = open (relational) proposition
· individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition
(this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs)
Resolution:
Remove the Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
1. Add the concept (definition) for "performative" and term it "communicative function" [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 "Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts".
2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: "taken to be true", "true by definition", and behavioral guidance.
3. Add the concept (definition) for "performative' + proposition" and term it "dialogue act" [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2.
4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition.
5. Review all references to 'proposition' to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition).
Remove the Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories.
2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both 'concept' and 'proposition' as more general concepts for the subcategories.
3. Replace all current uses of 'individual concept' to 'individual noun concept'.
Revised Text:
to follow, including redrawn diagram(s)
SBVR 1.2 beta annex G (EU Rent Example) adopts concepts from the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) but deliberately gives them names that are both inconsistent with DTV and in fact are confusingly similar to the names of other concepts that are defined in DTV. Although any business can use any vocabulary terms desired, an OMG standard should maintain consistency with other OMG vocabularies for reasons of quality and to avoid user confusion. Especially a portion of a standard that is specifically intended to "to provide an aid to help them understand the specification " (annex G.2).
The Annex is also inconsistent in its own terminology with respect to dates and times. For example, "maximum rental period" (Annex G.6.6) is a kind of "duration" even though G.8.6 defines "period" as a kind of "time interval" and a "rental period" (G.6.8.3) is a kind of "period".
This annex also defines its own concepts that relate states of affairs to time, and for quantities – rather than using the corresponding concepts defined by the Date-Time Vocabulary. It fails to give definitions for these concepts, which means they are subject to varying interpretations. The example would be stronger if it used the carefully worked-out concepts defined in the Date-Time Vocabulary.
Specifically:
In the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, the entries for ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ contain reference schemes that refer to the concept ‘closed projection’ and related fact types that do not appear in the MRV itself. In the MRV per se, these are undefined terms. I am told, but do not find in SBVR v1.2, that if only the MRV is implemented, such Reference Schemes are ignored, while clause 13.4.2 explicitly says that the UML/MOF classes must have the corresponding properties. If properly documented, this approach may be fine for the specification of SBVR itself. In general, however, this approach assumes that the speech community that develops a formal vocabulary is omniscient about reference schemes used by speech communities who ADOPT the original vocabulary. In general, an adopting community might add new fact types about an adopted concept that result in new reference schemes for the concept. Also, the adopting community might add new synonyms or synonymous forms for an adopted concept. There is no reason to suppose that the original speech community is even aware of the adoption, and there is no way these additional elements can have been present in the original terminological entry. So, the approach used in SBVR itself is unworkable for general use.
When a concept is adopted by another vocabulary, it should be expressly possible for the “adopting entry” to include new reference schemes and synonymous forms, and possibly other elements of a terminological entry.
Further, if such a mechanism is introduced, the SBVR vocabularies themselves should use it, rather than incorporating reference schemes in the base terminology entry that refer to fact types that don’t exist in that vocabulary per se. For example, the LRMV should formally adopt the MRV concepts and add the reference schemes involving closed projections in the ADOPTING ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ entries.
In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form
"fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role
is in fact type".
Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing
to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous
form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate
that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly
not in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has
role".
Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed
to "fact type has fact type role".
'categorization scheme' and 'categorization type' are related, yet SBVR says nothing about this relationship.
Upon comparing the entries for these terms in 11.2.2.3, it is seen they are coextensive; the extension of each is a set of concepts; they could be defined having the same extensions. Compare the examples in each entry.
A difference is that categorization schemes are restricted to categorizing general concepts, whereas categorizations types are not so restricted.
Another difference is that categorization schemes define partitionings, whereas categorization type are not so restricted.
Accordingly, it seems like the definition should be:
categorization scheme: categorization type that defines a partitioning of one or more general concepts.
'categorization type' is defined in such a way that it is not meaningfully different from 'concept type' (p.22); compare the definitions on p.22 with that on p.149. A concept, by its very nature and definition, defines a category of things. See 'concept', p.21. 'categorization type' should be made a synonym of 'concept type'.
'Categorization scheme' is involved in the verb concept 'categorization scheme is for general concept'. The general concept(s) are inferred by the general concepts of the concepts in a categorization scheme or a categorization type coextensive with the it. This verb concept is not necessary.
'Categorization scheme' is involved in verb concept 'categorization scheme contains category'. Either can be defined to have the same extension, by an extensive definition. This verb concept is not necessary.
The two verb concepts mentioned above are redundant; their purpose is more simply served by providing extensional definitions of categorization types and categorization schemes, as suggested by the examples. They could be deprecated or deleted, as they do not add any new information to a model. They increase the complexity and maintenance burden on the model.
The changes suggested here would affect Figure 11.2 on p.146.
In SBVR clause 8.3.4, in the entry for ‘placeholder’, it is stated that a placeholder exists in only one verb concept wording, and it refers to some role of the verb concept in that wording. It follows that the two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ in ‘concept1 specializes concept2’ and in the Synonymous form: ‘concept2 generalizes concept1’ (in 8.1.1.1) refer to two roles of the verb concept being defined. Since these two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ are different designations, how are they related?
Annex C.3.1 does not say anything about the relationship between placeholders in the primary verb concept wording and placeholders in synonymous forms. (It just says something about subscripts being used to differentiate placeholders.) The intent is that the placeholder expression represents the SAME verb concept role in ALL primary and synonymous forms. That is, the placeholder is the SAME DESIGNATION in all verb concept wordings for the same verb concept. The text of 8.3.4 contradicts this intent, saying that the placeholder only has meaning within a given verb concept wording. If the text is correct, it is necessary to state some rule about the meaning of the same placeholder expression (the distinct designation) in the different synonymous forms.
Further, in the Definition of ‘concept1 specifies concept2’, the expression ‘concept1’ appears. Since that expression only refers to a verb concept role within a verb concept wording, it is utterly meaningless in the Definition! There are no placeholders in a Definition, and ‘concept1’ is not a signifier for any concept. And yet, the intent is that ‘concept1’ in the Definition is the placeholder expression and is intended to be interpreted as a reference to the thing that plays that verb concept role in an actuality of ‘concept1 specializes concept2’. Annex C says nothing about the use of placeholder expressions in Definitions, and 8.3.4 makes these usages meaningless, but they appear in every verb concept definition in SBVR.
It appears that the real intent is that a placeholder expression refers to one and the same verb concept role throughout the terminological entry for the verb concept, including at least all synonymous forms and definitions. Whether it also refers to the verb concept role in embedded Necessities needs to be clarified (it is not clear that SBVR ever assumes that, but DTV apparently does). The only aspect of a placeholder that is specific to a given verb concept wording is the ‘starting character position’, which suggests only that that relationship should be ternary, i.e., placeholder has starting character position in verb concept wording.
New SBV issue: Distinguishing the senses of infinitive and present tense
From Don Baisley
There are many verbs for which the present tense of a verb conveys a particularly different sense than the infinitive. The difference I refer to is not about "the present time", but about "occurring at least occasionally". For example, the statement that "Pam surfs" (present tense) combines the meaning of "to surf" (the infinitive) and the meaning that “it happens at least occasionally”.
For such verbs, there is a challenge when using SBVR's typical pattern of defining verb concepts in the present tense. It tends to conflate the infinitive sense of a verb with the different sense meant by the present tense. That conflation causes problems. This is not an issue for ORM or other approaches that do not try to support natural language tense in a generic way. The problem has no apparent impact for many verbs where the present tense sense of "occurring at least occasionally" is inconsequential or inapplicable. The problem is especially troublesome for eventive verbs. Most SBVR verbs are stative, so the problem has tended to go unnoticed in the SBVR vocabulary itself.
If supporting tense in a generic way, in logical formulations, the other tenses should be built on objectifications that start with the infinitive sense of a verb, not with the present tense. Also, modal operations like obligation build on the infinitive sense.
For examples below, I define verb concept forms for generic "tense" concepts using the verb "occurs" (where the there is a role that ranges over the concept 'state of affairs'). The choices of signifier and form are arbitrary (not necessary), but seem to convey the sense of the tenses naturally.
Example:
'person surfs' (present tense)
'person surf' (the infinitive sense)
Where someone puts 'person surfs' in a business glossary, there is an underlying verb concept that has the sense of "to surf", the infinitive. I show it here in examples as 'person surf' (leaving out the infintizing "to"). This underlying verb concept is necessary to correctly formulate other tenses, and even necessary to formulate use of the present tense in some cases, which I will show later.
Here are several examples of statements and interpretations using generic tense concepts built on the verb "occur". To be terse, I show objectification using brackets.
Pam surfs.
[Pam surf] occurs
Pam is surfing.
[Pam surf] is occurring
Pam was surfing.
[Pam surf] was occurring
Pam has been surfing.
[Pam surf] has been occurring
Pam surfed.
[Pam surf] occurred
Pam will be surfing.
[Pam surf] will be occurring
Pam will surf.
[Pam surf] will occur
Pam will have been surfing.
[Pam surf] will have been occurring
The second example above, "Pam is surfing", can serve to illustrate the need to build on the infinitive rather than the present tense sense. To build on the present tense would be to say the thing that “is occurring” is Pam surfing at least occasionally, which is incorrect. The present continuous and other tenses do not include the present tense sense of occurring at least occasionally, so they cannot rightly be built upon a concept that conveys that sense.
I said above I would show where the infinitive sense is sometimes needed even for the present tense. Here is a case where the infinitive 'person surf' concept is needed to formulate a statement that uses "surf" only in the present tense:
Pam talks while she surfs.
Wrong Interpretation I1: [Pam surfs] occurs while [Pam talks] occurs
I1 misses the key sense of the statement, because [Pam surfs] (present tense) means that surfing is something Pam does at least occasionally and [Pam talks] means that talking is something that Pam does at least occasionally. I1 applies 'state of affairs1 occurs while state of affairs2 occurs' to the wrong states of affairs (the states in which Pam occasionally surfs and Pam occasionally talks).
Right Interpretation I2: [[Pam surf] occur while [Pam talk] occur] occurs
I2 correctly factors out the tense and applies it at an outer level (as we often do with modal operations). The conjunction joins objectifications of the underlying sense of "to surf" and "to talk" without the added meaning of the present tense (that the surfing or talking is at least occasional). The sense of present tense (happening at least occasionally) is then added at the outside where it applies to the simultaneous actions.
SBVR does not prevent verbs concepts from being defined in glossaries in the infinitive , as is typical of dictionary definitions of verbs. That approach has always been available. But that approach is not used in SBVR’s own glossary and examples. In general, the sense of “occurs at least occasionally” is absent from SBVR’s own verb concepts, so the distinction is unimportant. But business rules and facts run into the problem. E.g., a EU-Rent rule about whether a renter smokes vs. a rule about whether he is smoking when in a rental car.
Recommendation:
It will be best to resolve this in a way that does not disturb the business-friendly approach of showing verb concept readings in the present tense. It might be possible to define a pattern in SBVR Structured English by which verb concepts with an infinitive sense are implied where present tense versions are explicitly presented in a glossary.
Examples of formulations need to show the distinction. Existing examples should be examined and fixed as needed. New formulation examples might be helpful to demonstrate using generic tense concepts to build on a root verb concept.
None of this changes the meaning of 'state of affairs' or 'objectification', but understanding this issue and its solution might help bring clarity to some of the examples that have been discussed.
The problem statement: The Annex is out of date with respect to RuleSpeak notation, probably the newly released version of EU-Rent, and perhaps newer aspects of SBVR itself.
Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined. This would address two concerns:
1. Allow the definition-based model to have an open-world assumption and the fact model to have a closed-world assumption.
The proposed resolution is:
1. Define that Clause 10 ‘fact models’ are by default closed world models
In SBVR clause 8.4.4, there is a necessity in the entry for ‘placeholder’: “Each placeholder is in exactly one verb concept wording”. Now, immediately before section 8.4.4, in the entry for ‘statement expresses proposition’, there is a synonymous form: ‘proposition has statement’. So, ‘statement’ is the text of two placeholders. A.4.12 (Synonymous forms) tries to say that these two different placeholders refer to the same verb concept role, but the statement is garbled: “The ones using the same designation as placeholders of the primary form represent the corresponding verb concept roles ” The ‘designation used by a placeholder’ is the representation of the range concept by a signifier for that concept, per 8.4.4 ‘placeholder uses designation’. What is intended here is: “A placeholder that has the same expression as a placeholder of the primary verb concept wording represents the same verb concept role.”
Further, in that same example entry, there is a Definition: “the statement represents the proposition”. According to A.4.2.3, the expression ‘statement’ refers to a placeholder in the verb concept wording, but that is ambiguous, since there are two verb concept wordings. That text should say the primary verb concept wording, so as to disambiguate the reference.
Again, in A.4.12, the following sentence appears: “The order of placeholders for verb concept roles can be different.” What does that mean? By the necessity above, the placeholders are different, so they cannot be reordered. The intent is that the relative positions of the placeholders for the same verb concept role may be different.
Finally, all of this is an elaborate convention to maintain the given Necessity. It seems that it would be much easier to make the placeholder a representation of the verb concept role throughout the terminological entry, as distinct from having it denote the verb concept role in the primary entry and in the Definition(s), but not in Synonymous forms, Descriptions, Notes, etc. The only function of that Necessity is to make a single ternary fact type: “Verb concept wording has placeholder at starting character position” into two binary fact types that each convey half the concept. A great deal of effort is expended to explain use of a business-friendly syntax that violates the stated model of a purely syntactic concept the intent is that the placeholder expression represents the same verb concept role throughout the entry. And verb concept wordings are ONLY about expressions. The underlying problem is that the concept ‘terminological entry’ is not part of the clause 8 vocabulary, and is therefore not available to be the scope of a placeholder. But then, the concept ‘primary verb concept wording’ is not in the clause 8 vocabulary, either.
understand you will be discussing the topic of packaging SBVR tomorrow, and I want to provide a perspective on this topic and make a request.
In my view, the key packaging concepts “fact model” and “conceptual schema” need to be in the normative SBVR metamodel to support widespread sharing and reuse of SBVR models. We want to promote the development of libraries of SBVR fact models and conceptual schemas and to compose fact models and conceptual schemas from other fact models and conceptual schemas. The ability to package these in a standard way is crucial to this end. A normative approach to globally identifying these models is needed to support their sharing and reuse. Concepts of packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas are preferably included in Clause 8. As the most basic compliance point, Clause 8 needs to be expressible in terms of itself, and to include concepts for packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas. I understand a proposal is under consideration to move “fact model” and “conceptual schema” entries to Clause 10. This would be a mistake, as we would then have no normative way of specifying the packaging.
The definition of “conceptual schema” should be refined to reflect the fact that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. The distinction between a conceptual schema and other fact models is that a conceptual schema includes at least one fact that asserts the existence of a concept. Other fact models that are not conceptual schemas contain only ground facts. The text of SBVR makes it clear that a conceptual schema is a fact model, that every SBVR interchange document is a fact model. That “conceptual schema” specializes “fact model” should be reflected in the definition of “conceptual schema.”
The term “vocabulary” is not used in the SBVR specification consistently with its definition as a “set of designations and fact type forms ” Each of the normative clauses of SBVR, called a “Vocabulary,” is actually an annotated conceptual schema. A conceptual schema comprises a “combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them) ” The designations and fact type forms in each SBVR normative “Vocabulary” constitute the vocabulary of that “Vocabulary”. The definitions and necessities in the SBVR entries are statements of schema facts. The notes and examples are annotations of the conceptual schema. Ability to include annotations is crucial to practical development and use of any model, and is universally provided for in other and modeling and programming languages. It should be possible to normatively include annotations in a SBVR conceptual schema or fact model. Accordingly, it is recommended that “description” and related concepts of notes and examples in Clause 11.2.2 be moved to Clause 8 to support annotation of fact models. With respect to the semantic formulations of a conceptual schema, it is preferred that Clause 8 only include statements of the definitions and schema facts, and leave it to Clause 9 to include the semantic formulations of these. Either “vocabulary namespace” and fact types that use the term should be moved to Clause 11, or “vocabulary” should be moved to Clause 8. The concept “vocabulary” is not necessary in Clause 8 but might be conveniently located there. Namespaces adequately serve the purpose of organizing designations and fact type forms. It is suggested the RTF consider providing recommendations for naming conventions for URIs of namespaces and related conceptual schemas that define and constrain the concepts represented by the designations and fact type forms in the namespaces.
Here are some suggested entries for Clause 8 that show how the concepts described above might be modeled:
conceptual schema
Definition: fact model that includes at least one existential fact asserting a concept
Note: This definition extends the definition of ‘conceptual schema’ in SBVR to formalize that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. This is evident in the specification text, but is not included in the current definition.
Note: The facts of a conceptual schema in addition to the concept existential facts describe what is possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world of the domain being modeled.
Note: Two levels of formalization of fact models (including conceptual schemas) are possible. 1) A fact model may contain only statements of definitions and other facts and not their semantic formulations. In this case, the fact model can meet the Meaning and Representation compliance point, 2.2.1. 2) A fact model may contain semantic formulations of its definitions and facts, in which case the fact model can meet the Logical Formulation of Semantics compliance point, 2.2.2.
fact model1 includes fact model2
Note: This fact type enables recursive composition of fact models and conceptual schemas.
Necessity: This fact type is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive, i.e. related fact models are at least partially ordered.
fact model includes description
Note: This fact type enables the annotation of fact models and conceptual schemas.
thing has URI
Note: This fact type enables modeled things to be identified globally for future reference.
I am requesting that these concepts, or some refinement of them, be included in the next release of SBVR.
The title of this issue is an example of common problem in SBVR Structured English.
Impossibility: An SBVR SE statement contains a qualifier whose subject is a property of the referent.
Given the verb concept 'sequence has member' aka 'thing is member of sequence', how is the following definition to be written in SBVR SE: "sequence each member of which is a time point"?
The referent of the pronoun 'which' is the sequence, but the subject of the qualifier clause is a quantified property of the referent. But SBVR SE only permits the (anaphor) pronoun to be 'that' or 'who' and apparently requires it to follow the referent noun immediately.
SBVR SE does not permit: "sequence of which each member is a time point".
And it does not provide a 'where' or 'such that' construct that would allow the back reference to be represented by 'the sequence', as in: "sequence where each member of the sequence is a time point".
Even the simpler case of a reference to a unique property of the referent in the qualifier clause --"shipment whose delivery date has passed" – requires a circumlocution ("shipment that has a delivery date that has passed"), because 'whose' is not an SBVR SE keyword. And the cascading 'that's interfere with the expression of compound qualifiers (using 'and that ').
In our experience, this shortcoming significantly limits the clear expression of definitions and rules in SBVR SE.
SBVR Clause 9.2 defines: ‘semantic formulation’ as ‘a conceptual structure of meaning’.
And then closed semantic formulation is defined as 'semantic formulation that includes no variable without binding'
But no SBVR concept associates semantic formulation (in general) with variables. And some other conceptual structure of meaning, e.g., phrased in SBVR structured English or OWL, might not have any notion of ‘variable’ or ‘binding’ at all. So the definition appeals to a delimiting characteristic that may be meaningless for the general concept, and thereby admit semantic formulations that were not intended.
Every structure of meaning presumably formulates a meaning; otherwise it formulates nonsense. But clause 9.2 has only ‘closed semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which suggests that open semantic formulations (involving free variables) formulate nonsense. That is simply not true of a ‘structure of meaning’ formulated in CLIF. What is really meant is that LRMV ‘closed logical formulations’ formulate propositions, and LRMV ‘closed projections’ formulate concepts. But those are special cases.
The definition of ‘closed semantic formulation’ should be ‘closed logical formulation or closed projection’, which makes it clearly an LRMV concept, and then those concepts must state their relationship to free variables.
The general idea for all conceptual structures of meaning is ‘semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which would allow other semantic formulations, e.g., in SBVR SE, OWL, etc., to be related to the meanings they formulate. If an LRMV projection or logical formulation that is not closed does not formulate a meaning, that is a LRMV Necessity for those specific concepts.
Finally, note that a (clause 8) Definition is always a representation of a conceptual structure of meaning that formulates a concept. The important idea in ‘definition serves as designation’ in clause 11.2.3 is that the representation of a semantic formulation (a conceptual structure of meaning) is used to refer to the concept itself, rather than just the properties contained in the formulation. This idea of semantic formulation as conceptual structure of meaning is fundamental to the notion ‘definition’, and should not be buried in the LRMV.
In clause A.2.2, the keyword 'another' is introduced, with the interpretation:
(used with a term that has been previously used in the same statement) existential quantification plus a condition that the referent thing is not the same thing as the referent of the previous use of the term
The idea "existential quantification plus" is an unnecessary and undesirable addition. The useful keyword is 'other'. As described, "other X" means "instance of the general concept X that is not the same thing as the referent of the previous occurrence of the term X". But "another" is just a conventional spelling of "an other", and might equally have been spelled "some other". The term 'other' can be usefully quantified by quantifiers other than "an". Each other, at least n other, at most n other, exactly n other, and no other are all valid uses of 'other' with the given interpretation, less the "existential quantification plus".
Defining only the portmanteau keyword 'another' greatly and unnecessarily limits the expressiveness of SBVR Structured English in this area.
SBVR v1.1 Clause 8 says:
Note: in the glossary entries below, the words “Concept Type: role” indicate that a general concept being defined is a role.
Because it is a general concept, it is necessarily a situational role and is not a verb concept role.
How does one declare an attributive role that is not a general concept?
SBVR v1.1 appears to use such declarations to also declare roles that are attributive roles of a given noun concept and thus also in the attributive namespace of the noun concept. For example, clause 8.6 declares 'cardinality', which is an attributive role of integers with respect to 'sets', in a glossary entry with Concept type: role. But 'cardinality' is not a general concept; nothing is a 'cardinality', full stop. An integer can only be a 'cardinality' OF something. it is a purely attributive term. As a term for a general concept, 'cardinality' is thus a term in the Meaning and Representation namespace; it has no 'context'.
The problem arises in defining attributive roles of general noun concepts, such as 'occurrence has time span' and 'schedule has time span', where the definitions of the two roles are importantly different because they are attributes of different general concepts that are only similar in nature. Neither is a situational role. That is, neither is a general concept. No time interval is a 'time span', full stop. A time interval must be a time span OF something. One 'time span' is in the attributive namespace of 'schedule', and a different 'time span' designation is in the attributive namespace of 'occurrence'. Neither is in the DTV.Situations vocabulary namespace per se. How can this be declared using SBVR conventions? Declaring them both in glossary entries with Concept Type: role apparently makes them conflicting designations for 'situational roles' in the DTV.Situations vocabulary.
Does simply declaring the verb concept 'occurrence has time span' declare the attributive role? If so, how is the range of the role declared? And where does the definition of the attributive role go?
The notion of “well-formedness” in compliance point 1 should be defined
Title: SBVR needs a consistently applied policy for styling or not styling signifiers
Source:
John Hall, RuleML Initiative
john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk
Summary:
There is some inconsistency in the SBVR specification regarding which signifiers are styled and which are not.
A policy needs to be agreed and applied consistently through the SBVR specification.
Resolution:
1. Style each use of the signifier of a concept (e.g. ‘thing’, ‘meaning’) where that use has the specific meaning defined in its SBVR entry;
2. If the signifier of a defined concept has an everyday English meaning that is different from its SBVR definition, don’t style uses of it where the everyday meaning is intended;
3. Add a paragraph to the introduction explaining the basis for styling/not styling.
SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The
definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only
singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in
some way.
Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains
whether individual things can recur. Add examples.
The first statement in Annex A.4.2.3 is misleading:
A definition given for a verb concept is an expression that can be substituted for a simple statement expressed using a verb
concept wording of the verb concept.
Unlike a noun concept definition, the definition of a verb concept cannot simply be substituted for an occurrence of the verb concept wording. Like the verb concept wording itself, it is a structured pattern with placeholder parameters, and the substitution process is complex. In “substituting the definition expression for a simple statement expressed using the verb concept wording”, it is also necessary to substitute the role phrases that are used in the verb concept wording in that simple statement for the corresponding placeholders in the definition. That is significantly different from what happens in the noun concept case.
In the same subclause, the sentence:
“A definition of a verb concept can generally be read using the pattern below ...
A fact that ... is a fact that ...”
is not quite general enough. The definition characterizes the same state of affairs, even when it is not a fact. It could be written:
A state of affairs in which ... is a state of affairs in which ...
In clause 8.3.4, the term 'verb concept wording' is defined as:
"representation of a verb concept by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept and signifiers for its verb concept roles"
In the same clause, the term 'noun form' is defined as:
"verb concept wording that acts as a noun rather than forming a proposition"
One would expect therefore, that a noun form of a verb concept would be a gerund, such as 'car transfer' for 'branch1 transfers car to branch2', where the 'noun form' denotes the same actualities as the verb concept.
But only the last Example (which is hard to understand because of a particularly bad choice of verb) is said to be about gerunds. The other examples clearly are not. The first Example is: "'transferred car of car transfer' for the verb concept 'car transfer has transferred car'. This form yields a transferred car."
The instances of 'car transfer has transferred car' are actualities of a car being involved in a car transfer. But the cited text says the instances of the 'noun form' 'transferred car of car transfer' are cars, not actualities. Similarly, the interpretation of the other two examples of 'noun forms' correspond to numbers, not actualities.
So the instances of a noun form of a verb concept need not be instances of the verb concept! The noun form therefore cannot be a 'verb concept wording'. The noun form does not represent the verb concept!
It appears that there are two different concepts here. Noun form 1 is "verb concept wording that acts as a noun." That is the gerund in the last Example. In the other examples, the noun form represents a derived concept that is what SBVR calls a 'situational role'. The intent of 'noun form 2' is "representation of a situational role by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept that the role is derived from and signifiers for some of its verb concept roles".
Finally, use of noun form 2 in declaring a glossary item for a situational role would be preferable to using only the role designation. In particular, the explicit appearance of other role placeholders in the noun form would permit them to be used directly in defining the situational role.
For example:
cardinality
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in a given set or collection
could be declared with the noun form:
cardinality of set
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in the set
I’m afraid it’s too late for SysML 1.4. I’ve spotted two typos:
· Figure 8.15: Multiplicity between Wheel and LugBolt ist 6..1
· Figure 8.17: Right block has no name
Typos
There are fixed in SysML 1.4 as published
The current definition of “rulebook” in SBVR is counterintuitive and simply wrong if judged on the basis of real-life rulebooks. People who use rulebooks expect to find a collection of rules first and foremost, not a terminological dictionary plus a set of rules. It is even possible (though not a good practice) to produce a rulebook with no definitions (terminological entries) whatsoever.
Also, the Note in the entry for “rulebook” seems to overlook definitional elements of guidance. Obviously a rulebook can and almost always do include definitional elements of guidance.
1. Change the current definition of “rulebook” in SBVR to remove the unintended consequence of the “terminological dictionary plus” that makes rulebook a subcategory of terminological dictionary, which was never intended.
2. Remove the unintended subtype connection in diagram Figure 19.5 from rulebook to terminological dictionary.
3. Change the Note in the entry for rulebook to remove the “terminological dictionary plus” which is superfluous.
4. Add an entry for the special case of '
SBVR rulebook' (or 'complete rulebook'), as reflected in SBVR Part 1:
Summary:
A fundamental idea in SBVR is that behavioral rules can be broken that is, violated by people. This idea is intrinsic to the distinction SBVR makes between definitional rules and behavioral rules.
Yet nowhere does SBVR currently provide a means to capture the circumstances under which a particular behavioral rule is actually violated. This represents a critical shortcoming. An exact understanding of such circumstances is needed for any robust treatment of business rules.
Fortunately, the resolution of this issue is quite straightforward SBVR already has the needed concepts to resolve it. In particular, SBVR already includes the concept of acceptable world, providing the necessary deontic basis for the resolution. Only a single new verb concept is needed, behavioral rule is violated, along with appropriate definition.
A behavioral rule can be imposed on a semantic community that is broader than, or different from, the authority that has business jurisdiction over the rule. For example, many of EU-Rent's behavioral rules are imposed on sub-communities of its employees, but some are imposed on its rental customers (mostly in the terms and conditions of the Rental Contract).
The enforcing authority for a behavioral rule is often, but not always, a sub-community within the authority that has business jurisdiction over the rule – for example, police and courts.
The enforcing authority for a behavioral rule needs to consider three things:
4. What remedial action is needed to address the violation
5. What consequential action may be needed
6. Whether some sanction should be applied to whoever is responsible for the violation
However, these actions are separate from the violation.
For example, EU-Rent has a rule that no rented car may be taken outside the area authorized for its rental. If EU-Rent discovers that the rented car of an open rental is outside the area authorized for the rental, it will apply the following enforcement:
4. EU-Rent will cancel the rental contract.
5. EU-Rent needs to: notify the insurer; advise the renter that the contract is canceled and that they are no longer insured and must not drive the car; recover the car and charge the cost to the renter; etc.
6. EU-Rent could cancel any future rental contracts for the renter, and bar the renter from being an additional driver on current or future rentals.
Since both determining and recording whether or not a behavioral rule has been violated is out of scope for SBVR, the concept ‘behavioral rule is violated’ is added to the list (at the end of the introduction to Clause 23.3 - added by SBVR Issue 19840) of concepts that do not go into an SBVR Content Model exchange document and the SBVR XMI metamodel.
There are over 50 places in SBVR where ”no” is used (styled) as a key word and yet it does not appear in any of the Annex A key word groups.
Add ”no” to the appropriate list of key words in Annex A, supporting its current use in the body of the SBVR document
Styled ”no” needs be added to the appropriate list of key words in Annex A, supporting its current use in the body of the SBVR document.
Add 'no' to the end of the A.2.1.1 list:
Issue: Stand-Alone 'Must' in a Necessity
The second Necessity for "adopted definition" on p.137 includes a stand-alone "must". Use of a stand-alone "must", with its inherent sense of obligation, in Necessities is inappropriate. (In reviewing the whole document, this is the only case I find of its use in a Necessity.)
Resolution
Change:
Necessity: Each adopted definition must be of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
to
Necessity: Each adopted definition is of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
Change:
Necessity: Each adopted definition must be of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
to
Necessity: Each adopted definition is of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
A very common need for rules is to organize them into named sets. These named sets can be referenced by other rules. Because of that fact, this Issue is one pertaining to semantics i.e., it is within SBVR scope.
SBVR-SE provides for the specification of rule sets (Annex A.5). This is a further reason for some appropriate entry/ies within SBVR proper for “rule set”.
SBVR currently includes the following entry:
body of shared guidance all of the elements of guidance within a body of shared meanings
But a rule set (or ruleset) organizes some, not all, elements of guidance within a body of shared meanings. In other words, a rule set need not be ‘complete’ (but should be non-redundant).
Annex A.5 indicates that a rule set can have a:
Name
Description
Vocabulary
Note
Source
However, some or all of these same properties probably apply to many or all kinds of bodies/sets/collections, and so it properly addressed under Issue 17542 (Containers Holistically).
Resolution:
Add the following entries into Clause 19:
rule set
Definition: set of one or more elements of guidance within a body of shared guidance
Synonym: ruleset
ruleset
See: rule set
body of shared guidance includes rule set
Synonymous Form: rule set is included in body of shared guidance
rule set includes element of guidance
Synonymous Form: element of guidance is included in rule set
The concept ‘rule set’ is referenced in the context of the SBVR Content Model exchange document in SBVR Clause 23 which is normative, but it is not defined in the SBVR Vocabulary, nor is this concept included in either the SBVR XMI Metamodel file (Clause 25.2) or the SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema file (Clause 25.3). The concept ‘rule set’ and its two supporting concepts needs to be added to SBVR to close this internal gap in SBVR.
Add into Clause 19 the entries for:
• rule set (ruleset)
• body of shared guidance includes rule set
• rule set includes element of guidance
In the early days of team discussions about alethic vs. deontic modalities for rules and advices, the signifiers "structural" and "operative" were introduced to make this important distinction between modalities (respectively). Later, the signifiers "definitional" and "behavioral" were introduced as synonyms.
Over time the synonyms have proven more accurate, intuitive, and popular, both within SBVR team discussions and externally. For example:
The signifier "operative" has not been used in the Business Rules Journal on www.BRCommunity.com as a primary signifier since at least 2009.
Both of my books (Business Rule Concepts and Business Analysis with Business Rules) use the synonyms.
In my judgment, an internet search on "behavioral (business) rules" produces more relevant results than one on "operative (business) rules".
The time has come to designate the newer pair as the preferred signifiers and to switch usage throughout the SBVR standard itself. There are at least two reasons this change over should be made immediately:
1) The re-sequenced /reorganized version of SBVR currently underway should not be appear in a revised form until the preferred terminology is corrected.
2) Version 3.0 of IIBA's BABOK, widely influential within the business analysis community and beyond, is now in its final public renew stage. (The deadline is July 11.) Several RTF team members would like to be in a position to inform them of the revised preferred terminology, and to be able to say it's mandated this is the standard terminology by according to SBVR. This window of opportunity will close for at least 3 years or so unless we do it now.
Change the entry for 'structural rule' (in 17.1.2) to use 'definitional rule' as the entry term and to use 'structural rule' as a Synonym. Make the corresponding changes to swap terms in the synonym ("See:") entry that follows. Also change the entry for 'structural business rule' (in 17.1.2) to use 'definitional business rule' as the entry term and to use 'structural business rule' as a Synonym. Make the corresponding changes to swap terms in the synonym ("See:") entry that follows.
Ignoring these four entries in 17.1.2 AND the cases listed below, change (everywhere) the term 'structural' to 'definitional'. The cases where "structural" does NOT change are:
• in Clause 14: the 14.1 title & the 14.2 title.
• in the uses of "structurally" — all such cases are valid as is and should not be changed.
Change the entry for 'operative business rule' (in 18.1.2) to use 'behavioral business rule' as the entry term and to use 'operative business rule' as a Synonym. Make the corresponding changes to swap terms in the synonym ("See:") entry that follows.
Ignoring these two entries in 18.1.2, change (everywhere) the term 'operative' to 'behavioral' and correct the article 'an' to use 'a', where needed.
Change the diagrams where 'structural' and 'operative' appear to reflect the new primary terms.
A very fundamental idea about business rules is that they are practicable. The current SBVR entry for “business rule” (p.98), however, makes no mention of it:
rule that is under business jurisdiction
Yet, the counterpart of “business rule”, the entry for “advice” (p.99), does:
element of guidance that is practicable and that is a claim of permission or of possibility
If one is extremely observant and patient, one can work out that a business rule does have to be practicable. Here’s how:
The entry for “business policy” (p.100) has a Necessity that says “No business policy is a business rule”. (*Typo: Needs a period.*)
The definition of “business policy” (p.100) states that a business policy is an “element of governance that is not directly enforceable”.
--> Putting the meaning of those two expressions together means that business rules have to be directly enforceable ... because they're not business policies.
The previous entry (p. 100) has a Necessity that says “Each element of governance that is directly enforceable is practicable.”.
--> Since business rules are directly enforceable they therefore have to be practicable.
Who would get that though?!
Resolution:
1. Change the current definition of “business rule” in SBVR from:
rule that is under business jurisdiction
to:
rule that is practicable and that is under business jurisdiction
1. Change the current definition of “business rule” in SBVR from:
rule that is under business jurisdiction
to:
rule that is practicable and that is under business jurisdiction
The current definition of “rule” in SBVR, while very precise, is opaque for practitioners. (The definition for “business rule” offers no help.) SBVR should be more definitive about the real-life sense/role/purpose of rules. It should also emphasize early-on the crucial distinction between necessities and obligations.
The SBVR v1.3 definition of “rule” in SBVR is:
proposition that is a claim of obligation or of necessity
SBVR Issue 19840 proposes a change to the definition. Regardless of the specifics of the changes made under that Issue, a precisely-crafted (fully formal) definition of 'rule' can be opaque for practitioners. To communicate, in real-world terms, the sense/role/purpose of rules the following Note is added to the entry for 'rule':
Note: Rules fall into two fundamental categories, as follows:
• A behavioral business rule indicates something people or organizations are either obliged to do (an obligation), or prohibited from doing (a prohibition). A behavioral business rule serves to shape conduct or action and to provide a basis for judging the propriety of behavior.
• A definitional rule indicates either what is always the case (a necessity) or is never the case (an impossibility). A definitional rule serves to specify a condition, in addition to those specified in the definition of the concept, that is true for every instance of the concept(s) to which the rule applies.
As such it can be used as the basis for inference.
In SBVR clause 8.3, the definition of ?rule? uses the term ?necessity? and ?obligation? with markup that indicates that these terms are defined in one of the SBVR vocabularies. These terms are used again several times in Clause 17, also with markup. But I can not find a glossary entry for either term anywhere in the specification, and they do not appear in the Index of business designations.
The terms ‘necessity and ‘obligation’ have always been defined in the vocabulary in Clause 24.2 which defines the terms in Clause 24.1 “SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation”. These terms have never been part of the SBVR Vocabulary. For this reason they should never have been fundamental to the definitions of ‘rule’, ‘advice’, and other rule-related concepts central to the standard. The vocabulary entries and definitions in Clause 8.6 “Connections between Kinds of Meaning and States of Affairs in the Business” should have been used in the rule-related concepts from the beginning.
Appropriate definitions for the rule-related concepts should be as business-friendly as possible. The guiding SBVR principle in this regard is: “This specification is conceptualized optimally for business people rather than automated processing.” (SBVR Clause 1.2). The current dictionary basis for ‘rule’ clearly indicates the original intent for ‘rule’ in the standard:
Dictionary Basis: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity ... a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing, or prescribing what is possible or allowable. [ODE]
The rule-related concepts in SBVR fundamentally address states of affairs and actualities. Their definitions should be framed on that basis. Central to the set of rule-related concepts are “definitional rule” and “behavioral business rule”, which should therefore be defined as follows.
definitional rule
Definition: rule that necessitates a given state of affairs
behavioral business rule
Definition: business rule that obligates a given state of affairs
The verb concept element of guidance obligates state of affairs already exists in SBVR (see Clause 8.6.3) and is defined as “the element of guidance entails that the state of affairs must be an actuality”. This definition, with the addition of “in all acceptable worlds” at the end, is exactly suited for the definition of “behavioral business rule” above.
An appropriate definition of ‘rule’ therefore becomes:
rule
Definition: proposition that obligates a given state of affairs or that necessitates a given state of affairs
For the definition of ‘advice of permission’, SBVR already includes the appropriate verb concept in Clause 8.6.3, as follows:
element of guidance gives permission for state of affairs
The word ‘permission’ should be replaced in this verb concept since it is a modal operator like 'necessity' and 'obligation'. The revised verb concept becomes:
element of guidance permits state of affairs
Based on that verb concept, the appropriate definition of ‘advice of permission’ is:
advice of permission
Definition: advice that permits a given state of affairs
Currently in SBVR the verb concept element of guidance permits state of affairs is given as a synonymous form of element of guidance authorizes state of affairs. However, only in a ‘dark world’ do permissions become authorizations (SBVR Clause 16.4.1). Therefore, the main entry for this business concept should be element of guidance permits state of affairs rather than element of guidance authorizes state of affairs.
It is explicitly noted that the following Notes and Examples are correct (and remain unchanged by this issue):
1. The Note and three Examples for 'definitional rule statement' (p. 111).
2. The Note and three Examples for 'behavioral business rule statement' (p. 120).
As part of the work on 19840 it was discovered that ’can’ (a word paralleling ’may' but missing from the Annex A key word list) and ’need not’ (also missing) were being used in several places throughout the SBVR document to specify an intended modality. In some cases the key word was used to express the wrong modality. To make the usage clear (and formally styled) they need to be added to the lists in Annex A (A.2.1.3).
These are the charts from the July discussion. They illustrate the missing coverage of the two alternative keywords: can (for alethic possibility) & need not (for deontic non-obligation).
The key words 'can' and 'need not' should be added to the 2nd key word list in Annex A.2.1.3.
Title: SBVR needs a consistently applied policy for styling or not styling signifiers
Source:
John Hall, RuleML Initiative
john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk
Summary:
There is some inconsistency in the SBVR specification regarding which signifiers are styled and which are not.
A policy needs to be agreed and applied consistently through the SBVR specification.
Resolution:
1. Style each use of the signifier of a concept (e.g. ‘thing’, ‘meaning’) where that use has the specific meaning defined in its SBVR entry;
2. If the signifier of a defined concept has an everyday English meaning that is different from its SBVR definition, don’t style uses of it where the everyday meaning is intended;
3. Add a paragraph to the introduction explaining the basis for styling/not styling.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In clause 8.3.4, the term 'verb concept wording' is defined as:
"representation of a verb concept by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept and signifiers for its verb concept roles"
In the same clause, the term 'noun form' is defined as:
"verb concept wording that acts as a noun rather than forming a proposition"
One would expect therefore, that a noun form of a verb concept would be a gerund, such as 'car transfer' for 'branch1 transfers car to branch2', where the 'noun form' denotes the same actualities as the verb concept.
But only the last Example (which is hard to understand because of a particularly bad choice of verb) is said to be about gerunds. The other examples clearly are not. The first Example is: "'transferred car of car transfer' for the verb concept 'car transfer has transferred car'. This form yields a transferred car."
The instances of 'car transfer has transferred car' are actualities of a car being involved in a car transfer. But the cited text says the instances of the 'noun form' 'transferred car of car transfer' are cars, not actualities. Similarly, the interpretation of the other two examples of 'noun forms' correspond to numbers, not actualities.
So the instances of a noun form of a verb concept need not be instances of the verb concept! The noun form therefore cannot be a 'verb concept wording'. The noun form does not represent the verb concept!
It appears that there are two different concepts here. Noun form 1 is "verb concept wording that acts as a noun." That is the gerund in the last Example. In the other examples, the noun form represents a derived concept that is what SBVR calls a 'situational role'. The intent of 'noun form 2' is "representation of a situational role by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept that the role is derived from and signifiers for some of its verb concept roles".
Finally, use of noun form 2 in declaring a glossary item for a situational role would be preferable to using only the role designation. In particular, the explicit appearance of other role placeholders in the noun form would permit them to be used directly in defining the situational role.
For example:
cardinality
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in a given set or collection
could be declared with the noun form:
cardinality of set
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in the set
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The
definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only
singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in
some way.
Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains
whether individual things can recur. Add examples.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In clause A.2.2, the keyword 'another' is introduced, with the interpretation:
(used with a term that has been previously used in the same statement) existential quantification plus a condition that the referent thing is not the same thing as the referent of the previous use of the term
The idea "existential quantification plus" is an unnecessary and undesirable addition. The useful keyword is 'other'. As described, "other X" means "instance of the general concept X that is not the same thing as the referent of the previous occurrence of the term X". But "another" is just a conventional spelling of "an other", and might equally have been spelled "some other". The term 'other' can be usefully quantified by quantifiers other than "an". Each other, at least n other, at most n other, exactly n other, and no other are all valid uses of 'other' with the given interpretation, less the "existential quantification plus".
Defining only the portmanteau keyword 'another' greatly and unnecessarily limits the expressiveness of SBVR Structured English in this area.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR 1.2, 'role': 'ranges over' vs. 'specializes'.
Clause 8, entry for ‘role’. Should the addition at the end of the second Example text: "(which generalizes the role)" read: "(which the role ranges over)"? As I understand it, you mean to say that the role shipment ranges over the general concept shipment. The reverse reading of "ranges over" is not "generalizes" (there is a specific Note at the lemma "role ranges over general concept" that warns against this confusion).
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The first statement in Annex A.4.2.3 is misleading:
A definition given for a verb concept is an expression that can be substituted for a simple statement expressed using a verb
concept wording of the verb concept.
Unlike a noun concept definition, the definition of a verb concept cannot simply be substituted for an occurrence of the verb concept wording. Like the verb concept wording itself, it is a structured pattern with placeholder parameters, and the substitution process is complex. In “substituting the definition expression for a simple statement expressed using the verb concept wording”, it is also necessary to substitute the role phrases that are used in the verb concept wording in that simple statement for the corresponding placeholders in the definition. That is significantly different from what happens in the noun concept case.
In the same subclause, the sentence:
“A definition of a verb concept can generally be read using the pattern below ...
A fact that ... is a fact that ...”
is not quite general enough. The definition characterizes the same state of affairs, even when it is not a fact. It could be written:
A state of affairs in which ... is a state of affairs in which ...
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Note nr. 1 of 'proposition is true' reads:
"A proposition is true if and only the state of affairs..."
And should read:
"A proposition is true if and only if the state of affairs..."
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Figure C.11 the right-hand diagram is not clear since both renter and driver seem to be independent roles (a renter, even of a car, may or may not drive it)
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The notion of “well-formedness” in compliance point 1 should be defined
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR v1.1 Clause 8 says:
Note: in the glossary entries below, the words “Concept Type: role” indicate that a general concept being defined is a role.
Because it is a general concept, it is necessarily a situational role and is not a verb concept role.
How does one declare an attributive role that is not a general concept?
SBVR v1.1 appears to use such declarations to also declare roles that are attributive roles of a given noun concept and thus also in the attributive namespace of the noun concept. For example, clause 8.6 declares 'cardinality', which is an attributive role of integers with respect to 'sets', in a glossary entry with Concept type: role. But 'cardinality' is not a general concept; nothing is a 'cardinality', full stop. An integer can only be a 'cardinality' OF something. it is a purely attributive term. As a term for a general concept, 'cardinality' is thus a term in the Meaning and Representation namespace; it has no 'context'.
The problem arises in defining attributive roles of general noun concepts, such as 'occurrence has time span' and 'schedule has time span', where the definitions of the two roles are importantly different because they are attributes of different general concepts that are only similar in nature. Neither is a situational role. That is, neither is a general concept. No time interval is a 'time span', full stop. A time interval must be a time span OF something. One 'time span' is in the attributive namespace of 'schedule', and a different 'time span' designation is in the attributive namespace of 'occurrence'. Neither is in the DTV.Situations vocabulary namespace per se. How can this be declared using SBVR conventions? Declaring them both in glossary entries with Concept Type: role apparently makes them conflicting designations for 'situational roles' in the DTV.Situations vocabulary.
Does simply declaring the verb concept 'occurrence has time span' declare the attributive role? If so, how is the range of the role declared? And where does the definition of the attributive role go?
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
understand you will be discussing the topic of packaging SBVR tomorrow, and I want to provide a perspective on this topic and make a request.
In my view, the key packaging concepts “fact model” and “conceptual schema” need to be in the normative SBVR metamodel to support widespread sharing and reuse of SBVR models. We want to promote the development of libraries of SBVR fact models and conceptual schemas and to compose fact models and conceptual schemas from other fact models and conceptual schemas. The ability to package these in a standard way is crucial to this end. A normative approach to globally identifying these models is needed to support their sharing and reuse. Concepts of packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas are preferably included in Clause 8. As the most basic compliance point, Clause 8 needs to be expressible in terms of itself, and to include concepts for packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas. I understand a proposal is under consideration to move “fact model” and “conceptual schema” entries to Clause 10. This would be a mistake, as we would then have no normative way of specifying the packaging.
The definition of “conceptual schema” should be refined to reflect the fact that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. The distinction between a conceptual schema and other fact models is that a conceptual schema includes at least one fact that asserts the existence of a concept. Other fact models that are not conceptual schemas contain only ground facts. The text of SBVR makes it clear that a conceptual schema is a fact model, that every SBVR interchange document is a fact model. That “conceptual schema” specializes “fact model” should be reflected in the definition of “conceptual schema.”
The term “vocabulary” is not used in the SBVR specification consistently with its definition as a “set of designations and fact type forms ” Each of the normative clauses of SBVR, called a “Vocabulary,” is actually an annotated conceptual schema. A conceptual schema comprises a “combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them) ” The designations and fact type forms in each SBVR normative “Vocabulary” constitute the vocabulary of that “Vocabulary”. The definitions and necessities in the SBVR entries are statements of schema facts. The notes and examples are annotations of the conceptual schema. Ability to include annotations is crucial to practical development and use of any model, and is universally provided for in other and modeling and programming languages. It should be possible to normatively include annotations in a SBVR conceptual schema or fact model. Accordingly, it is recommended that “description” and related concepts of notes and examples in Clause 11.2.2 be moved to Clause 8 to support annotation of fact models. With respect to the semantic formulations of a conceptual schema, it is preferred that Clause 8 only include statements of the definitions and schema facts, and leave it to Clause 9 to include the semantic formulations of these. Either “vocabulary namespace” and fact types that use the term should be moved to Clause 11, or “vocabulary” should be moved to Clause 8. The concept “vocabulary” is not necessary in Clause 8 but might be conveniently located there. Namespaces adequately serve the purpose of organizing designations and fact type forms. It is suggested the RTF consider providing recommendations for naming conventions for URIs of namespaces and related conceptual schemas that define and constrain the concepts represented by the designations and fact type forms in the namespaces.
Here are some suggested entries for Clause 8 that show how the concepts described above might be modeled:
conceptual schema
Definition: fact model that includes at least one existential fact asserting a concept
Note: This definition extends the definition of ‘conceptual schema’ in SBVR to formalize that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. This is evident in the specification text, but is not included in the current definition.
Note: The facts of a conceptual schema in addition to the concept existential facts describe what is possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world of the domain being modeled.
Note: Two levels of formalization of fact models (including conceptual schemas) are possible. 1) A fact model may contain only statements of definitions and other facts and not their semantic formulations. In this case, the fact model can meet the Meaning and Representation compliance point, 2.2.1. 2) A fact model may contain semantic formulations of its definitions and facts, in which case the fact model can meet the Logical Formulation of Semantics compliance point, 2.2.2.
fact model1 includes fact model2
Note: This fact type enables recursive composition of fact models and conceptual schemas.
Necessity: This fact type is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive, i.e. related fact models are at least partially ordered.
fact model includes description
Note: This fact type enables the annotation of fact models and conceptual schemas.
thing has URI
Note: This fact type enables modeled things to be identified globally for future reference.
I am requesting that these concepts, or some refinement of them, be included in the next release of SBVR.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In recognizing that an organization is not necessarily interested in recording all information about the real world, the SBVR proposes that there be two models of the world: a ‘reality model’ (of the real world) and an ‘in-practice model’ (of the organization’s view of the real world), which leads to some bizarre rule statements, listed below. Surely there is only 1 model in which both real-world objects and representations of them exist. The relevant quote from the SBVR is “Suppose the following two fact types are of interest: Employee was born on Date; Employee has Phone Number. In the real world, each employee is born, and may have more than one phone number. Hence the reality model includes the constraint ‘Each Employee was born on at least one Date’ (sic) and allows that ‘It is possible that the same Employee has more than one Phone Number.’ [If] the business decides to make it optional whether it knows an employee’s date of birth, [and] is interested in knowing at most one phone number for any given employee,
the in-practice model excludes the reality constraint ‘Each Employee was born on at least one Date’, but it includes the following constraint that does not apply in the reality model: ‘Each Employee has at most one Phone Number’. ”
I believe there should be one model (not two), in which for each fact type there may be multiple rules reflecting specific requirements. Considering just dates of birth, the assertion “Each Employee was born on at least one Date” (which might be better worded as “Each Employee was born on exactly one Date”, “Each person has exactly one date of birth” or perhaps “Each person has a date of birth”) is a statement about the real world.
Consider an insurance business that decides that it must collect the date of birth of each customer purchasing personal life insurance but does not need it for those purchasing only home insurance. Following the logic expressed in the SBVR (as quoted above) the ‘in-practice model(s)’ contain a new constraint: “Each person purchasing personal life insurance has a date of birth” (or “Each person purchasing personal life insurance must have a date of birth”) and an advice: “Each person purchasing only home insurance may not have a date of birth”.
In fact the original assertion (“Each person has a date of birth”) still applies in the world view of the business, even to persons purchasing only home insurance. What is required is an additional constraint, which may be worded in one of the following forms “Each person who purchases personal life insurance must supply the date of birth of that person.” or “Each application for personal life insurance must specify the date of birth of the applicant.” and an advice “A person who purchases home insurance need not supply the date of birth of that person.”
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In SBVR clause 8.5.2, the following Necessity appears:
Necessity: If a concept[sub]1 is coextensive with a concept[sub]2 then the extension of the concept[sub]1 is the extension of the concept[sub]2.
(where [sub] is used to show subscripts).
There are three problems with this Necessity:
1. This Necessity just restates the definition of ‘concept is coextensive with concept’ in 8.1.1.1. It adds nothing.
2. It is the only occurrence in SBVR v1.1 of the use of a subscript outside of a placeholder term, and that use is not defined in Annex C.
3. The meaning of the article ‘a’ before concept (1) and concept (2) is universal in this case, not existential, which contradicts Annex C.
Delete it!
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
(a) Clause 11 should include the verb concept "thing has property". This verb concept should appear in figure 11.5.
(b) Property needs to be indicated as an abstract concept in Clause 13 (since it is in the universe of discourse, not the model).
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR Clause 9.2 defines: ‘semantic formulation’ as ‘a conceptual structure of meaning’.
And then closed semantic formulation is defined as 'semantic formulation that includes no variable without binding'
But no SBVR concept associates semantic formulation (in general) with variables. And some other conceptual structure of meaning, e.g., phrased in SBVR structured English or OWL, might not have any notion of ‘variable’ or ‘binding’ at all. So the definition appeals to a delimiting characteristic that may be meaningless for the general concept, and thereby admit semantic formulations that were not intended.
Every structure of meaning presumably formulates a meaning; otherwise it formulates nonsense. But clause 9.2 has only ‘closed semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which suggests that open semantic formulations (involving free variables) formulate nonsense. That is simply not true of a ‘structure of meaning’ formulated in CLIF. What is really meant is that LRMV ‘closed logical formulations’ formulate propositions, and LRMV ‘closed projections’ formulate concepts. But those are special cases.
The definition of ‘closed semantic formulation’ should be ‘closed logical formulation or closed projection’, which makes it clearly an LRMV concept, and then those concepts must state their relationship to free variables.
The general idea for all conceptual structures of meaning is ‘semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which would allow other semantic formulations, e.g., in SBVR SE, OWL, etc., to be related to the meanings they formulate. If an LRMV projection or logical formulation that is not closed does not formulate a meaning, that is a LRMV Necessity for those specific concepts.
Finally, note that a (clause 8) Definition is always a representation of a conceptual structure of meaning that formulates a concept. The important idea in ‘definition serves as designation’ in clause 11.2.3 is that the representation of a semantic formulation (a conceptual structure of meaning) is used to refer to the concept itself, rather than just the properties contained in the formulation. This idea of semantic formulation as conceptual structure of meaning is fundamental to the notion ‘definition’, and should not be buried in the LRMV.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The title of this issue is an example of common problem in SBVR Structured English.
Impossibility: An SBVR SE statement contains a qualifier whose subject is a property of the referent.
Given the verb concept 'sequence has member' aka 'thing is member of sequence', how is the following definition to be written in SBVR SE: "sequence each member of which is a time point"?
The referent of the pronoun 'which' is the sequence, but the subject of the qualifier clause is a quantified property of the referent. But SBVR SE only permits the (anaphor) pronoun to be 'that' or 'who' and apparently requires it to follow the referent noun immediately.
SBVR SE does not permit: "sequence of which each member is a time point".
And it does not provide a 'where' or 'such that' construct that would allow the back reference to be represented by 'the sequence', as in: "sequence where each member of the sequence is a time point".
Even the simpler case of a reference to a unique property of the referent in the qualifier clause --"shipment whose delivery date has passed" – requires a circumlocution ("shipment that has a delivery date that has passed"), because 'whose' is not an SBVR SE keyword. And the cascading 'that's interfere with the expression of compound qualifiers (using 'and that ').
In our experience, this shortcoming significantly limits the clear expression of definitions and rules in SBVR SE.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The Date Time Vocabulary specification contains several Definitions and Necessities that use subscripted terms, e.g.,
Necessity: For each time interval(2) and each time interval(3) that finishes time interval(2), the duration of the time interval(1) that starts time interval(2) complementing time interval(3) is equal to the duration of time interval(2) minus the duration of time interval(3).
time point1 to time point2 specifies time period
Definition: time point(1) is the first time point of a time point sequence and time point(2) is the
last time point of the time point sequence and there is a time point(3) that is just before time point(2) in
the time point sequence and time point(1) through time point(3) specifies the time period
Each case introduces a subscripted term that is used to denote the same ‘referent’ ‘thing’ elsewhere in the definition/necessity. In the Necessity, all the subscripts are introduced terms. In the Definition, time point(1) and time point(2) refer to placeholders in the verb concept wording being defined, but time point(3) is an introduced term. These introduced terms were patterned on a usage of subscripts in SBVR clause 8.5.2 that introduces similar “local names”. SBVR Annex C does not describe such usages. Without them, it is not possible to formulate these definitions and necessities in SBVR Structured English.
Is it the intent of SBVR SE to support such usages? If yes, then SBVR Annex C needs wording to support them. If no, then DTV needs to convert these formulations to plain text.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR 1.2, Annex B, references to diagramming conventions
Annex B has a number of references to diagramming conventions that are too colloquial. The implication is that the reader is already familiar with the UML or CDG diagramming conventions, but this is not appropriate, since the whole point of the Annex is to be explanatory at this level. For example:
B.3.5. “UML’s arrow style for ‘instantiation’” What is this arrow style? Where is it explained?
B.3.5. The notation has been adapted from standard UML notation to make it more ‘business friendly’. For example, in UML, in instance (‘object’) would be labeled as, Canada: country.
This information does not belong here, but in Annex C.
B.3.5. “the box in box style”. Where is this explained? Is it UML or CDG?
Suggested solution: when referencing UML or CDG diagramming conventions, do not attempt to be descriptive of symbols or drawing conventions, but use ‘base’ references instead: all the diagramming information should be in one place, ie., in Annex C or I respectively, but not in Annex B. Make sure the same format is used for all references to Annexes C and I, and that the difference between the two diagramming techniques is signposted adequately. An even better, more practical solution would be in each case to depict the symbol(s) involved and to refer to the appropriate paragraph in Annex C or I for any textual explanation. This would cause duplication of symbols between the Annexes but it would make Annex B much more helpful.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In SBVR clause 8.4.4, there is a necessity in the entry for ‘placeholder’: “Each placeholder is in exactly one verb concept wording”. Now, immediately before section 8.4.4, in the entry for ‘statement expresses proposition’, there is a synonymous form: ‘proposition has statement’. So, ‘statement’ is the text of two placeholders. A.4.12 (Synonymous forms) tries to say that these two different placeholders refer to the same verb concept role, but the statement is garbled: “The ones using the same designation as placeholders of the primary form represent the corresponding verb concept roles ” The ‘designation used by a placeholder’ is the representation of the range concept by a signifier for that concept, per 8.4.4 ‘placeholder uses designation’. What is intended here is: “A placeholder that has the same expression as a placeholder of the primary verb concept wording represents the same verb concept role.”
Further, in that same example entry, there is a Definition: “the statement represents the proposition”. According to A.4.2.3, the expression ‘statement’ refers to a placeholder in the verb concept wording, but that is ambiguous, since there are two verb concept wordings. That text should say the primary verb concept wording, so as to disambiguate the reference.
Again, in A.4.12, the following sentence appears: “The order of placeholders for verb concept roles can be different.” What does that mean? By the necessity above, the placeholders are different, so they cannot be reordered. The intent is that the relative positions of the placeholders for the same verb concept role may be different.
Finally, all of this is an elaborate convention to maintain the given Necessity. It seems that it would be much easier to make the placeholder a representation of the verb concept role throughout the terminological entry, as distinct from having it denote the verb concept role in the primary entry and in the Definition(s), but not in Synonymous forms, Descriptions, Notes, etc. The only function of that Necessity is to make a single ternary fact type: “Verb concept wording has placeholder at starting character position” into two binary fact types that each convey half the concept. A great deal of effort is expended to explain use of a business-friendly syntax that violates the stated model of a purely syntactic concept the intent is that the placeholder expression represents the same verb concept role throughout the entry. And verb concept wordings are ONLY about expressions. The underlying problem is that the concept ‘terminological entry’ is not part of the clause 8 vocabulary, and is therefore not available to be the scope of a placeholder. But then, the concept ‘primary verb concept wording’ is not in the clause 8 vocabulary, either.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The use of UML described in the Annex does not represent any known UML tool nor the UML specification. The examples are UML-like diagrams presumably created with a drawing tool.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
New SBV issue: Distinguishing the senses of infinitive and present tense
From Don Baisley
There are many verbs for which the present tense of a verb conveys a particularly different sense than the infinitive. The difference I refer to is not about "the present time", but about "occurring at least occasionally". For example, the statement that "Pam surfs" (present tense) combines the meaning of "to surf" (the infinitive) and the meaning that “it happens at least occasionally”.
For such verbs, there is a challenge when using SBVR's typical pattern of defining verb concepts in the present tense. It tends to conflate the infinitive sense of a verb with the different sense meant by the present tense. That conflation causes problems. This is not an issue for ORM or other approaches that do not try to support natural language tense in a generic way. The problem has no apparent impact for many verbs where the present tense sense of "occurring at least occasionally" is inconsequential or inapplicable. The problem is especially troublesome for eventive verbs. Most SBVR verbs are stative, so the problem has tended to go unnoticed in the SBVR vocabulary itself.
If supporting tense in a generic way, in logical formulations, the other tenses should be built on objectifications that start with the infinitive sense of a verb, not with the present tense. Also, modal operations like obligation build on the infinitive sense.
For examples below, I define verb concept forms for generic "tense" concepts using the verb "occurs" (where the there is a role that ranges over the concept 'state of affairs'). The choices of signifier and form are arbitrary (not necessary), but seem to convey the sense of the tenses naturally.
Example:
'person surfs' (present tense)
'person surf' (the infinitive sense)
Where someone puts 'person surfs' in a business glossary, there is an underlying verb concept that has the sense of "to surf", the infinitive. I show it here in examples as 'person surf' (leaving out the infintizing "to"). This underlying verb concept is necessary to correctly formulate other tenses, and even necessary to formulate use of the present tense in some cases, which I will show later.
Here are several examples of statements and interpretations using generic tense concepts built on the verb "occur". To be terse, I show objectification using brackets.
Pam surfs.
[Pam surf] occurs
Pam is surfing.
[Pam surf] is occurring
Pam was surfing.
[Pam surf] was occurring
Pam has been surfing.
[Pam surf] has been occurring
Pam surfed.
[Pam surf] occurred
Pam will be surfing.
[Pam surf] will be occurring
Pam will surf.
[Pam surf] will occur
Pam will have been surfing.
[Pam surf] will have been occurring
The second example above, "Pam is surfing", can serve to illustrate the need to build on the infinitive rather than the present tense sense. To build on the present tense would be to say the thing that “is occurring” is Pam surfing at least occasionally, which is incorrect. The present continuous and other tenses do not include the present tense sense of occurring at least occasionally, so they cannot rightly be built upon a concept that conveys that sense.
I said above I would show where the infinitive sense is sometimes needed even for the present tense. Here is a case where the infinitive 'person surf' concept is needed to formulate a statement that uses "surf" only in the present tense:
Pam talks while she surfs.
Wrong Interpretation I1: [Pam surfs] occurs while [Pam talks] occurs
I1 misses the key sense of the statement, because [Pam surfs] (present tense) means that surfing is something Pam does at least occasionally and [Pam talks] means that talking is something that Pam does at least occasionally. I1 applies 'state of affairs1 occurs while state of affairs2 occurs' to the wrong states of affairs (the states in which Pam occasionally surfs and Pam occasionally talks).
Right Interpretation I2: [[Pam surf] occur while [Pam talk] occur] occurs
I2 correctly factors out the tense and applies it at an outer level (as we often do with modal operations). The conjunction joins objectifications of the underlying sense of "to surf" and "to talk" without the added meaning of the present tense (that the surfing or talking is at least occasional). The sense of present tense (happening at least occasionally) is then added at the outside where it applies to the simultaneous actions.
SBVR does not prevent verbs concepts from being defined in glossaries in the infinitive , as is typical of dictionary definitions of verbs. That approach has always been available. But that approach is not used in SBVR’s own glossary and examples. In general, the sense of “occurs at least occasionally” is absent from SBVR’s own verb concepts, so the distinction is unimportant. But business rules and facts run into the problem. E.g., a EU-Rent rule about whether a renter smokes vs. a rule about whether he is smoking when in a rental car.
Recommendation:
It will be best to resolve this in a way that does not disturb the business-friendly approach of showing verb concept readings in the present tense. It might be possible to define a pattern in SBVR Structured English by which verb concepts with an infinitive sense are implied where present tense versions are explicitly presented in a glossary.
Examples of formulations need to show the distinction. Existing examples should be examined and fixed as needed. New formulation examples might be helpful to demonstrate using generic tense concepts to build on a root verb concept.
None of this changes the meaning of 'state of affairs' or 'objectification', but understanding this issue and its solution might help bring clarity to some of the examples that have been discussed.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined. This would address two concerns:
1. Allow the definition-based model to have an open-world assumption and the fact model to have a closed-world assumption.
The proposed resolution is:
1. Define that Clause 10 ‘fact models’ are by default closed world models
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The problem statement: The Annex is out of date with respect to RuleSpeak notation, probably the newly released version of EU-Rent, and perhaps newer aspects of SBVR itself.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Section C.10 states that the default assumed multiplicity for an unannotated association end is *. That’s a terrible idea since the UML default is 1 (i.e. 1..1).
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, the entries for ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ contain reference schemes that refer to the concept ‘closed projection’ and related fact types that do not appear in the MRV itself. In the MRV per se, these are undefined terms. I am told, but do not find in SBVR v1.2, that if only the MRV is implemented, such Reference Schemes are ignored, while clause 13.4.2 explicitly says that the UML/MOF classes must have the corresponding properties. If properly documented, this approach may be fine for the specification of SBVR itself. In general, however, this approach assumes that the speech community that develops a formal vocabulary is omniscient about reference schemes used by speech communities who ADOPT the original vocabulary. In general, an adopting community might add new fact types about an adopted concept that result in new reference schemes for the concept. Also, the adopting community might add new synonyms or synonymous forms for an adopted concept. There is no reason to suppose that the original speech community is even aware of the adoption, and there is no way these additional elements can have been present in the original terminological entry. So, the approach used in SBVR itself is unworkable for general use.
When a concept is adopted by another vocabulary, it should be expressly possible for the “adopting entry” to include new reference schemes and synonymous forms, and possibly other elements of a terminological entry.
Further, if such a mechanism is introduced, the SBVR vocabularies themselves should use it, rather than incorporating reference schemes in the base terminology entry that refer to fact types that don’t exist in that vocabulary per se. For example, the LRMV should formally adopt the MRV concepts and add the reference schemes involving closed projections in the ADOPTING ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ entries.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In SBVR clause 8.3.4, in the entry for ‘placeholder’, it is stated that a placeholder exists in only one verb concept wording, and it refers to some role of the verb concept in that wording. It follows that the two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ in ‘concept1 specializes concept2’ and in the Synonymous form: ‘concept2 generalizes concept1’ (in 8.1.1.1) refer to two roles of the verb concept being defined. Since these two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ are different designations, how are they related?
Annex C.3.1 does not say anything about the relationship between placeholders in the primary verb concept wording and placeholders in synonymous forms. (It just says something about subscripts being used to differentiate placeholders.) The intent is that the placeholder expression represents the SAME verb concept role in ALL primary and synonymous forms. That is, the placeholder is the SAME DESIGNATION in all verb concept wordings for the same verb concept. The text of 8.3.4 contradicts this intent, saying that the placeholder only has meaning within a given verb concept wording. If the text is correct, it is necessary to state some rule about the meaning of the same placeholder expression (the distinct designation) in the different synonymous forms.
Further, in the Definition of ‘concept1 specifies concept2’, the expression ‘concept1’ appears. Since that expression only refers to a verb concept role within a verb concept wording, it is utterly meaningless in the Definition! There are no placeholders in a Definition, and ‘concept1’ is not a signifier for any concept. And yet, the intent is that ‘concept1’ in the Definition is the placeholder expression and is intended to be interpreted as a reference to the thing that plays that verb concept role in an actuality of ‘concept1 specializes concept2’. Annex C says nothing about the use of placeholder expressions in Definitions, and 8.3.4 makes these usages meaningless, but they appear in every verb concept definition in SBVR.
It appears that the real intent is that a placeholder expression refers to one and the same verb concept role throughout the terminological entry for the verb concept, including at least all synonymous forms and definitions. Whether it also refers to the verb concept role in embedded Necessities needs to be clarified (it is not clear that SBVR ever assumes that, but DTV apparently does). The only aspect of a placeholder that is specific to a given verb concept wording is the ‘starting character position’, which suggests only that that relationship should be ternary, i.e., placeholder has starting character position in verb concept wording.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
'categorization scheme' and 'categorization type' are related, yet SBVR says nothing about this relationship.
Upon comparing the entries for these terms in 11.2.2.3, it is seen they are coextensive; the extension of each is a set of concepts; they could be defined having the same extensions. Compare the examples in each entry.
A difference is that categorization schemes are restricted to categorizing general concepts, whereas categorizations types are not so restricted.
Another difference is that categorization schemes define partitionings, whereas categorization type are not so restricted.
Accordingly, it seems like the definition should be:
categorization scheme: categorization type that defines a partitioning of one or more general concepts.
'categorization type' is defined in such a way that it is not meaningfully different from 'concept type' (p.22); compare the definitions on p.22 with that on p.149. A concept, by its very nature and definition, defines a category of things. See 'concept', p.21. 'categorization type' should be made a synonym of 'concept type'.
'Categorization scheme' is involved in the verb concept 'categorization scheme is for general concept'. The general concept(s) are inferred by the general concepts of the concepts in a categorization scheme or a categorization type coextensive with the it. This verb concept is not necessary.
'Categorization scheme' is involved in verb concept 'categorization scheme contains category'. Either can be defined to have the same extension, by an extensive definition. This verb concept is not necessary.
The two verb concepts mentioned above are redundant; their purpose is more simply served by providing extensional definitions of categorization types and categorization schemes, as suggested by the examples. They could be deprecated or deleted, as they do not add any new information to a model. They increase the complexity and maintenance burden on the model.
The changes suggested here would affect Figure 11.2 on p.146.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR 1.2, Annex G, G 6.2.8, lemma ‘rental is open’
There is a color-coded occurrence of ‘end date/time is in the future’ but there is no such declared concept.
Discussion: The way this Annex has been set up suggests that each colour-coding is meant to imply that the colour-coded concept is either explicitly listed or specifically adopted from a different vocabulary.
The only like concept is in G.8.5, ‘period is future’. SBVR 1.1 Annex E used to have a concept ‘date/time is in the future’.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR should cover the concept of IRI as well as/instead of URI.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The current definition of "categorization scheme contains category" is poorly constructed and therefore hard to understand.
Current Definition: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories divided into by the scheme
Perhaps the definition means the following?
Possible Revision: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories into which the scheme divides things
I think a better definition would perhaps include the verb concept " ... classifies ... ".
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form
"fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role
is in fact type".
Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing
to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous
form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate
that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly
not in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has
role".
Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed
to "fact type has fact type role".
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Inadequate, Overlapping and Disorganized Specifications for Sets and Collections of Concepts, Meanings, and Representations
Problem:
Assumptions
Two assumptions are basic to the eight points of this problem statement:
SBVR must provide a business vocabulary for business people and business analysts to talk clearly and precisely about terminological dictionaries and rulebooks and what they represent.
The various aspects of this Issue must be addressed holistically. They can be resolved only by unifying, normalizing and completing all related specifications. (Thus, the need for a new unifying Issue.)
Problems
1. A known problem in SBVR is that the current version does not make clear what the fundamental unit of interoperability in SBVR is. No matter how that issue is resolved the unit should:
Be identifiable from a business point of view.
Not always have to be the full, non-redundant set of concepts, meanings, or representations.
The existing content of Clause 11 does not currently provide an adequate term for the second of these. This Issue proposes “collection” for that purpose.
Note: The term “collection” in the following discussion is never actually used on its own. Rather, it always appears with qualification e.g., ‘collection of representations’.
2. Another known problem in SBVR centers on the use of the word “container” in e-mails and discussion. (Use of the signifier “container” per se is not part of this Issue.) It is unclear (to some) whether “container” refers to the ‘thing that contains’, to ‘what is contained’, or to both. The term is easily misused and misinterpreted. Also there are many variations of what is (or could be) contained (e.g., sets, collections, etc.). SBVR needs a precise, non-overlapping vocabulary for these things from a business point of view.
3. Another known problem in SBVR is that the existing content of Clause 11.2.2.3 “communication content” (a.k.a. “document content”) is not adequate for all purposes to which it might be put. SBVR needs a richer (but still minimal) set of concepts to address this area.
4. Certain existing terms in the existing content of Clause 11 (e.g., ‘terminological dictionary’ and ‘rulebook’) conflate ‘completeness and non-redundancy’ (i.e., being a set) with ‘primary purpose’ or ‘essence’. This conflation needs to be eliminated. In the real world for example, a rulebook does not have to be complete (e.g., it may contain only what is appropriate for a given audience), and it does not have to be non-redundant. It can contain the same rule statements in different sections, the intent being to provide the greatest clarity when being used by members of some speech community.
5. SBVR currently provides no means to talk about a collection of representations that is complete with respect to one or more specific concepts, but not complete with respect to all concepts in the body of shared meanings. Example: A listing of all baseball rules that address the concepts “strike” and “ball” only.
6. With respect to interoperability there is a minimum set of pragmatic business specifications (such as completeness, effective date, shelf life, mutability, etc.) needed for things communicated. SBVR does not currently support such specifications.
Note: There is no intent or need to get into document management or rule management. The dividing line is this: SBVR does not get into organizational issues (e.g., author, sponsor, reviewer, etc.), workflow issues (e.g., status, pre-approval distribution, sign-off, impact assessment, etc.), motivation (rationale, goals, risks), etc. SBVR must, however, provide minimum viability criteria for any sets or collections communicated. Otherwise the communicated content is not really useful and trustworthy on the receiving end. Consequently the purpose of interoperability is defeated.
7. Certain kinds of collections relevant to inter-operability are missing from the current content of Clause 11 most notably ‘record’ (not IT ‘records’). Proper incorporation of this and other kinds of collections is needed.
8. Issue 16103, which addresses “speech community representation”, needs to be worked into a holistic solution.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1:
1. a conflation of 'proposition' with "'performative' + 'proposition'"
2. a disconnect between 'concept' and its subcategories and 'proposition' and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing.
Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
o proposition + "deontic" performative = behavioral guidance
o proposition + "alethic" performative = definitional rule
o proposition + "taken to be true" performative = fact
The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept 'fact' at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements – which are really out of scope for a standard for "concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries". Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative "taken to be true") so that fact statements can be used as examples.
Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
Clause 8.1 defines two concepts ('concept' and 'proposition') as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing:
· general noun concept = open (existential) proposition
· individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition
· general verb concept = open (relational) proposition
· individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition
(this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs)
Resolution:
Remove the Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
1. Add the concept (definition) for "performative" and term it "communicative function" [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 "Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts".
2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: "taken to be true", "true by definition", and behavioral guidance.
3. Add the concept (definition) for "performative' + proposition" and term it "dialogue act" [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2.
4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition.
5. Review all references to 'proposition' to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition).
Remove the Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories.
2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both 'concept' and 'proposition' as more general concepts for the subcategories.
3. Replace all current uses of 'individual concept' to 'individual noun concept'.
Revised Text:
to follow, including redrawn diagram(s)
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR apparently assume that business terms are composed of natural language words, and that those words may have multiple morphemes that are nonetheless the same word and the same term. That is, a vocabulary term like 'purchase contract' may also have the form 'purchase contracts', and a vocabulary term like 'is owned by' may be expressed as 'has been owned by'. But SBVR says nothing about any of this in defining 'designation' or 'signifier'.
When a signifier for the same concept is in a formal language like OWL or CLIF, this idea of multiple morphemes is not (usually) part of the language syntax. So this should be carefully addressed.
For the SBVR Structured English language, Annex C.1 explicitly says that these alternate morphemes are "implicitly available for use", which may mean they are treated as equivalent, or just that they are recognized as uses of the same designation.
In natural language, such morphemes carry additional meaning , e.g., plurality or tense or mood. And a morphological variant of the same designation may or may not carry additional meaning, This is important, because SBVR examples assume that plurals are conventional and irrelevant, but the Date Time Vocabulary says that the use of verb tenses in natural language conveys indexical time intent. That is:
'John is in London' and 'John was in London' have different meanings in English. Do they have different meanings in SBVR SE?
And if so, do they always have different meanings? Natural language convention requires that a statement that dates a past event uses the past tense, e.g., 'John was in London in 2008.' Is it meaningful in SBVR SE to say (in 2012) 'John is in London in 2008'? And does that mean a different proposition from 'John was in London in 2008'?
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The precedence of logical operators ("and", "or", etc.) in Structure English is unspecified which may make some rules ambiguous. Furthermore, they sould be called "operators" and not "operations".
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The objectification example “EU-Rent reviews each corporate account at EU-Rent Headquarters” in SBVR v1.1 clause 9.2.7 (as modified per the resolution to issue 16309), is expressed in the usual sequence of sentences. The formal logic interpretation of those sentences is:
For each corporate account A, there exists a state of affairs S such that
S objectifies “EU-Rent reviews A”,
and S occurs at EU Rent HQ.
Now, per Clause 8 there is only one such state of affairs; and its existence is a given, that is, for every proposition of the form ‘company reviews account’, the corresponding state of affairs necessarily exists. But nothing is said here about that state of affairs being actual. Moreover, since there is probably more than one “occurrence” of that state of affairs, the definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ would be less than obvious. Or is it the intent that there is only one review of each corporate account? Whatever it means for an abstract state of affairs (that might be a set, including the empty set) to ‘occur at a place’, it is not clear, and it is important to the example of objectification what is the state of affairs that it produces.
In SBVR v1.0, the variable S ranges over the verb concept ‘company reviews account’, because the instances of the verb concept were then said to be actualities. The resolution of Issue 14849 makes instances of a verb concept ‘states of affairs’ instead of actualities. But states of affairs need not be actual. It is obvious that some thought was given to this example, because v1.1 changed it. What is not clear is whether it is any closer to what was intended.
A definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ should probably follow the DTV pattern for ‘state of affairs occurs at time’. In DTV parlance, what was intended is: Each occurrence of the state of affairs “EU Rent reviews A” ‘occurs at’ EU Rent HQ. But SBVR lacks the vocabulary to express that.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Date/Time Annex F is titled: Annex F Simplified Syntax for Logical Formulations.
First, the title is wrong. The Date/Time standard contains logical formulations in OCL and CLIF. This Annex is a syntax for SBVR 'logical formulations', and this language, like SBVR Structured English, is somehow related to the vocabulary of SBVR clause 9. It should be titled: Simplified Syntax for SBVR Logical Formulations.
Secondly, as a consequence, this Annex is totally out of place in the Date/Time Vocabulary specification. If this is a useful notation for SBVR formulations, and is used in the SBVR community, then it should surely be an informative annex to the SBVR v1.1 specification, and simply be referenced in the Date/Time Annex (E) that uses it. If it is not used in the SBVR community, then it is certainly inappropriate for Date/Time to include it.
Recommendation: Delete Annex F and refer to the OMG (SBVR) specification that actually includes it. Otherwise, use a standardized SBVR notation in Annex E.
The Date/Time final submission should have identified Annex F as a proposed addition to the SBVR specification – a new informative Annex, and we may assert that OMG adoption of the Date/Time submission constitutes adoption of Annex F as an addition to the SBVR specification.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Definite descriptions do not always define individual concepts
The entry for ‘definite description’ in SBVR 11.1.3 includes this structural rule:
Necessity: Each definite description is the definition of an individual concept.
The rule is incorrect. A definite description defining a concept in a schema might well be taken as defining an individual concept, but a definite description within a statement of a fact in a model need not define an individual concept because it need not identify the same individual in all possible worlds. It would identify an individual in the world described by the fact. Similarly, a definite description in the context of a rule statement might identify a single individual in each situation addressed by the rule, but not necessarily the same individual in all possible worlds. E.g., “the previous calendar month” definitely describes one month, but which month it describes depends on the current month, which can vary across possible worlds.
Also, a note should be added to the entry for “definite description” to point out that the one thing defined by a definite description can be a set (e.g., “the cars owned by EU-Rent”, which, by the way, is not the same set in all possible worlds).
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Many business rules, laws of nature, etc., are given ‘names’ that are representations of those rules/laws as ‘individual concepts’.
For example, “Murphy’s Law” represents the proposition: Anything that can go wrong will. Similarly, “Newton’s First Law of Motion” represents the proposition: A body at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. (Laws like “Sarbanes-Oxley” are not just propositions, they are actually bodies of guidance.)
What is the SBVR relationship between these signifier expressions and the propositions? The expressions are very like designations, there are different expressions in different languages, and a few such ‘laws’ are known by different names in different subject areas. But it does not appear that they can be contained in Vocabularies or terminological dictionaries.
These representations cannot be ‘designations’. Propositions cannot be (individual) concepts, unless the dichotomy of ‘meaning’ (= concept xor proposition) is not valid. And they are clearly not ‘statements’.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Figure C.8: it should seem that composition in UML (black diamond) should be used for “contains”.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR 1.2 beta annex G (EU Rent Example) adopts concepts from the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) but deliberately gives them names that are both inconsistent with DTV and in fact are confusingly similar to the names of other concepts that are defined in DTV. Although any business can use any vocabulary terms desired, an OMG standard should maintain consistency with other OMG vocabularies for reasons of quality and to avoid user confusion. Especially a portion of a standard that is specifically intended to "to provide an aid to help them understand the specification " (annex G.2).
The Annex is also inconsistent in its own terminology with respect to dates and times. For example, "maximum rental period" (Annex G.6.6) is a kind of "duration" even though G.8.6 defines "period" as a kind of "time interval" and a "rental period" (G.6.8.3) is a kind of "period".
This annex also defines its own concepts that relate states of affairs to time, and for quantities – rather than using the corresponding concepts defined by the Date-Time Vocabulary. It fails to give definitions for these concepts, which means they are subject to varying interpretations. The example would be stronger if it used the carefully worked-out concepts defined in the Date-Time Vocabulary.
Specifically:
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR 1.2, Formal Specification
Problem: In Annex B.2.3 the term ‘sentential form’ is used with a different meaning than defined for this term in Clause 8.4.4.
· In Annex B, it means the standardised form or ‘handle’ by which a verb concept is known in a presentation format such as a glossary. Going by this meaning, ‘customer rents car’ is the sentential form (Annex B uses ‘primary reading’ as a synonym) for the verb concept in question, and “car is rented by customer” is not a sentential form of the verb concept.
· In Clause 8.4.4, it means any verb concept wording that is available for a given verb concept, except noun forms. Going by this meaning, as the examples provided make clear, “car is rented by customer” and “customer rents car” are alternative sentential forms.
Suggested solution: Keep 8.4.4 as it is. Remove occurrences of ‘sentential form’ from Annex B, keeping only ‘primary reading’ in that context.
Discussion:
The dictionary basis for selecting the adjective ‘sentential’ in Annex B seems to be the meaning of ‘aphoristic’, as in ‘sentential saying’ or ‘sentential book’.
The dictionary basis for selecting the adjective ‘sentential’ in 8.4.4. seems to be the meaning ‘of a sentence, concerning a sentence’, i.e., the association with ‘sentence’ as a linguistic term.
The former use of ‘sentential’ in English seems to be the more common. This would explain why the issue has occurred. It also suggests that ‘sentential form’ in Clause 8 is not ideal.
‘Verb form’ as a complementary concept of ‘noun form’ would not have this problem but I agree that, because of cases where the wording contains no verb form at all, ‘verb form’ cannot be used. It could be said that ‘verb concept wording’ has the same problem, but I think it is more acceptable to say that a word like ‘of’ or ‘in’ is a “verb concept wording” than to say that it is a “verb form”.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
When DTV v1.0-alpha was adopted, it contained a proposed simplified text representation for SBVR LRMV constructs (as distinct from the long and involved sequences of sentences used in SBVR examples, that make references to undefined concepts like'first variable'). The DTV FTF resolved issues about the disposition of the annex containing this SBVR LRMV notation by improving the description of the notation, but also revising the informative text that used the notation in such a way that the notation is no longer used in DTV. This LRMV notation therefore no longer has a use in DTV and is out of scope for the DTV specification. It is likely that the annex (DTV v1.1 Annex F) will be deleted from DTV v1.2.
The simplified LRMV notation has value for the wider SBVR community, and its description should be an informative Annex to SBVR. It is within the expertise and purview of the SBVR RTF to address any problems with the notation specification, and to maintain alignment with the SBVR specification generally. Accordingly, the SBVR RTF should maintain the adopted text of DTV Annex F as an Annex to SBVR.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR should re-consider the use of smart quotes
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR should use the latest MOF rather than sticking with MOF 2.0.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:
Some issues: 2) No relationship is defined between the clause 8 concepts and the clause
11 concepts. Is a body of shared concepts based on a conceptual schema?
How does a fact model relate to a terminological dictionary?
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Describing the facts of a fact model, SBVR’s clause 10 says, “Population facts are restricted to elementary and existential facts.”
This “restriction” appears to be a restriction on the clause 10 mapping to a relational database, requiring a sort of normalization. It is certainly not a restriction discernable from SBVR’s definition of “fact model”. Nor is it a restriction on formal interpretation of fact models for knowledge bases in general. Facts that do not fall into those two categories (elementary and existential) can occur in fact models and can be mapped to formal logic. They can be formulated using concepts in a fact model’s conceptual schema, even if they cannot be formulated using those concepts in a way that is considered existential or elementary. Facts can be formulated using disjunction, universal quantification, etc.
A fact model can have a fact like the following, not as a rule in its schema, but simply as a fact:
“Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”.
Whether this is a “good” fact in terms of being structured according to best practices is not relevant. Once we have a fact model, then we can use tools or guidelines to measure quality and recommend improvements. But that comes after we have fact model to examine.
Is the fact elementary? Not if it can break into “Every son of Mary has a car” and “Every son of Mary has a kayak”.
Is it existential? I cannot see it that way.
But it can map to formal logic, so clause 10 of SBVR should accommodate that mapping. It does not map directly into a relational table, but there is no reason to limit SBVR’s formal underpinnings to relational modeling.
As it turns out, clause 10 would handle the fact, “Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”, just fine as long as it is formulated using a unary fact type as would be represented by a unary predicate like this: EverySonOfHasACarAndAKayak(Mary). That sort of contrived fact type is not likely to be found in a conceptual schema made up of meanings of words in a business vocabulary. Requiring a fact model with a business origin to have such a contrived fact type in its conceptual schema is inappropriate for SBVR, even though such contriving is sometimes part of database design. Conceptual schemas based on business vocabularies, rather than database design, involve meanings of words used by business people. Use of such vocabularies starts with an assumption that basic language works (quantifiers, conjunction, disjunction, restriction, demonstration, etc.) for putting words together to make statements. So formulations of facts so stated can tend towards complex formulations involving various sorts of quantifications, objectifications, logical operators, etc. Mapping such fact models into normalized databases is great, but requiring a direct mapping is not and must not be a limitation imposed by SBVR.
Some confusion is created in clause 10 from using the words “elementary” and “existential” as attributes of facts, when they seem to be attributes of formulations of facts, not of the facts themselves. For example, if the characteristic ‘employee number is assigned’ is define as “there exists an employee that has the employee number”, then by definitional substitution, these are two statements of the very same fact:
Employee number 777 is assigned.
There exists an employee that has the employee number 777.
So we have one fact that appears to be both elementary and existential. The difference is in formulation, not the fact.
It would be more clear for clause 10 to apply the ideas of “ground”, “elementary” and “existential” to formulation of facts rather than to facts. “Population” in the clause 10 sense seems to be strictly tied to formulation. It gives an example: “pop(Employee drives Car)= set of (employee, car) pairs ”.
Recommendation:
Remove the clause 10 general “restriction” to elementary and existential facts. Any such restriction should apply only to the clause’s relational mappings.
In clause 10, clarify how the concepts of “ground”, “elementary”, “existential” and “population” are tied to formulation.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Clause 10 of SBVR provides a formal logic interpretation of SBVR in terms of Object Role Modeling (ORM).
There has been a long-standing agreement within the OMG community to provide a formal interpretation in terms of Common Logic (CL). CL is an ISO standard (ISO 24707) for which there is an OMG standard metamodel in the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) specification, and which is being used as a basis for logical interpretation in the OMG Date Time vocabulary.
A partial interpretation of SBVR in CL is given in clause 10.2, but significant work is needed to complete this grounding. Completion is essential to supporting downstream alignment of OMG specifications that are expressed in terms of other logic languages, to reuse of SBVR vocabularies by commercial rule engines, and to facilitate interoperability with other work in the ISO community. It may also be needed to support development of new vocabularies in SBVR, such as potential financial services vocabularies related to the FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology) effort in the Finance DTF.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Annex H provides detailed guidance on the representation of SBVR vocabulary concepts in UML diagrams. Much of that guidance produces invalid UML constructs per UML 2.4.
H.1 "If there are additional terms for the concept they can be added within the rectangle, labeled as such – e.g., “also: is-category-of
fact type” as depicted in Figure H.1." There is no UML syntax for this.
H.2 "Alternatively, an individual concept can be depicted as an instance of its related general concept (noun concept), as in Figure H.3." The diagram uses an unidentified Dependency, which has no meaning. It should be formally stereotyped.
H.3.1 shows three representations of the fact type 'semantic community shares understanding of concept'. The third is invalid – an association can have only one name. Also the name of the association is 'shares understanding of'; it does not include the placeholder terms.
H.3.1 Figure H.4 shows associations that are navigable in both directions, inducing unnamed UML properties on 'semantic community' and 'concept' that are not intended. (This is a vestige of UML v1 ambiguity.) It should show no navigable ends, using UML 2.4 syntax.
H.3.4 Figure H.9 depicts an invalid relationship symbol; an association is required to have 2 or more roles.
H.4.2 Figure H.11 shows a stereotype <<is role of>> on a Generalization. I'm not sure this is valid UML, but in any case such a stereotype would have to be defined in a formal Profile. (Semantically, some "roles" are object types that specialize more general concepts, others are association ends (verb concept roles), and others are things in their own right that have the property 'role has occupant'.)
H.4.3 suggests that there is no consistent mapping for association names. In any case, the UML model of a 'fact type role' is a named association end, regardless of ownership.
H.6.1 Figure H.14. It is not clear what UML element has the name "Results by Payment type", and the text does not say. It may be a GeneralizationSet.
H.6.2 Figure H.16. ":modality" appears to be a TagValue associated with some unnamed and undefined Tag, or it may just be another string that names no model element.
H.8 In, Figure H.17 there is a meaningless dashed line between 'car recovery' and a ternary association (verb concept). It is said to represent 'objectification'. That dashed line should be a Dependency that has a stereotype indicating the nature of that relationship, e.g., <<objectification>>, defined in a Profile.
H.9 says that the default multiplicity on association ends is 0..*. According to the UML metamodel v2.4, the default multiplicity on a UML association end is 1..1, i.e., exactly one. This makes most of the SBVR UML diagrams implicitly erroneous.
So Annex H needs to be rewritten, and if it is to include standard stereotypes and tag values, it needs a standard UML Profile that defines them.
Further, it demonstrates the need for minor repairs to the UML diagrams throughout SBVR, to make them match the MOF model described in Clause 13.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
"vocabularies" is miss-spelled "vocabulaires" in the sixth paragraph of clause 10.1.1 in convenience document 8.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
We're currently building a Corporate Vocabulary and our idea is to use the SVBR provided XML Schema for all source documents.
However, when trying the XSD-file available at the SVBR specification page in an XML Schema validator a got the error message:
Src-import.3.1: The Namespace Attribute, 'http://schema.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.1', Of An <import> Element Information Item Must Be Identical To The TargetNamespace Attribute, 'http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/20071213', Of The Imported Document.
The XML Schema validator is available at the URL:
http://www.freeformatter.com/xml-validator-xsd.html
I have a sceen dump as well that I can send via email.
I downloaded the XSD-file and changed the namespace to match the namespace in the import element.
But it only resultet in a new fault.
Any ideas?
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
OMG Issue No: 16685
Title: Fix Entries in Subclause 10.1.2.1 to Align with Subclause 10.1
Source:
SBVR Co-chair, Donald Chapin [Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com]
Summary:
Spin-off from Resolution of Issue 15623 (and 14843 which was Merged into it)
Fix the entries in SBVR Subclause 10.1.2.1 to bring them in line with what Clause 10.1 says as revised by the resolution to Issues 15623 & 14843.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined.
The underlying issue is:
1. SBVR’s metamodel is defined in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Its instances (domain models) are linguistic models of meanings.
2. The model defined in Clause 10 is included in the normative SBVR model to support a formal logic interpretation of SBVR’s metamodel. Its instances (domain models) are fact models.
The proposed resolution is:
1. State, in introductory text in Clauses 8 and 10, that the models are different
2. Somewhere in Clause 10:
a. List the major differences between the two models
b. Describe informally what transformation would be needed to derive a domain fact model from a corresponding linguistic model. It is probably beyond the scope of this RTF to develop a formal specification
Resolution:
1. Add a subclause to Subclause 10.1.1 to discuss to an appropriate level of detail all aspects of the relationship between the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 and the formal interpretation in Subclause 10.1.1, as well as removing ambiguity from Clause 10.1.1 by consistent use of terms intension, extension, fact population, and the set of all possible facts..
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Clause 11 includes an entry for 'rulebook' (specifically, in 11.2.2.4). To maintain the separation of vocabulary-related items from rule/governance-related items (which has been the convention for Clauses 11 and 12), this should appear in Clause 12 rather than Clause 11.
Resolution: Move 'rulebook' to Clause 12.
[issue requested in the telcon of Mar. 18 2011]
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
C.5.2, including the diagram, should use single guillemet characters not >> and <<
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
In SBVR clause 8.x, in the entry for 'at least n quantification', the Definition ends with the term ‘logical fomulation kind’, which makes no sense in the context.
What was intended is a new paragraph:
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The figure on p. 6 of Annex E (SBVR 1.2) contains an error (use of 'fact type'). Ref. leftmost box in the screenshot below.
If you can supply the image source I will make the correction
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Rectifying the Relationship Between SBVR and ISO 1087 Terms "Concept System" and "Relation"
SBVR uses two terms "concept system" and "relation" found in ISO 1087 but extends these notions in important ways. Specifically, SBVR supports more "elements of concept system structure" than ISO 1087 does – especially, but not exclusively, associations (verb concepts). ISO 1087 defines only some kinds of relation, such as 'generic relation', 'partitive relation', 'hierarchical relation'. Use of the terms "concept system" and "relation" in SBVR should be rectified.
1. "Concept System" appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:
2. "Relation" (in the ISO sense roughly meaning 'connection') appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:
RESOLUTION
1. "Concept System" is a synonym in SBVR for "Body of Shared Concepts" and should be explicitly treated as such.
2. "Concept System" should be indicated as the preferred term for the concept "Body of Shared Concepts". ("Body of Shared Concepts" is awkward and not memorable.)
3. A Note should be added to the entry for "Body of Shared Concepts" indicating ISO 1087 as the source for the term "concept system". Note: The ISO definition should not be indicated as the Basis for the entry since the ISO meaning is much more restricted.
4. Replace "relation" with "connection" in the definition of Body of Shared Meaning (p. 142) and in a note for that entry.
5. Replace "relation" with "connection" in the definitions of Category (p. 148) and More General Concept (p. 148).
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:
Some issues:
1) Clause 8 does not include the concepts needed to represent itself, even
though clause 2 says clause 8 is a standalone compliance point. Clause 8
claims to be a vocabulary, but the concept "vocabulary" is in clause 11,
not clause 8. Hence an implementation of clause 8 cannot model clause 8
itself.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR Issue – Clean up and Complete Vocabulary for Clause 10.1.1 (Was Issues 11296-1a and 11303-b) (Part of Separating 11296 & 11303 into Manageable Pieces)Please see attached Word document for Issue details.
This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions:
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Inconsistent use of terminology when relating facts to fact types
It has been noted that there are a few places in clause 10 where the relationship between facts and fact types are described using inconsistent language. SBVR makes clear that not every fact is of a particular fact type obviously, some facts are formulated using quantifiers, logical operators, etc. SBVR makes clear that instances of fact types are actualities, not facts. SBVR describes concepts as having instances, but not facts as having instances. A few places in clause 10 can be lead to confusion in this regard. They are listed below with recommended rewordings.
Thanks go to Mark Linehan who graciously went through clause 10 last September and located these places.
Recommended changes:
1. In the third paragraph of the introduction to clause 10, REMOVE the sentence that says:
A ‘Fact’ is of a particular ‘Fact Type.’
2. REPLACE the third paragraph of 10.1.1.2, which says this:
The conceptual schema declares the fact types (kinds of facts, such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.
With this:
The conceptual schema declares the fact types (such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.
3. In the last paragraph of page 89 (in 10.1.1.2) there is a sentence that says:
The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of fact instances that instantiate the fact types in the schema).
REPLACE it with this:
The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of facts that are formulated using the fact types and other concepts in the schema).
4. Just above figure 10.1 on page 90 there is the following sentence.
Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (instances of domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.
REPLACE it with this:
Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (formulated using domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Disposition: Resolved
OMG Issue No: ????
Title: Need business-oriented verb concepts to support "local closure"
Source:
Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research
Summary:
Clause 10.1.1.3 has an extensive discussion of "Open/Closed World Semantics". In particular, the penultimate paragraph near the bottom of page 94 of version 1.0 of the specification says:
"For any given schema, the business might have complete knowledge about some parts and incomplete knowledge about other parts. So in practice, a mixture of open and closed world assumptions may apply. We use the term “local closure” (or “relative closure”) for the application of the closed world assumption to just some parts of the overall schema. One might assume open world semantics by default, and then apply local closure to specific parts as desired; or alternatively, assume closed world semantics by default and then apply “local openness.” We adopt the former approach as it seems more realistic when modeling real business domains."
In SBVR 1.0, local closure is supported by the verb concepts "fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema" and "concept is closed in conceptual schema" in clause 8.5. The resolution of issue 13138 moves clause 8.5 to clause 10, thus making these verb concepts no longer available in the normative specification or in the clause 15 supporting documents. The result is that the specification no longer supports the semantics mentioned in the quote given above. This issue requests that similar functionality be added to clause 11.
The original clause 8.5 verb concepts used designations that are not meaningful to business people. The resolution of this issue should adopt business-oriented terminology. Discussions have identified at least four possible approaches:
1. A verb concept "set is completely known", meaning that the semantic community knows all the elements of the set. This would be particularly useful when applied to a set as the extension of a concept.
2. A verb concept "concept has completely known extension". Similar to the above, but applying specifically to the extension of concepts.
3. A verb concept such as "semantic community completely knows concept".
4. Building on the concept "communication concept" in clause 11.2.2.3 to define closure with respect to an information record.
Example use cases for local closure include the following:
Example 1
This example is about a concept called order that includes a list of line items, where each line item has a quantity, a catalog id, etc. A minimal vocabulary is shown here, just enough to illustrate the example.
order
Definition: A customer request for one or more products and a promise to pay the total cost of the order.
line item
Definition: Details about an order for a particular product.
quantity
Definition: positive integer that is the number of units of the product that is desired by the customer
catalog id
Definition: text that identifies the product desired by the customer
line item has quantity
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one quantity.
line item has catalog id
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one catalog id.
order includes line item
Necessity: Each order includes at least one line item.
"order includes line item" is internally closed in the business xx conceptual schema
The "internally closed" fact says that the business knows all the line items that are included in each order: there are no other line items. Consider a rule such as "Each order must be shipped within 24 hours if the order does not include a line item that has quantity greater than 100." As described in clause 10.1.1.3, this rule makes no sense with the default SBVR "open world" semantics because under those semantics, the business cannot know that no "line item that has quantity greater than 100".
Example 2
Consider a business that has a vocabulary about employees. The business considers it knows all its employees; there are no employees that it does not know.
employee
Definition: person that works for the business
Under SBVR's default open world semantics, the glossary entry given above is insufficient because it does not capture the business sense that it knows all its employees. To accomplish that, the vocabulary needs the following:
"employee" is closed in the business xx conceptual schema
Example 3
Continuing example 2, suppose the business needs concepts relating to employee names and work phone numbers:
employee name
Definition: text that identifies an employee
work phone number
Definition: number used to phone an employee at work
The business requires that it knows the employee name of each employee because the government requires this information on tax and employment reports. So the employee name is authoritative.
The business knows that, in practice, it does not know the work phone number of each employee. These change too often to keep up with.
SBVR needs verb concepts to express the idea that the employee name is reliably know, but the work phone number is not reliably known.
Resolution:
Revised Text:
Disposition:
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Problem: The current definition of "representation uses vocabulary" is "the representation is expressed in terms of the vocabulary". I think the un-styled "term" (in terms of) is a bad choice for the definition. A better choice might be based on.
Resolution:
Change the definition of "representation uses vocabulary" to: "the representation is expressed based on the vocabulary".
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The Structured English keyword "another" is sometimes ambiguous. For an example, in the following rule, it is formally not clear whether "another <person3>" refers to <person1> and/or <person2>:
It is prohibited that a <person1> <is married to> <person2>, if that <person1> <is married to> another <person3>.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
The description in C.4.2 leaves it very ambiguous as to whether “has” is to be assumed or not. In particular
Again, no UML tool will be able to add/remove “has” in diagrams.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
'quantity' is defined informally. A formalization of the existing definition is proposed, along with changes in terminology and related entries that would be affected by the change.
The proposed changes unify some fundamental concepts in SBVR and application domains and significantly enhance the ability to reason about SBVR models.
Full details are provided in a paper I authored but am unable to attach to this message because of limitations of this OMG Web site, which does not accept attachments. Please contact me if you would like to review the paper, and I'll send it by email.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR provides for a speech community to adopt a definition, or an element of guidance, but no clear way for a vocabulary to adopt a term and its definition from another vocabulary. The Date Time Vocabulary (clause 4) formally adopts a set of terms from the SBVR specification with the intent that the term means the definition given in SBVR and has whatever other associations that term may have to other adopted SBVR terms. (This is the usual practice for adopted terminology in an ISO standard.) But SBVR does not provide a formal expression for this. Instead, it appears that DTV must introduce all the required SBVR terms and their definitions and then cite SBVR as the Source of the definitions. (This is a practice ISO recommends against, because of the problem of synchronization of changes.) We believe that this is a shortcoming in SBVR.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR Clause A.2.6 provides syntax for a concept called ‘intensional role’, but there is no such terminological entry and no clear definition.
In one of the business usage examples for DTV, we have encountered a usage of ‘time period’ in two intensional roles: ‘fixed period’ and ‘variable period’, but we can’t declare them: Concept type: intensional role.
As A.2.6 says, intensional roles arise when a concept designation is used with verbs of specification and change, and possibly others. The reference is to an unspecified thing of that will satisfy the concept. When one ‘specifies the rental period for X’, the rental period does not denote any time period. The whole idea is that one associates the concept ‘rental period for X’ with an extension that will only exist when the specifying action completes. Similarly, one cannot ‘change the rental period’, one can only change which time period “the rental period for X” denotes. With these verbs, the “intensional role” is equivalent to an ‘answer’ (at least in structure): one specifies “what time period the rental period is”.
The same idea seems to apply to a verb like ‘prevents’. If someone “prevents a forest fire”, there is no forest fire that is prevented; rather the concept ‘forest fire’ is not instantiated. But unlike the above, one does not prevent “what forest fire it is.” And if one ‘orders 1000 widgets’, they may or may not already exist so that they can be ordered. What one orders is a characterization of objects that are to be instantiated.
So, the intensional role seems to be a valuable concept for verb concept wordings, because it has real business use
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR 1.2, p. 225, the Index entry for ”proposition” appears twice (and once out of alpha order).
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Resolution:
Substitute the word "allocating" for "partitioning" in the definition of Categorization Scheme.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)
Title: What is a 'terminological entry'
Summary:
SBVR clause 6.2 (How to read this specification) says:
"This specification describes a vocabulary, or actually a set of vocabularies, using terminological entries. Each entry
includes a definition, along with other specifications such as notes and examples."
But the term 'terminological entry' is not defined anywhere in the text of SBVR. In particular, it does not appear in Clause 19.3 in relationship to 'terminological dictionary'.
Clause 19.3 says a 'terminological dictionary' is a collection of representations, that it "includes representations" and "presents a vocabulary". But then a vocabulary is a "set of designations", and is apparently related to them by 'thing is in set', because there is no other stated verb concept to relate them. So the vocabulary is a subset of the "set of representations" that is included in a terminological dictionary that presents it? But a 'terminological entry' seems to be none of the above, and a 'terminological dictionary' does not include them? This set of circumlocutions completely fails to present a clear model for the exchange of a vocabulary or of a terminological dictionary. The central idea in a terminological entry, if SBVR is any indication, is a concept, and representations of it, and related commentary.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Annex A.4.5 says: "The 'General Concept' caption can be used to indicate a concept that generalizes the entry concept."
In point of fact, the General Concept caption represents three entirely different verb concepts in different contexts:
Further, it is possible for a role concept to specialize another role concept, as 'first member' (of a list) specializes 'member' (of a list). But the range of 'first member' is whatever the list is a list of. Similarly, 'captain (of ship)' specializes 'officer (of ship)' but both range over 'person'. So, overloading General Concept in the way SBVR does makes it less capable of conveying the semantics of roles.
[Note that UML and MOF distinguish between the range of an association end (role) -- the class (general concept) to which it is connected -- and any association end (role) that it subsets/redefines (specializes). SBVR apparently cannot.]
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)
Title: Annex A is a mistitled grab bag
Annex A is titled "SBVR Structured English", and every paragraph of A.1 is about that topic, except for the last, which indicates that every subsection after A.2 is about other topics. In particular, A.3 and A.4 are about the structure of the SBVR specification as a terminological dictionary, and A.5 and A.6 are guidance for creating 'rule set' structures.
It is imperative that A.3 and A.4 be packaged as a section, either in section 6.2 (How to read this specification), or in an Annex that 6.2 points to. Those two sections are "how to read the SBVR specification" and interpret the terminological entries in it. This issue arose from trying to find that guidance.
Guidance for creating rule sets (A.5 and A.6) is not a characterization of either SBVR SE or the structure of the SBVR specification. It is a separate topic, associated with clauses 16 thru 18.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Problem: If "body of shared concepts" were defined as [the set of] all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings", then I dont think the following entry would be needed: "body of shared concepts includes concept".
Resolution:
1. Change the definition of "body of shared concepts" to: the set of all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings"
2. Eliminate the entry: body of shared concepts includes concept
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
SBVR is not clear about how markup should or should not be embedded within
Representation Expressions.
The specification needs to be clear about exactly what is included in basic
Representation Expressions, especially Fact Type Forms, which contain no
embedded markup. It also needs to be clear about the kinds of markup that
can be embedded in Representation Expressions and how to communicate which
markup specification is being used.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Issue: Can a Noun Form Be Created on the Basis of a Unary Verb Concept
Resolution:
Indicate explicitly yes or no, and include an example if yes.
Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
The resolution to SBVR Issue 18377 (and Issues 17097,17452,19276 merged into it) restructured the SBVR Table of Contents for greater clarity, regrouped the SBVR terminological entries under the new sub-clauses, and updated Clause 2 conformance to align it with the conformance approach in Simplified UML.
Given the new SBVR Table of Contents and revised Clause 2 Conformance:
Since the SBVR Figures are derived from the SBVR terminological entries, they need to be redrawn based on the grouping of concepts under sub-clauses
The Clause 8, 11 & 12 narrative text needs to be moved into the new document structure described in the resequenced Table of contents, and updated as required.
Resolution:
1. Produce a new set of diagrams that group the concepts the way they are grouped in the sub-clauses given in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
2. Add edit instructions to move the existing SBVR v1.2 narrative text as revised by SBVR V1.3 Ballot 1 and 2 into the equivalent places indicated in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
3. Update narrative text with new clause / sub-clause reference numbers and the Ballot 2 revisions to SBVR v1.2 Clause 7.
1. Produce a new set of diagrams that group the concepts the way they are grouped in the sub-clauses given in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
2. Move the existing SBVR v1.2 narrative text as revised by SBVR V1.3 Ballot 1 and 2 into the equivalent places indicated in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
3. Update narrative text
a. with new clause / sub-clause reference numbers and the Ballot 2 revisions to SBVR v1.2 Clause 7,
b. to clean a few references to things no longer in Clause 2, and
c. to update introductory text for Part II and Part III to match the revised Table of Contents.
NOTE: The SBVR XMI Metamodel is generated from the terminological entries in SBVR v1.2 Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 (and their equivalent SBVR v1.3 Clauses 7 through 21) according to the transformation rules in SBVR v1.2 Clause 13 (SBVR v1.3 Clause 23). Since this Issue Resolution makes no changes to terminological entries except to update clause references, this Issue Resolution has no impact on the SBVR XMI Metamodel; i.e. the SBVR XMI Metamodel is not changed in any way by this Issue Resolution.
Some words/phrases used in SBVR vocabulary entry Definition subentries that are the expressiosn of SBVR-defined designations are unstyled. Add appropriate styling to words/phrases used in SBVR Definition subentries where the unstyled words/phrases used were intended to have the meaning as defined in SBVR, rather than a different natural language meaning.
Add appropriate styling to terms/wordings used in SBVR Definition clauses where the terms/verbs used have the meaning as defined in SBVR .
Some entries of SBVR 1.2 have styling and captioning errors that need to be fixed
1) the entry "unitary verb concept" has a styling error in the 1st Necessity.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:
The term "unitary verb concept" should be in term styling.
2) the entry "proposition is possibly true" is missing a caption.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:
The second line of text needs a "Possibility:" caption, the first word of the sentence needs to be capitalized, and the wording needs to be clarrified.
3) The entry "proposition is obligated to be false" has a styling error in its Definition text.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:
The word "not" should be in keyword styling.
4) The entry "concept has implied characteristic" has a styling error in its Definition text.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:
The word "does" should be in verb styling.
5) the entry "categorization scheme contains category" is missing a caption.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:
The line following the Synonymous Form caption i.e., with the value "partitive verb concept" needs a "Concept Type:" caption.
In SBVR 1.2, there are 2 verb concept entries for the same meaning: “verb concept incorporating verb symbols”. This resulted from SBVR meaning and representation entries being arbitrarily separated into two clauses.
It is clear from
the “Note:” under ‘verb concept wording demonstrates designation’;
the “See:” under ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’;
the lack of a definition under ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’;
the definition of verb symbol; and
all the subentries of 'verb concept wording'
that these are already intended to be the same meaning that is split across two clauses.
In addition, the definition under ‘verb concept wording demonstrates designation’ is quite opaque and needs to be worded more like the Note.
The verb concept wording ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’ most accurately gathers up the meaning and should therefore be the preferred verb concept wording.
In the SBVR restructuring work these two entries now appear in the same sub-clause, where they should be combined into a single entry with a clarified definition as follows:
verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol
Definition: the verb concept wording shows a pattern of using the expression of the verb symbol plus expressions of the placeholders for each of the roles of the verb concept that has the verb concept wording
Synonymous Form: verb symbol is incorporated into verb concept wording
Synonymous Form: verb concept wording demonstrates designation
Necessity: Each verb concept wording incorporates at most one verb symbol.
Necessity: Each verb symbol is incorporated into at least one verb concept wording.
Note: If a verb concept wording demonstrates a designation, the signifier of that designation is what is seen in the expression of the verb concept wording when placeholder expressions have been removed.
In SBVR 1.2, a vocabulary entry for "element" is missing. This term appears (formally styled in term styling) in the verb concept wording "set has element", but the supporting vocabulary entry for the concept termed "element" is missing. (The term "element" is, therefore, also missing from the Index.)
A vocabulary entry for "element" needs to be added. Also, the Definition-captioned text of the related entry "thing is in set" needs to be corrected to avoid the use of "element" as an unstyled (informally understood) concept in stating the meaning of the verb concept where this concept plays a role.
In SBVR 1.2, there are 2 verb concept entries for the same meaning: “concept incorporating characteristics”. This resulted from SBVR meaning and representation entries being arbitrarily separated into two clauses. They need to be consolidated into a single entry.
In the SBVR restructuring work, these two entries now appear in the same sub-clause, where they should be combined into a single entry, as:
concept incorporates characteristic FL
Definition: the characteristic is an abstraction of a property of each instance of the concept and is one of the characteristics that makes up the concept
Synonymous Form: characteristic is essential to concept
Synonymous Form: concept has essential characteristic
Concept Type: is-role-of verb concept
Correct typos in SBVR 1.2:
The Necessity for "proposition" (p. 29) uses "very" where "verb" is intended.
'proposition' is misspelled in the 2nd Necessity of "statement" (p. 34).
The first vocabulary entry at the top of p. 45 uses the entry term "state of affairs". It should be "actuality". (The entry for "state of affairs" correctly appears on p. 43.)
The Definition text for "speech community representation set" (p. 168) should not begin with an article.
The Definition text for "enforcement level" (p. 176) should not begin with an article.
Make the corrections.
In SBVR 1.2, there are 2 verb concept entries for the same meaning: “concept generalization/specialization”. This resulted from SBVR meaning and representation entries being arbitrarily separated into two clauses. They need to be consolidated into a single entry.
clause, where they should be combined into a single entry, as:
concept1 specializes concept2 FL
Definition: the concept1 incorporates each characteristic that is incorporated by the concept2 plus at least one differentiator
Synonymous Form: concept2 generalizes category1
Synonymous Form: concept1 has more general concept2
Synonymous Form: concept2 has category1
Clarify the definition of concept1 specializes concept2 by making it fully formal:
Definition: the concept1 incorporates each characteristic that is incorporated by the concept2 and the concept1 incorporates at least one characteristic that is not incorporated by the concept2
The figure for the Semiotic/Semantic Triangle (Figure 8.9 of SBVR 1.2) should say "terminological dictionary" rather than "business vocabulary" so that it is parallel with the term 'rulebook' in that diagram.
1. Correct the text in Figure 8.9 [SBVR 1.2] to read "Terminological Dictionary" rather than "Business Vocabulary"
2. Add the following text to the end of the last sentence in the narrative of SBVR 1.2, sub-clause 8.6.2 "; i.e., the world of the organization that uses the Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook" so that the complete, final sentence reads:
But the following necessities are about the correspondence of meanings to things in the universe of discourse; i.e., the world of the organization that uses the Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook.
For many years, I have been critical of the organization of SBVR. It's overall structure was neglected during the periods of rapid development. As a result the SBVR document proves difficult to approach – needlessly so.
Earlier this year, I was tasked with working on re-sequencing the material. After months of careful consideration, my proposed reorganization is attached. The work is directly based on, and builds from, team discussion and consensus from earlier this year.
In place of the three existing Clauses 8, 11 and 12, I am proposing the following 9 replacements:
Ironically, I personally do not agree with some of the placement of entries and sections. However, I tried to take into account the concerns and preferences (at least as far as I understand them) of all team members. I have proposed a holistic solution, so please understand and evaluate it that way.
Notes and Observations
Even though the Chair initiated this whole-document resequencing initiative, I'm not sure there's actually an issue for it. (My original issues applied only to resequencing Clauses 8 and 11 individually.) Obviously there needs to be an issue (if none at present).
Finally, I am currently on an around-the-world speaking 'tour' including South Africa and Australia for the next 3+ weeks. Please carefully consider the proposal as a whole. I believe the real SBVR shines through.
Merger with Issue 18377
Simplification of SBVR by Integrating Clauses 8 & 11 which Cover the Same Topics and Removing Multiple Compliance Points
Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
It is not possible to see all of the SBVR “Meaning and Representation” model constructs (terminological entries) on the same subtopics in one place because there are split almost evenly between Clause 8 and Clause 11.
Since “Meaning” and “Representation” are the foundation topics of SBVR, this is a particularly significant problem.
It is not easy to see how the whole of SBVR fits together on any one topic. Ambiguities, inconsistencies, and internal disconnects, which lead to significant confusion and misinterpretation, are masked and therefore persist.
In addition there are a number of Issues that require moving terminological entries between Clause 8 and Clause 11, with equal arguments for having then in both Clauses.
Further, it is not possible to re-sequence the entries in Clause 8 and Clause 11 in a cohesive way while those two clauses remain as separate top level SBVR Clauses.
Part of the simplification of SBVR to gain full benefits should follow the example of Simplified UML. UML v2.5 has removed separate conformance levels related to subject areas and relies on vendors providing lists of specific model constructs that they support.
SBVR already has a very formal requirement for providing list of model constructs supported. Since conformance is already defined in SBVR at the terminological entry level, removing the four level 1 Clause conformance levels will free up the structure of SBVR Clauses to enable the principles below to be implemented.
Resolution:
1. Integrate the terminological entires in Clauses 8 and 11 by subtopic.
2. Remove the four Comformance Levels following the example of UML 2.5.
Revised Text:
to follow
1. Restructure the SBVR Table of Contents and Regroup/Resequence Terminological Entries from Clauses 8, 11 & 12 under the New Sub-clauses following these principles:
General Simplification / Clarification Guidelines
As part of the simplification of UML, UML v2.5 removed separate conformance levels related to subject areas and now relies on vendors providing lists of specific model constructs that they support.
SBVR already has a formal requirement at the terminological entry level for providing a list of model constructs supported. Since conformance is already defined in SBVR, it has remained essentially unchanged. Four level-1 Clause conformance levels were removed, thereby freeing up the SBVR clause structure to enable the principles below to be implemented.
No changes are proposed to any individual SBVR vocabulary entries in the SBVR Re-sequencing/Reorganizing Issue Resolutions (Ballots 2 & 3) except for updating of clause references.
o After ballot 3, consistency of styling will be addressed as a separate issue.
Clause Grouping Guidelines used in the proposed resequencing
Existing Clauses 8 and 11, which extensively covered the same topics, have been consolidated and reorganized into topic-focused subclauses.
The depth of clause levels has been limited to 3 in all cases. This approach avoids poorly-differentiated, confusing ‘deep dives’ into narrowly-focused topical areas. Some clauses have only 2 levels; 3 levels were not forced where unnecessary. The number of level-1 clauses has been more than doubled to provide clearer, more selective entry points into overall document content.
Short, descriptive clause headings were chosen at each of the 3 levels. These headings focus on essential subject matter, not mechanics or underlying assumptions. This approach keeps them as understandable and as unbiased as possible.
The reorganization makes it easy for business users who are primarily concerned with terminological dictionary content to recognize the SBVR clauses they need for concept definitions and definitional rules. Similarly, those primarily concerned with rulebooks can easily recognize the SBVR clauses they need for behavioral guidance.
"Meaning" entries and "representation" entries have been included under the same level-1 clause only in special circumstances (e.g., the guidance clauses). This separation visibly reflects the importance of the distinction between these kinds of entries, a fundamental principle in SBVR.
With a few important exceptions, including those listed below, sets and collections (sometimes referred to as “containers”) are treated in their own unified clause. This clause, which includes vocabularies, terminological dictionaries and rulebooks, forms a natural grouping of entries. These containers are quite different from the individual things making them up. This new clause has been placed after all clauses that introduce the kinds of individual members the containers might include. Also, the definitions and relationships of these containers are carefully separated from the verb concepts that indicate what goes into them.
o Exception: The concept “extension” is included in the very first clause since it is fundamental to understanding of Semiotic Triangle, part of the linguistic foundation of SBVR.
o Exception: Communities and Authorities are included in an early, level-1 clause. Without them, no meanings or elements of guidance can be birthed.
Adoption also forms a natural grouping in its own right and therefore is the basis of a new clause. This new clause follows the new clause on sets and collections (containers).
Terminological Entry Grouping Guidelines
The re-sequencing and reorganization of entries is based on natural groupings, which build logically from one to the next. Generally (but not always) this permits introduction of terminological entries before they are referenced by other entries.
List verb concepts near the general concepts and roles they refer to.
List synonyms and antonyms near each other.
List 2 concepts that exhibit an interesting difference near each other.
Sub-clauses have been kept as small as possible, and based on tightly-related concepts. In turn, this permits small, focused diagrams to illustrate them.
Unchanged Clauses
No changes were made to existing Clauses 1 and 3-6, except for clause reference numbers.
The following existing Clauses have not been re-sequenced or reorganized. They have been placed (and renumbered) after all business vocabulary and business rules level-1 clauses, as well as the new clauses devoted to sets and collections (“containers”) and adoption.
.1. Clause 9 “Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary”.
.2. Clause 10 “Providing Semantic and Logical Foundations for Business Vocabulary and Rules”.
.3. Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI”.
.4. Clause 15 “Supporting Documents”.
The existing Clause 14 “Index of Vocabulary Entries (Informative)” will be regenerated from terminological entry headings.
2. Align SBVR Clause 2 Conformance with Simplified UML Conformance and the SBVR Restructured Table of Contents
The three objectives required to accomplish this alignment are to:
Add the equivalent of the two Simplified UML Types of Compliance that are relevant to SBVR.
Remove all references to specific compliance points except for the overall compliance with the SBVR specification.
Clean up language to use terms agreed for SBVR v1.2 and simplify wording for clarity.
In the revised Clause 2 Conformance, Sub-clause 2.2 follows the pattern of Simplified UML where a parallel exists:
Simplified UML SBVR v1.3
Abstract syntax conformance Abstract syntax conformance
Concrete syntax conformance (not applicable no normative SBVR syntax)
Model interchange conformance Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook interchange conformance
Diagram interchange conformance (not applicable no normative SBVR syntax)
Semantic conformance Semantics conformance
Sub-clause 2.2 provides the specifics for “support for SBVR concepts that are defined in Clauses 8-21 of this specification and implemented in the SBVR XMI Metamodel as specified in Clause 23”
Sub-clause 2.4 provides the specifics for “Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook interchange conformance”.
3. Spin-off SBVR Issue 19439 for regrouping of concepts in SBVR Diagram Figures based on the Restructured SBVR Table of Contents and make fixes to narrative text resulting from Items 1. and 2. above.
Note: Except for Clause 2 Conformance, Clause 13 SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI, and the four Vocabulary Container Headers, references in narrative text to the removed vocabularies are updated in this Spin-off Issue.
All, The re-sequencing of Clause 11 has initially proven quite worthwhile, so I have been encouraged to do similar work on Clause 8. As before, I made no changes to the entries themselves whatsoever. (If I did, it was purely an error and should be corrected. Also, my work should be double-checked for any entries inadvertently omitted.) I used a Word version kindly supplied by Linda Heaton, which I believe is from the latest convenience document. (It does have some styling problems, which I have noted.) I hope we can move forward with this revision expeditiously. By the way, I found this re-sequencing much harder than Clause 11, which I am much more familiar with.
Ron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Problem Statement: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 8 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high.
Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves (but does suggest some). Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. New subheadings are suggested.
Merger with Issue 18377
Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high.
Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning never the case in SBVR I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement.
Note: *This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.*
Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves.
Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material.
Merger with Issue 18377
In the course of discussion for Issue 13835 (re: "Fact Model"), I discovered what I believe to be a significant problem with the SBVR definition of "vocabulary" in Clause 11. To avoid complicating that original issue, I aim raising the problem here as a new issue. (Aside: I hope this new issue has not been overtaken by events ... it's been a long time since we've had a convenience document.)
Included in this document:
· pp. 1-2 Discussion and proposed resolution for the problem with "vocabulary" plus some additional observations about "terminological dictionary".
· pp. 3 (for convenience only) Mark's response (08:48 AM 6/28/2010) to my e-mail summarizing a resolution on issue 13835. Mark's response caused me to look closely at the SBVR definitions of "terminological dictionary" and "vocabulary".
· pp.4-7 (for convenience only) My original e-mail summarizing a resolution for issue 13835 (06/25/2010 07:54 PM).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCUSSION:
The current definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR reads as follows: set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings
As far as I see, the definition says nothing directly or indirectly about definitions. This is inconsistent with (a) ISO, (b) MWUD, and (c) How real-world business people think of a "vocabulary". In these important ways, I believe the current SBVR definition is broken and needs to be fixed.
(a) ISO says (1087):
3.7.2 vocabulary
terminological dictionary (3.7.1) which contains designations (3.4.1) and definitions (3.3.1) from one or more specific subject fields (3.1.2)
NOTE The vocabulary may be monolingual, bilingual or multilingual.
RGR: Note the "and definitions (3.3.1)". We always based terms on ISO when we can - especially terms from their area of expertise.
(b) MWUD says:
1 : a list or collection of words or of words and phrases usually alphabetically arranged and explained or defined;
RGR: Note the "and explained or defined". This is the first and most common real-world meaning of "vocabulary".
(c) When business hear or say "vocabulary" they don't think simply of a list of words, they think of what the words mean. The words are of little use by themselves without definitions. Clause 11, the business-facing side of SBVR, must cater to commonly accepted usage of terms in the real-world.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
Change the definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR to be: set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings and the definitions for those concepts
Also add: Source: based on ISO 1087-1 English (3.7.1) [vocabulary]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
Re: "terminological dictionary"
Here is ISO's definition (expanded) ...
3.7.1 terminological dictionary
technical dictionary
collection of terminological entries (3.8.2) presenting information related to concepts (3.2.1) or designations (3.4.1) from one or more specific subject fields (3.1.2)
3.8.2 terminological entry
part of a terminological data collection (ISO 1087-2:2000, 2.21) which contains the terminological data (3.8.1) related to one concept (3.2.1)
NOTE Adapted from ISO 1087-2:2000.
3.8.1 terminological data
data related to concepts (3.2.1) or their designations (3.4.1)
NOTE The more common terminological data include entry term (3.8.4), definition (3.3.1), note (3.8.5), grammatical label (3.8.6), subject label (3.8.7), language identifier (3.8.8), country identifier (3.8.9) and source identifier (3.8.10).
RGR: The bottom line is that for ISO, "terminological dictionary" seems to be simply a more complete, formally organized version of a vocabulary. Both are listed along with other terms under the heading: 3.7 Terminological products.
I believe there is no reason not to stick as close as possible to the ISO sense of this term too
. Otherwise, I question its usefulness for SBVR.
At 08:48 AM 6/28/2010, Mark H Linehan wrote:
Ron,
On the representation side, isn't "terminological dictionary" what you want? I note that "terminological dictionary expresses body of shared meanings " but from the Note under "terminological dictionary" it appears that should exclude the deontic rules. Perhaps if we define your concept "ABC" then we should say that "terminological dictionary expresses ABC ".
(On a related topic, I think that we should try to draw "conceptual schema" closer to "conceptual schema".)
--------------------------------
Mark H. Linehan
STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
IBM Research
phone: (914) 784-7002 or IBM tieline 863-7002
internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com
06/25/2010 07:54 PM
To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org
From: "Ronald G. Ross" <rross@BRSolutions.com>
Subject: [issue 13835 - "Fact Model"] Re: issue 13139 comments
All,
While memory is fresh, let me follow-up on yesterday's discussion in Minneapolis re the agenda item: Issue 13835 Use of the Signifier "Fact Model". I've now done some background research. Actually, there has been significant previous discussion of this topic, but largely under Issue 13139. (Unfortunately, I was unable to locate those e-mails in real time during the meeting itself.) The following analysis (organized into 10 key points) is longish, but aggregates everything into a single message for discussion and (my) future reference. Feedback welcome.
1. I believe Issue 13835 could really be called: Why won't "conceptual schema" or "fact model" as currently defined in SBVR work for Clause 11? To say it another way: What is the missing term for Clause 11?
2. This issue is a critical one. Like "rulebook", the missing term in Clause 11 represents a fundamental notion is positioning the purpose of SBVR from a business-facing point of view. Although not necessarily critical for software engineering, such positioning is absolutely central in establishing the appropriate market niche / mindset for SBVR itself.
3. It is increasingly clear that the missing concept should be one that distinguishes the business-facing side (and value-add purpose) of SBVR from the notion of "fact model" e.g., as in the ORM community.
4. To provide the widest possible umbrella as a standard, SBVR should accommodate that current understanding of "fact model" without change as much as humanly possible. (I believe it does.) SBVR should in no way 'step on' that pre-existing term. To do that was never our intention, of course, but we might have done that unknowingly.
5. Let's call the concept needed in Clause 11 'ABC'. What would an ABC look like? An ABC would ...
An ABC would not include ...
6. The reason that "conceptual schema" doesn't work for ABC in Clause 11 is the following:
conceptual schema FL Definition: combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them) of what is possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world
"Conceptual schema" includes deontic elements of guidance. It also treats what business people would call "rules" as "facts". That produces a completely unacceptable conflation of business-facing ideas. Business people simply don't say things like, "It's a fact there's a rule that ...".
7. The reason that "fact model" doesn't work for ABC in Clause 11 is the following:
fact model FL
Definition: combination of a conceptual schema and, for one possible world, a set of facts (defined by semantic formulations using only the concepts of the conceptual schema)
"Fact model" also includes deontic elements of guidance. It again treats what business people would call "rules" as "facts". (In addition, it would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts.)
8. The reasons that "body of shared meaning" and "body of shared meaning" don't work for ABC in Clause 11 are the following:
body of shared meanings
Definition: set of concepts and elements of guidance for which there is a shared understanding in a given semantic community
"Body of shared meanings" includes deontic elements of guidance. (In addition, it would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts.)
body of shared concepts
Definition: all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings
"Body of shared concepts" excludes all elements of guidance defined separately from definitions, including alethic ones. But definitional rules are most certainly involved in establishing a viable ABC. (In addition, it would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts.)
9. What can ABC be called? ISO has the term "concept system".
3.2.11 concept system
system of concepts
set of concepts (3.2.1) structured according to the relations among them
"Concept system" seems to be close to ABC. Since ISO did not consider rules, I think we can feel free to maintain that definitional rules would be covered by the definition.
Possible objections:
. (It's is not clear to me whether this is so.)10. What does SBVR clause 11 really aim at? What signifier(s) best capture(a) the essence of ABC?
"verbal model" or "verbalization model" -
A major, indeed distinctive, goal of SBVR is to enable the expression of business rule statements and other forms of business communication is such manner that their full semantics can be captured and coordinated. We should emphasize SBVR's unique achievement in that regard by selecting an appropriate signifier, one that incidentally distinguishes ABC from "fact model" (and other 'structural' deliverables such as class diagrams and data models). For the past year or so, I have been using "verbal model" or "verbalization model" in my presentations for that purpose. They work well for that purpose.
MWUD
["verbal"]: 2 a : of or relating to words : consisting in or having to do with words
["verbalize"]: 2 : to state something in words : make a verbal statement
Note: If "concept system" is adopted from ISO, "verbal model" and/or "verbalization model" should be synonyms.
"structured business vocabulary" -
Clearly, that's what SBVR itself is – SBVR has been described as a vocabulary for developing vocabularies. Like ISO (refer to the definition of "concept system"), we need to emphasize that Clause 11 is about creating a special kind of vocabulary, one that is structured (i.e., has verb concepts, etc.).
Note: "Structured business vocabulary" encompasses representation of meanings, not just meanings per se (i.e., it does not align with "concept system" in that regard).
The current definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR is:
vocabulary
Definition: set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings
"Structured business vocabulary" can probably be defined as a synonym of "vocabulary". It's usefulness is that people don't normally think of fact type forms being in a vocabulary, yet that is a central, distinguishing characteristic of SBVR (i.e., to serve to support models for verbalization of business rules, etc.).
Add the following Note to the entry for "vocabulary":
Note: Enumerating the designations in a vocabulary is not a matter of listing signifiers, but of associating signifiers with concepts, and a concept can be identified by a definition.
In Clause 12.1.3 the preferred term for enforcement of a behavioral (operative) business rule is 'level of enforcement'. This concept is used only in examples in the specification - SBVR itself contains no behavioral business rules. In some examples (including the one in Clause 12.1.3) the older term 'Enforcement Level' is used. 'Enforcement Level' is not defined as a synonym for 'level of enforcement'.
An editorial correction is needed to replace each occurrence of 'Enforcement Level' with 'level of enforcement'.
Since “level of enforcement” is used nowhere else in the SBVR specification and “enforcement level” is the preferred term for this concept in the Business Motivation Model, replace “level of enforcement” with "enforcement level" as the preferred term and add “level of enforement’ as a synonym.
I spotted some typos in the logics table on p. 100 (PDF p. 114) of the SBVR 1.1 Convenience draft. Attached is an annotated screenshot of the errors.
To summarize, the errors are in column 3 of the deontic section:
the bold, capital letters need to be in italics (to match the legend on the following page, as well as the other places where these symbols appear).
the small 'p' needs to be in italics (to match the legend on the following page, as well as the other places where this symbol appears).
Make the edit corrections as identified in Issue Summary
OMG Issue No: 17451
Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’
‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed.
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”.
Resolution:
1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.
Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept”
And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”
On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:
individual verb concept
Definition: proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
Note:
some explanatory comments
Example:
some illustrative examples
REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)
to be identified and added
REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:
Figure 8.1
Figure 9.3
Figure 11.2
plus fixes for any additional side effects:
withdrawn by submitter, duplicate of issue 17439
SBVR clause 8.1.2 defines 'proposition' as 'meaning that is true or false'.
The Date/Time specification, and some SBVR examples, show that some propositions are used for their "content" – the situation that the proposition describes – without regard to their truth value. For example, "Each rental car must be inspected before it is available for rental" uses the proposition 'rental car r is inspected' (for each referent of r) to refer to situation in which the car is inspected, and the proposition 'rental car r is available for rental' to refer to the situation in which the car can be rented. The rule relates these situations without requiring any true/false evaluation of either of them. Further, the situation in which a given rental car is available is only sometimes an actuality; the proposition 'r is available for rental' can be sometimes true and sometimes false in the actual world.
Thus, being true or false is not the most important characteristic of a proposition, and may not be well-defined.
Recommendation: 'proposition' should be defined as: conceptualization of an event, activity, situation or circumstance. Such a definition would be consistent with the idea that it 'corresponds to' a 'state of affairs'. It is also consistent with the idea that true and false are defined in terms of correspondence to an actuality. Those properties would be dependent on the situation that is identified in the proposed definition. This change of definition does not change the intent of the term 'proposition' in any way. It just avoids having the concept depend on having a truth value in usages that don't care. (It may be that the proposed definition needs some additional characteristic to distinguish it from a noun concept that corresponds to events, like 'heart attack'. For example, the proposition must be based on one or more fact types and involve things in fact type roles.)
Define ‘proposition’ more clearly while remaining consistent with the existing concept and structural rules. Add a note pointing out that a proposition is true or false regardless of whether its truth value is known or of interest. Modify the definitions of “is true” and “is false” to be consistent with the definition of proposition. Also, add a note that a proposition is true or false independently of whether the state of affairs to which it corresponds has been or will be actual.
Add “a statement of the proposition” as a reference scheme to ‘proposition’, as there is currently no way to identify a proposition except by creating a semantic formulation of it, and the natural language statement is the most people-oriented way to do it.
Problem Statement: "Quantification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.6 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons.
(1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR.
(2) "Quantification" can be used to mean the 'process' of projecting, rather than the result of projection, as usually preferred in SBVR.
(3) "Quantification" should be included in SBVR under its appropriate real-world meaning.
Resolution:
1. Change each instance of "quantification"" in Clause 9.3 and elsewhere to "quantifying formulae"
2. Inspect every other instance of "quantification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a quantifying formulae" or to the process of quantification ("quantifying ), and adjust accordingly.
3. Add a real-world concept definition for "quantification". (It needs to be determined where in SBVR this entry should be included.)
SBVR is clear that a ‘quantification’ is a kind of logical formulation and uses the term consistently. Since there is no ambiguity within the SBVR specification or no significant likelihood of misinterpreting the SBVR specification based on a different widely-used meaning for the term, making such a wide-spread change is not justified.
Any problems regarding another meaning for “quantification” not being included in SBVR requires a separate Issue stating how the SBVR specification is broken.
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Closed, No Change Required
The value of a comprehensive and coherent SBVR example seems to be generally accepted, but there have been some concerns expressed about the size and complexity of the EU-Rent example (Annex E).
Section E.2.2.1.1 Car Movement is a particular problem. It is presented first in the detail of EU-Rent‘s vocabulary but is quite complex. It introduces the idea of ‘car movement’, a component that is used in two different contexts as part of the definition of a rental, and as part of the definition of a logistical car movement made by a EU-Rent employee.
Annex E could be made more digestible, without substantially changing its content, by:
1) Presenting the sections in a different sequence, with sections that introduce simpler ideas presented earlier.
2) Presenting ‘car movement’ in a simpler form
This issue can be resolved alongside Issue 10628: Align Annex E with the normative text.
To avoid delay in updating the SBVR specification, updating EU-Rent to comply with the SBVR Date-Time Vocabulary is outside the scope of this issue, and will be addressed later.
The updated version of Annex E that is attached implements all the points in the above summary of this Issue. Timing permitted the inclusion of the concepts adopted from the Date-Time Vocabulary by this EU-Rent Example.
This updated Annex E aligns with the normative text and has been validated by the same software that is used to import the normative SBVR Structured English text for SBVR and Date-Time Vocabulary specifications and produce their machine readable files.
The reorganization of Annex E so that the concepts build on each other for easier understanding required much movement of vocabulary entries from one part of the Annex to another. Because of this, it is not feasible to present the updates to Annex E as either typical editing instructions or a change-tracked Word document. The moves all show as deletions from the old spot and insertions in the new spot even if the content is not changed
SBVR says (in clause 8.6.2, as of ballot RTF 1 ballot 5) that "Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs." For example, the proposition "each driver of a rental is qualified" (as may be embedded within an obligation statement) corresponds to a single state of affairs in which all drivers of a rental are qualified. Per clause 8.1.2, such a proposition is true or is false according to whether the corresponding state of affairs is actual.
This idea is meaningful to logicians but not to business people. Business users of SBVR will not care about a state of affairs in which "all drivers of a rental are qualified". What is meaningful to business users is the actualities that comprise that state of affairs in this case, whether each driver, taken individually, is qualified. If the overall proposition is false, an immediate question will be, "which driver is not qualified, and why not?"
To support this kind of analysis, SBVR should have a verb concept that relates a proposition to the actualities that make the proposition true or false. The relationship already exists indirectly through the "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2" verb concept introduced by the disposition of issue 16526. The current issue proposes a direct relationship, built on and consistent with "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2", that avoids the need for business users to understand the logician's idea of "proposition corresponds to state of affairs".
see pages 27 - 28 of dtc/2013-07-01
Is a 'boolean variable' a proposition? It is defined to be a variable whose referents are truth values, and I have no idea whether it is a 'meaning'.
I believe 'variable' is used in SBVR in the sense of 'formulaic variable' ... but it's not clear from its definition alone. The point needs to be clarified; otherwise, it will only continue to cause problems. We shouldn't have real-world words being used in a special sense in SBVR
The term “boolean variable” is not used in the SBVR specification.
The concept ‘variable’ is clearly defined in Clause 9 and all the kinds of its referents (instances) is made very clear in the Note in the entry for ‘variable’. The concept ‘variable’ is, of course, a meaning, The instances of the concept ‘variable’ are things in the universe of discourse. Propositions are meanings in an SBVR model.
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Closed, No Change Required
"Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the result of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR.
Resolution:
1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae".
2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly.
3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of results from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification).
Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex).
As per the Issue Summary, the SBVR specification conflates two meanings into one under the signifier “objectification.” This resolution removes the ambiguity and de-conflates the two meanings by adding entries for the second meaning to Clause 11 and making minor adjustments to the related material in the two Annexes. Also, editorial corrections are made to clarify uses of the term ‘objectification’. The changes in the resolution of this Issue are limited to those involving the word “objectification’. Other changes related to “fact type’ and “verb concept’ will be dealt with in another Issue.
SBVR’s explanation of the concept ‘state of affairs’ could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes
The only reason for including ‘state of affairs’ as a concept in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary is to be able to talk about the referent in the universe of discourse (the universe of organization that uses the SBVR Business Vocabulary) of propositions, verb concepts and some kinds of noun concepts.
States of affairs never go in an SBVR Business Vocabulary or Rulebook or even a database. Meanings (via their representation) that correspond to the states of affairs go into SBVR Business Vocabularies as concepts and propositions.
If relationships between states of affairs in the universe of discourse need to be referenced in an SBVR Business Vocabulary or Rulebook, they are entered as relationships between the propositions that correspond to them using Semantic Formulations. SBVR Clause 9 provides full support for relationships between propositions and for referencing states of affairs via closed logical formulations of the propositions that correspond to them.
There is no need to add direct relationships between states of affairs to SBVR.
Revised Text:
No Change
Disposition: No Change
Problem Statement: "Projection" is currently defined in Clause 9.3 to be a semantic formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons.
(1) Semantic formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR.
(2) "Projection" can be used to mean the 'process' of projecting, rather than the result of projection, as usually preferred in SBVR.
(3) "Projection" should be included in SBVR under its appropriate real-world meaning.
Resolution:
1. Change each instance of "projection" in Clause 9.3 to "projecting formulae"
2. Inspect every other instance of "projection" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a projecting formulae" or to the process of projection ("projecting"), and adjust accordingly.
3. Add a real-world concept and definition for "projection" and for "bag" as currently used in "bag projection". (It needs to be determined where in SBVR this entry should be included.)
SBVR is clear that a ‘projection’ is a kind of semantic formulation and uses the term consistently. “Bag projection” has a formal definition in SBVR that is unambiguous as it is. Since there is no ambiguity within the SBVR specification or no significant likelihood of misinterpreting the SBVR specification based on a different widely-used meaning for the term, making such a wide-spread change is not justified.
Any problems regarding another meaning for “projection” not being included in SBVR requires a separate Issue stating how the SBVR specification is broken.
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Closed, No Change Required
Problem Statement:
1. "Aggregation" is currently used on page 47, but as far as I can tell is not defined anywhere. "Aggregation" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD). meaning. What is it meant to be (real-world sense).
2. For consistency, "Aggregation Formulation" should probably be renamed "Aggregating Formulae". See other issues submitted concerning "objectification" and "nominalization".
Resolution:
1. "Aggregation" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning, and included in the appropriate section.
2. Change each instance of "aggregation formulation" in "aggregating formulae".
SBVR is clear that a ‘Aggregation Formulation’ is a kind of logical formulation and uses the term consistently. Also in Clause 9 “aggregation” is used consistently in context in relation to ‘aggregation formulation’. Since there is no ambiguity within the SBVR specification or no significant likelihood of misinterpreting the SBVR specification based on a different widely-used meaning for the term, making such a wide-spread change is not justified.
Any problems regarding another meaning for aggregation not being included in SBVr requires a separate Issue stating how the SBVR specification is broken.
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Closed, No Change Required
Problem Statement: "Nominalization" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.8 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons.
(1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR.
(2) "Nominalization" can be used to mean the 'process' of nominalizing, rather than the result of nomalization, as usually preferred in SBVR.
(3) "Nominalization" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning.
Resolution:
1. Change each instance of "nominalization" in Clause 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 to "nominalizing formulae".
2. Inspect every other instance of "nominalization" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a nominalizing formulae" or to the process of nominalization ("nominalizing"), and adjust accordingly.
***Note: This includes the definition of the critical term "state of affairs" (in the convenience document available as of 8/2011).
3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of results from the process of nominalization, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called nominalization).
Note: It needs to be determined where in SBVR these entries should be included.
SBVR is clear that a ‘nominalization’ is a kind of logical formulation and uses the term consistently. Since there is no ambiguity within the SBVR specification or no significant likelihood of misinterpreting the SBVR specification based on a different widely-used meaning for the term, making such a wide-spread change is not justified.
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Closed, No Change Required
In clause 8.3.4 of SBVR v1.0, the concepts: 'placeholder has starting character position' and 'placeholder uses designation' model the syntax of the non-normative Structured English language described in Annex C of the spec. These may not be properties of the syntax of other vocabulary and rules languages, and are unsuitable for graphical languages.
The abstract syntax of any such language must be that a placeholder is an expression and must be unique within the fact type form. These requirements should be stated in the definition of placeholder. The placeholder expression is a designation for the role that is used only in definitions of the fact type, and its forms and roles.
The idea of its "character position" is meaningless in graphical languages. The idea specified in 'placeholder uses designation' is a language convention that is not consistently used in SBVR and may well be different in other languages. The semantics of that syntactic construct is captured by 'role ranges over object type' in 8.1.1. Any convention for the syntax used by a tool is out of scope for SBVR. Therefore, both of these fact types should be deleted from the normative specification.
The use of a starting character position to locate a placeholder within a fact type form is meaningful only for fact type forms whose expressions are sequences of characters. Business vocabularies are generally defined using such expressions and so are SBVR’s own vocabularies. However, fact types can be represented by expressions that are not sequences of characters. SBVR provides a reference scheme only for placeholders in fact type forms that are sequences of characters. SBVR does not prohibit use of other reference schemes for placeholders, nor does it prohibit nontextual fact type forms.
The text is revised to add clarifying notes regarding textual fact type forms. Also, the definition of ‘placeholder uses designation’ is modified.
The concept in SBVR Clause 8.1.1 defined as:
“concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities”
has as its preferred term the signifier “fact type” This signifier, “fact type,” badly represents this concept and its definition. It is an example of bad term formation practice and is causing great confusion in the interpretation of the SBVR specification by contradicting the definition.
Good term formation practice results in the best word or phrase that quickly and most reliably brings to mind the definition of the concept.
In addition, this same signifier, “fact type,” is used as the term for a quite difference concept in Clause 10; thereby further increasing confusion in the SBVR specification.
Recommended Resolution:
Remove “fact type” as a term for the concept in SBVR Clause 8.1.1 that it currently represents, and replace it with the signifier “actuality type” as that is what the definition is defining.
The ambiguity referred to in this issue is that 'fact type':
1. is defined in Clause 8 as "concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities"
2. is used in Clause 10 with a different meaning - not formally defined, but used in the text with the meaning 'kind of facts e.g. “Employee works for Department”' (in parentheses in paragraph 3 of 10.1.1.2).
When Terry Halpin was asked recently to clarify the Clause 10 meaning, he responded "A fact type is the set of all possible facts of interest, using "fact" in the sense that I gave you. In logical terms, a fact type corresponds to a set of one or more typed predicates, where I use 'predicate' in a semantic sense, rather than a syntactic sense (i.e. predicate reading)."
In RTF discussion there has been some resistance to removing the signifier 'fact type' from either the SBVR metamodel (Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12, 13) or from Clause 10. If we follow SBVR's own guidance, the signifiers for the two meanings of 'fact type' need disambiguation, such as 'fact type (actualities)' and 'fact type (facts)'.
The resolution is:
1. Remove the ambiguity from the term “fact type” and ‘object type’ (Clause 10: ‘ type of individual’) as currently used in Clause 8 and Clause 10 by distinguishing ‘verb concept’ and ‘fact type’:
a. Remove ambiguity surrounding the difference between the Clause 8 entry currently having the signifier “fact type’ with the Clause 10 concept ‘fact type’:
i. In Clause 8 remove ambiguity surrounding the ‘fact type’ entry.
ii. In Clause 10.1.2.1: create a formal definition of 'fact type'. based on Terry's input (as above); continuing to use 'fact type' as the signifier throughout Clause 10.
b. Remove ambiguity surrounding the difference between the Clause 8 entry currently having the signifier “object type’ with the Clause 10 concept ‘fact type’:
i. In Clause 8: make 'general concept' the primary term and use 'general concept' in place of “object type” as the signifier throughout Clauses 1-9 and 11-13.
ii. In Clause 10.1.2.1: create a formal definition of 'object type'. based on wording in Clause 10.1.1.2 for “type of individual”; continuing to use 'object type' as the signifier throughout Clause 10 in place of “type of individual”.
2. Describe the relationship between ‘verb concept’ in Clause 8 and ‘fact type’ in Clause 10 and between ‘general concept’ in Clause 8 and ‘type of individual’ in Clause 10 at an overview level of detail. Create a spin-off Issue to add a subclause to Subclause 10.1.1 to discuss to an appropriate level of detail all aspects of the relationship between the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 and the formal interpretation in Subclause 10.1.1, as well as removing ambiguity from Clause 10.1.1 by consistent use of terms intension, extension, fact population, and the set of all possible facts..
3. Revise introductory text for Clause 10 and in Subclause 10.1.1.1 to make it clear that Clause 10 is not part of the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12, and has the purpose of providing formal interpretation / semantics for the concepts in SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12.
4. Create a spin-off Issue to correct the existing definitions in Clause 10.1.2.1
5. Update SBVR Scope-related Statements (un-styled use of “fact”)
6. Create a separate spin-off Issue to deal with the point about “defining that Clause 10 ‘fact models’ are by default closed world models”.
In 11.2.1 we have an entry for something termed 'fact type role designation' – its definition says that it is a "designation that represents a fact type role and that is not a placeholder " (See diagram, below.) There is nothing beyond a Definition for this concept.
This entry doesn't make sense. I recommend it be dropped. (Or, if someone does see some usefulness for it, then please augment it with some notes and examples.)
Revise the definition of ‘fact type role designation’ and add structural rules, notes and an example. Also, correct a problem in the XML example of a fact type role designation which mistakenly showed the fact type role designation as being a term. A clarification to the representation of multiclassification in models is added.
Clause 8.7 introduces the idea of set and cardinality in order to support 'at least n' and 'at most n' constraint concepts. 'set' is defined to be an unordered collection of zero or more things. Marking 'set' a formal logic concept "FL" raises the issue of identity of things. Cardinality of a set is defined as "the number of distinct elements in the set, The definition of 'set' should also refer to 'distinct' or 'distinguished' things. The ability to distinguish makes it possible to determine the truth value of 'thing is in set' for an arbitrary thing.
The 'set' entry should probably also include a Note, such as:
Note: The means of distinguishing things as elements of a set is dependent on the kind of thing and the viewpoint taken in constructing each kind of set. Reference schemes may be used in this regard. Where the SBVR specification defines concepts that are 'sets', the defined reference scheme is used to distinguish elements.
The issue of distinguishing elements of a set is complex. The easier solution is the one chosen in clause 10, to define a set as a collection of things “without regard to ordering or repetition”.
The definition of cardinality will be corrected to match the definition of ‘set has cardinality’, and a form of the recommended Note will be added.
In SBVR clause 8.7, the terms 'quantity' and 'number' are marked as "FL", which means that they are formal logic concepts that are defined in Clause 10. The same is true of 'quantity equals quantity' and 'quantity is less than quantity'. Formal logic does not deal with physical quantities – there is a whole science for that. And formal logic per se does not deal with numbers other than non-negative integers. The 'signed integer' concept is part of a specific mathematical theory. There is not, and should not be, any definition of these concepts in Clause 10. The FL marks should be removed.
Further, these concepts should not be part of the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, although they are useful business concepts that might be appropriate in Clause 11. Nonnegative integer is needed for the 'cardinality' concept; 'positive integer' is used in quantifications. 'Positive integer' is misused to represent an ordinal concept in 'starting character position' and as an identifier convention for instances of 'variable'.
The RTF agrees that ‘quantity’ and ‘number’ are not formal logic concepts. The ‘FL’ designation will be removed.
While these concepts are not used in the normative text, they are used in examples, and there is no particular reason to delete them from the adopted specification. Since the “is less than” and “is equal to” fact types are used in the normative text, and integer inherits these usages, moving the concepts is not a simple matter. So this part of the issue will result in no change.
The use of ‘positive integer’ in ‘starting character position’ will be raised as a separate issue
SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere.
Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended).
Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number".
So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers – ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' – but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification.
Add clarification into the normative part of clause 13.2.7 regarding use of the ISO 6093 Number Namespace to identify numbers. Also, clarify the conformance requirements for an SBVR processor by stating they include the ability to accept the clause 15.3 SBVR exchange documents, which include the XML document that describes the 6093 Number Namespace. This is not a new requirement because it is implicit in an existing requirement.
The following wording was captured as part of the Issue 13716 notes, as part of some wording agreed in a long-ago meeting:
From the meeting discussion notes on this Issue, the wording below was the agreed for the change instruction to Clause 8:
This change has raised some concerns and, since it is not directly a part of the Resolution to Issue 13716, it needs to be its own issue.
Change the wording of the definition of Clause 8 ‘fact type’ to make it absolutely clear that each Clause 8 fact type is a category of the concept ‘actuality’.
11.1.5.1 Kinds of Fact Type
Problem Statement
[Verb concept] templating could be interpreted to mean that SBVR gives templates for fact types, but that is not really the case.
Template or 'templating' fails to accurately convey that the section is simply listing the common business-facing kinds of fact types practitioners would regularly want to define.
Template or 'templating' connotes purpose, but a good name for a concept should indicate only essence.
Proposed Resolution
Note
I the interest of moving forward with RTF work, I could live with synonyms for any use of "template" or "templating" in this section.
Resolved by the Resolution of Issue 13716.
Problem:
In clause 14.3, page 193, the example XML is wrong because it relates roles to the objectTypes ranged over using <sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2> instead of <sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType> as required in the remainder of the specification, as shown in the diagram on page 192, and as shown in the "XML Patterns for Fact Types" in clause 13.6.4. I believe this is an editorial error that remains from when the SBVR FTF created the "role ranges over object type" verb concept.
Also, the <sbvr:factType> element should be <sbvr:binaryFactType> and the <sbvr:designation> element should be <sbvr:factSymbol>
On page 192, in the diagram, the box labelled ": fact type" should instead be labelled ": binary fact type", and the box labelled ": designation" (the one that is connected to the text box with "value=appoints") should instead be labelled ": fact symbol".
Proposed Resolution:
Update the diagram on page 192 as follows:
See this screen shot to identify the boxes that should be updated:
Make these changes to the example XML on page 193:
<sbvr:factType xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/> --> <sbvr:binaryFactType xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/>
<sbvr:designation xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/> --> <sbvr:factSymbol xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="cao-r1" concept2="company-c"/> --> <sbvr:RangesOverObjectType role="cao-r1" objectType="company-c"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="cao-r2" concept2="officer-c"/> --> <sbvr:RangesOverObjectType role="cao-r2" objectType="officer-c"/>
The example is revised as proposed. However, the <sbvr:designation> element is not replaced with <sbvr:factSymbol> to avoid introducing a clause 11 concept into the example.
SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly. This omission should be corrected because "property" is a term used naturally by business people and business analysts. SBVR should own up to any term used commonly in the real world to form concepts and organize vocabulary.
Resolution:
Add the term "property" to Clause 11, defined as:
Property: thing playing a role in a fact wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact
Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD property]
Necessity: The fact must be for a binary fact type.
Example: In 'George was born on 22 February 1732', '22 Feb 1732' plays the role "birthdate", but "birth date" is a property of the person 'George'. The role has a range (date); the property has an owner (person).
Example: "ceiling" denotes a property of a room and a property of an aircraft, two different properties of two distinct things
An entry defining ‘property’ is needed to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpreting the signifier “property” as it is used in SBVR.
This is especially important because the SBVR meaning of “property” is different from the meaning of “property” and “attribute” is used in UML, E/R and other data/structure models
In clause 9.2.8, on page 71, the first example under "noun concept nominalization" is incomplete. The text says "In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’. " However, the formulation shown is missing the use of that fact type. Proposed resolution:
Revise the example to read as follows. New/changed text indicated in red.
Example: EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.”
In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’.
The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification.
. The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300.
. The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘kiloliter’.
. The quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept 'type'
. . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization.
. . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable.
. . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . . The projection is on a third variable.
. . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘petrol’.
. . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type ‘company stores thing’.
. . . . The ‘company’ role is bound to the individual concept ‘EU-Rent’.
. . . . The ‘thing’ role is bound to the first variable.
. The at-least-n quantification is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type 'quantity is of type'
. . . The 'quantity' role is bound to the first variable.
. . . The 'type' role is bound to the second variable.
(an alternate, and perhaps better, formulation would move the existential quantification of 'type' to the start)
Revise the example to read as follows. New/changed text indicated in red.
Example: EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.”
In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’.
The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification.
. The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300.
. The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘kiloliter’.
. The quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept 'type'
. . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization.
. . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable.
. . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . . The projection is on a third variable.
. . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘petrol’.
. . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type ‘company stores thing’.
. . . . The ‘company’ role is bound to the individual concept ‘EU-Rent’.
. . . . The ‘thing’ role is bound to the first variable.
. The at-least-n quantification is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type 'quantity is of type'
. . . The 'quantity' role is bound to the first variable.
. . . The 'type' role is bound to the second variable.
(an alternate, and perhaps better, formulation would move the existential quantification of 'type' to the start)
The restriction of the definition of “business rule” to include only those rules that “the semantic community can opt to change or discard” is inappropriate.
The SBVR definition of “rule statement” (“a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule”) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason.
The quoted phrase in the first sentence above is from the Note for 'business rule' rather than its Definition clause.
After discussion it was decided to improve the text of that Note to clarify the relationship between regulation/law ('external' to an organization) and the organization's own business rules:
In the Note for the 'business rule' entry, add a reference to the Business Motivation Model [BMM], which has more to say about how regulations/laws relate to business rules and add clarifying examples and narrative.
The definition of rule statement needs no change since, by definition, there are no operative rules that are not business rules.
Assortment fact types are not even fact types but facts since they make assertions about instances, “Graham Witt is a man” is of the same ilk as “Graham Witt is a citizen of Australia” (i.e. a fact).
This was corrected in the Resolution of Issue 13716.
Revised Text:
None needed.
Disposition: No Change
One of the example fact types provided in section 11.1.5.2 under “is-role-of fact type” is “rental car plays the role ‘replacement car’ in the fact type ‘breakdown during rental has replacement car’.” with the comment that “An instance of the fact type would be a particular breakdown during a particular rental having a particular replacement car.” I have a few concerns with this:
1. some of the text in this fact type should be in verb style
2. the underlining in ‘replacement car’ should be continuous both times
3. trying to instantiate the fact type produces something like “(The car registered) ’ABC123’ plays the role ‘replacement car’ in the fact type ‘breakdown during rental has replacement car’.” if we assume that underlined strings inside single quotes are not placeholders, while “(The car registered) ’ABC123’ plays the role ‘replacement car’ in the ??? ‘Breakdown #1234 has replacement car’.” is a more reasonable fact, except that a) this involves inconsistent handling of underlined strings inside single quotes, and b) ‘Breakdown #1234 has replacement car’ is neither a fact nor a fact type.
4. from this I deduce that the example seems to be a fact about the model rather than a fact type from which facts about EU-Rent can be generated
5. to support the latter argument, the EU-Rent examples in section E.1.4 has no ‘is-role-of’ fact types but does have ‘related facts’ such as “The noun concept 'return branch' is a role that ranges over the noun concept 'branch.’”.
"Is-role-of fact type" was revised as part of the Resolution of Issue 13716. Discussion of this issue identified some changes needed in the wording of the examples. (Details below.)
For the concerns specifically stated in the issue Summary:
1. This Example applies the conventions used for an Example clause, i.e., verbs do not have any special styling in examples.
2. The underlining was corrected to be continuous.
3. This concept is no longer a kind of fact type so this point is no longer applicable.
4. This concept is now a kind of proposition (fact about the model).
5. The examples in Annex E are being revised to reflect changes made under Issue 13716 (et al).
Note: The title of this issue also mentions "is-category-of fact type" but nothing on this was included in the issue detail. In any case, "is-category-of fact type" was also revised as part of the Resolution of Issue 13716.
Summary:
There are two minor editorial issues regarding the verb concept "closed projection defines noun concept" in clause 9.3
1. In figure 9.12 on page 77 of the adopted specification and on page 79 of the ballot 3 convenience document, the verb concept is shown as "closed projection defines object type", rather than "... noun concept". Any noun concept should be definable this way, not just object types. The text is right and the graphic is wrong.
2. In the Acrobat Reader "Bookmarks" tab of the ballot 3 convenience document, the verb concept is shown as a sub-entry under "logical formulation constrains projection", rather than as a separate entry (as for "closed projection defines fact type". The problem occurs only in the convenience document, not in the formal adopted specification. See attached screen shot.
Suggested Resolution:
1. Change the figure to match the text.
2. Fix the bookmark tab entry.
1. Fix Figure 9.12 as recommended to make the figure consistent with the text.
2. The problem with the bookmark tab entry is not a problem in the adopted specification. However, the problem will be corrected.
Line 58 of the MeaningAndRepresentation-Model.xml file reads as follows:
<ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Class" name="object type" xmi:id="objectType" superClass="concept"/>
The "superClass" attribute says that an Object Type is a kind of "Concept". This is inconsistent with clause 8.1.1, which defines 'Object Type' as a kind of 'Noun Concept'. This inconsistency causes problems (for example) when populating the "nounConcept=" attribute of the XMI tag <sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesNounConcept> because only a nounConcept can be referenced by this attribute, and an objectType is not a kind of NounConcept.
Proposed resolution:
Change line 58 of the MeaningAndRepresentation-Model.xml file to read:
<ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Class" name="object type" xmi:id="objectType" superClass="nounConcept"/>
--------------------------------
Correct the XML file to match the normative text
The example fact type in section 11.1.5.1 under “is-property-of fact type” is “engine size is property of car model” yet the examples in Annex E do not have this form. Further if one tries to instantiate this fact type, one gets something like “351 cubic inches is property of Holden Marina” which misses essential information. I believe that ‘is-property-of’ fact types should each have the 2 forms “engine size of car model is cubic measurement”/“car model has engine size of cubic measurement” allowing for instantiations such as “engine size of Holden Marina is 351 cubic inches”/“Holden Marina has engine size of 351 cubic inches”.
"Is-property-of fact type" was revised in the Resolution of Issue 13716.
Specifically, the concept 'property association' (formerly 'is-property-of fact type') now gives these as examples:
Example: the association 'engine size of car model'
Example: the association 'person has eye color'
The concept 'engine size' handles, as needed, appropriate units-of-measure as part of its definition. For example, here is a typical definition of 'engine size':
Engine size: volume swept by all the pistons inside the cylinders of an internal combustion engine in a single movement from top dead centre (TDC) to bottom dead centre (BDC) [Engine size is commonly specified in cubic centimeters (cc), litres (l), or cubic inches (cid).]
Example instances of engine size could be: 61 cid (cubic inches), 151 cid, 351 cid, etc. And an example fact could be "The car model 'Buick' has the engine size '151 cid'." Alternatively, this could be expressed as "The car model 'Buick' has an engine size '2.5 liter'." since '151 cid' and '2.5 liter' are alternative expressions of the same engine size value.
The examples in Annex E are being revised to reflect changes made under Issue 13716 (et al).
Revised Text:
None needed.
Disposition: No Change
Title: What is a fact type form?
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.0
Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov
Summary:
In SBVR, clause 8.3.4, 'fact type form' has the definition:
"representation of a fact type by a pattern or template of expressions based on the fact type".
According to clause 8.3(.0), 'representation' is "actuality that a given expression represents a given meaning". Is "a pattern or template of expressions" an "expression"? According to 8.2, a 'signifier' is "expression that is a linguistic unit or pattern [of sounds or symbols]". So apparently there are expressions that are patterns and they can be signifiers.
Per 8.3.1, designation is the "representation of a concept by a sign", and a fact type is a concept, so it may have a representation that is a designation. But the UML diagram shows that a fact type form is not a designation. So presumably a 'pattern or template of expressions' is not a 'sign'. But a signifier, which is a pattern, must be a 'sign', because it is the expression that participates in a designation. But the expression of a fact type form is apparently not a signifier, since only designations have a 'signifier' role, and a fact type form is not a designation. The inconsistency in the terminology, and the failure to make clear parallels and distinctions, is very confusing.
It seems that the idea here is that an 'expression' can be a structure of individual sub-expressions, and that, in representing a fact type, the structure and the sub-expressions play distinct roles in the "actuality" of representing the fact type. This means that at least this idea of structured expressions should be described in clause 8.2, as a kind of expression more interesting than "text".
It appears to be the intent that a fact type form expression always has a structure with representation sub-behaviors. Is that what distinguishes a fact-type form from a designation? The text is completely silent as to what the delimiting characteristic is.
The remaining question then is: what kind of representation is exemplified in a terminological entry for a fact type in the SBVR vocabulary itself? E.g., is "designation has signifier" a designation for a fact type or a fact type form for it? (According to the UML diagram it cannot possibly be both.) And if the latter, does an SBVR fact type not actually have a designation? More confusion.
Recommendation:
1. Define the concept that is "pattern or template of expressions" in 8.2
2. Use these structure concepts to define the nature of a fact type form in 8.3.4. For example, a placeholder is a sub-expression.
3. Specify the distinguishing characteristic of a fact-type form that makes it different from a designation.
4. Specify what the vocabulary entries for fact types are: fact-type forms or fact-type designations.
1. A fact type form is a model of some surface syntax that represents the fact type as a set of grammatical elements. As such the details of a fact type form are irrelevant to the intent of SBVR. Thus, the model in SBVR should involve only those “abstract syntax” elements that are common to all such representations.
2. A fact type form is not a designation it is a grammatically structured expression serving as a pattern for usage of the fact type designation in some language. A designation for a fact type is a term or symbol that has business meaning, is a vocabulary entry, and may occur in a number of different fact type form structures for the fact type. The designation’ signifier can also be a signifier of designations of other fact types. A fact type form is a usage pattern for a language in which definitions, facts and rules are stated. The text will be revised to make this clear.
3. The glossary headings for fact types in SBVR itself are fact type forms. As specified in Annex C, each terminological entry for a fact type gives a designation for the fact type and the concepts that determine the context in which the signifier of that designation represents that fact type. The text will be revised to make this clear.
4. In order to define ‘fact type form’ as a kind of representation, the text will be revised to refer to an expression that involves signifiers for the fact type and its roles. The modeling of expression syntax is out of scope.
A number of the definitions in this subsection are incomprehensible, and not well integrated with the rest of the SBVR vocabulary. These definitions center on: assortment fact type, categorization fact type, is-role-of fact type, and is-facet-of fact type. Also, these concepts are defined as kinds of "fact types", but should actually be defined as kinds of facts. Finally, the order of the entries needs adjustment as a result of the above.
The four items being changed from kinds of 'fact type' to kinds of 'fact' ('proposition') under this proposal were always intended to characterize 'fact', but since these are meta-facts (having the appearance of fact types) people mistook them for fact types and wrote them up as such. This proposal corrects that error. In summary, this proposal:
Makes the necessary changes to correct the entries for assortment fact type, categorization fact type, is-role-of fact type, and is-facet-of fact type from being specified as 'fact type' to 'fact' (kinds of 'proposition').
Fills a gap in the Scheme by adding two categories that had inadvertantly been left out ('characteristic' and 'characterization').
Adds a fact type to relate 'facet' to 'concept' (in parallel to what is in place to relate 'role' to 'concept')
Makes minor styling corrections throughout 11.1.5, in particular in the Examples.
Please see attached Word document for Issue details.
This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions:
1. Sub-clause 8.5 is, for all practical purposes, disconnected from the rest of Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 in that the terms (i.e. conceptual schema, fact model) defined in Sub-clause 8.5 are hardly used at all in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12, and none of those uses are styled.
Conversely Clause 10.1.1 “SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation” (as well as the non-normative Annex L: “A Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the NIAM2007 Procedure to Specify a Conceptual Schema”) makes high use of the terms defined Sub-clause 8.5.
The vocabulary entries in Sub-clause 8.5 are moved to the context where they are used normatively i.e. in Clause 10.
2. Clarify that the uses of “conceptual schema” and “fact model” in Clause 2 “Conformance” refer to their use in Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI”.
3. Make clear that the uses of “conceptual schema” and “fact model” in Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI” are as defined in Sub-clause 10.1.2.1
4. Clarify that the Sub-clause 8.6.2 necessities are about the distinction between what is in the SBVR model and what is the Universe of Discourse of the SBVR Model
The fact type "role ranges over object type " appears in section 8.1.1. As defined – due to the "open world" aspect of SBVR – it appears that a role can range over multiple object types, which does not make much sense. But if you look at the MeaningAndRepresentation-model.xml file, you will find confirmation that a role can range over multiple object types.
This has a downstream impact in the MDT-SBVR open source Eclipse project, where the .xml file is converted directly to an EMF model and a matching Java implementation. The API for setting an instance of this fact type permits each role to range over multiple object types. This has two impacts: (a) adds complexity to the API; (b) forces tool vendors to try to figure out the semantics of one role that ranges over multiple object types.
Either the specification should explain what it means for a role to range over multiple object types, or it should introduce a Necessity: "each role ranges over exactly one object type".
Add a clarifying note to the entry for ‘role ranges over object type’.
Clause 8.1.1
Concept: individual concept
The Definition of 'individual concept' is:
concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]
The Note says:
"each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds"
"Corresponds to only one object" (in any possible world) is not at all the same thing as "corresponds to exactly one and the same object in all possible worlds". One of the definition and the Note should be corrected. I would prefer changing the definition to match the note.
Note also that changing the definition means that "the President of the United States" is an 'individual concept' that denotes an office, but not a person. And the concept "the person who is President of the United States" is not an 'individual concept'.
Change the definition to match the note
p. 150 (PDF p. 162), Clause 11.2.1.2,
to the entry for 'fact type form incorporates fact symbol':
Add the following caption, to appear after the current Synonymous Form caption:
Synonymous Form: fact type form demonstrates designation
using term styling where underlined (above) and verb styling for italics (above)
Also, on this same page, there is a typo in the Definition caption under the entry for 'fact symbol':
In 'fact type form' (which ends the Definition) the first space needs to be underlined i.e., apply term styling to the space.
Replace the Definition of the Clause 11 fact type with a See caption. The fact type is a synonymous form for 'fact type form demonstrates designation', and its Definition is therefore redundant.
Also, in the definition of ‘fact symbol’, correct the typo and make the definition fully formal, using 'fact type form demonstrates designation'.
attached is a dcument containing SBVR typos
These SBVR types are all well within the boundary of edit corrections, and therefore no Issue needed to be raised to make these edit fixes.
Revised Text:
None
Disposition: Closed No Change
SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:
Some issues:
3) A terminological dictionary should be able to incorporate other
terminological dictionaries, as with "vocabulary incorporates vocabulary".
Otherwise, we cannot structure terminological dictionaries in parallel with
vocabularies
In SBVR vocabularies are lists of designations and fact type forms. Vocabularies are packaging containers for SBVR business ontologies that are designed for particular audiences and/or uses. Vocabularies may be assembled from other vocabularies using the fact type vocabulary1 incorporates vocabulary2.
Terminological Dictionaries are terminological products that incorporate facts for related SBVR concepts, such as definitions, synonyms, and examples.
The content of a terminological dictionary is determined by a vocabulary:
terminological dictionary presents vocabulary
Definition: the terminological dictionary sets forth representations related to the designations and fact type forms of the vocabulary
Since there can be many vocabularies for (groupings of) a given speech communities designations and fact type forms and since vocabularies are oriented to audience / use, full modular capability is currently available for any terminological dictionary via terminological dictionary presents vocabulary and vocabulary1 incorporates vocabulary2. All that need be done is to define a vocabulary whose sole purpose is to specify the designations and fact type forms for a given terminological dictionary. If other vocabulary contents are desired in the terminological dictionary, all that has to be done is to add another “included” vocabulary to the terminological dictionary’s vocabulary.
Conclusion: no additional SBVR function is needed to provide the desired capability.
In section 9.2.8, on page 70, the example for "aggregation formulation"
introduces several variables. All but one of the introduced variables is
specifed as ranging over some concept. For example, ". . . . The second
variable ranges over the concept ânumberâ."
My issue: there is no corresponding "ranges over" line for the third
variable. It is true (per 9.2.1) that variables need not range over any
concept. But this example would be clearer if the "ranges over" line were
included for that third variable.
I believe this third variable is supposed to range over the concept 'set'.
Add to the example, a line indicating that the third variable ranges over the concept ‘set’.
Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that
"characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that
"General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate.
Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic
type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a
city branch ...."
Correct the entries for categorization type and characteristic type to reflect that categorization type is a special kind of concept type, and characteristic type is a specialized kind of categorization type. Also, update the discussion in Annex D that explains/illustrates these concepts.
SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:
Some issues:
4) A rulebook should have a URI, so that the rulebook can be addressed over
the Internet.
Add “rulebook has URI” in clause 11.2.2.4.
The final XMI Schema for SBVR serialization is not correct for Associations, as required by the XMI 2.1.1 specification. An implementation that produces a valid XMI serialization will be judged as invalid, according to the SBVR.xsd. This is a critical bug. I have created an SBVR implementation using Eclipse EMF, based on the final SBVR cmof model. An example model serialization from EMF is attached, as test.sbvr. In it, each model element includes an xmi:id attribute. However, the SBVR.xsd does not allow this id on types derived from cmof Association. >From XMI v2.1.1, p. 49, the AssnAtts must include all XMIFixedAttribs 7. AssociationDef ::= "<xsd:element name='"' 7a:AssnElmtName '"'>" "<xsd:complexType> <xsd:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'>" 7b:AssnContents "</xsd:choice>" 7d:AssnAtts "</xsd:complexType> </xsd:element>" 7a. AssnElmtName ::= 1c:Namespace //Name of association// 7b. AssnContents ::= 7c:AssnEndDef 7c:AssnEndDef 4c:Extension 7c. AssnEndDef ::= "<xsd:element" "name='" //Name of association end// "'>" "<xsd:complexType>" 1g:XMIFixedAttribs "</xsd:complexType>" "</xsd:element>" 7d. AssnAtts ::= 1g:XMIFixedAttribs And, from p. 44, the XMIFixedAttribs 1g. XMIFixedAttribs ::= ( "<xsd:attribute ref='xmi:id'" "use='optional'>" | "<attribute name='" //Id attrib name// "'" "type='xsd:ID' use='optional'") "<xsd:attributeGroup ref='xmi:ObjectAttribs'/>"
Add the following two lines into the xs:complexType of the SBVR XML schemas for each association of the SBVR metamodel.
<xs:attribute ref="xmi:id"/>
<xs:attributeGroup ref="xmi:ObjectAttribs"/>
mismatch between diagram where speech community is associated with exactly one semantic community but 07-09-04 version of the XMI/CMOF has speech community mapping to multiple semantic community e.g. <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Association" name="semantic community has speech community" xmi:id="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity" memberEnd="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.semanticCommunity semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.speechCommunity"> <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" name="semantic community" xmi:id="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.semanticCommunity" type="semanticCommunity" lower="0" upper=""/> <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" name="speech community" xmi:id="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.speechCommunity" type="speechCommunity" lower="0" upper=""/> </ownedMember>
The SBVR XMI file referenced is not the current published 1.0 version. The current 1.0 version is correct. This is not an Issue.
Revised Text:
None
Disposition: Closed, No Change Required
'Vocabulary' is defined in clause 11.1.3 as "set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings ".
'Rulebook' is defined in clause 11.2.4 as "the set of representations determined by a given speech community to represent in its language all meanings in its body of shared meanings ".
How does 'vocabulary' relate to 'rulebook'? When would an SBVR tool vendor use one or the other? The specification should either explain why it defines both these two concepts and when one would use one versus the other.
--------------------------------
A vocabulary contains only designations, whereas a rulebook contains all representations (designations, definitions, notes, examples, etc.) A rulebook may also include representations of the elements of guidance in a body of shared guidance. A terminological dictionary contains representations of only terminology.
The issue is addressed by adding clarifying informative text to the specification.
The note under "state of affairs" reads:
"A state of affairs can be possible or impossible. Some of the possible ones are actualities. A state of affairs is what is denoted by a proposition. A state of affairs either occurs or does not occur, whereas a proposition is either true or false. A state of affairs is not a meaning. It is a thing that exists and can be an instance of a concept, even if it does not happen. "
Although unstyled, the use of "denoted by" is likely to confuse readers. The fact symbol "denotes" is used in clause 11.2.1.3 in the fact type "term denotes thing ". But a proposition is not a term, so this fact type is not what is meant in the note. The note is trying to use a passive version of "meaning corresponds to thing" from clause 8.6.1.
Proposed resolution:
1. Add a synonymous form to "meaning corresponds to thing" such as "thing is meant by meaning".
2. Revise the note under "state of affairs" to use the new synonymous form and style the wording to make clear the reference to this formal SBVR concept.
1. Add a synonymous form to "meaning corresponds to thing" such as "thing is meant by meaning".
2. Revise the note under "state of affairs" to use the new synonymous form and style the wording to make clear the reference to this formal SBVR concept.Resolution:
A Note for Is-Facet-of Fact (Type) currently reads: "A given community may choose to include only one facet." The Note could be read as a rule: It is permitted that a given community include only one facet." The Note should probably read: A given community may choose to include any number of facets, including just one or none at all.
Change the Note to read: “A given community may choose to include any number of facets, including just one or none at all.”
The signifier "fact model" should never be used in SBVR to include behavioral (deontic) elements of guidance. That usage makes no sense to business people, who would not expect anything labeled "fact[s]" to include rules. The origin of the idea meant by "fact model" and "conceptual model" predates any handling of deontic elements of guidance. In other words, deontic elements of guidances were not anticipated or treated by earlier approaches. We are just now catching up to the problem. The current definition of "fact model" (and "conceptual model") is: "combination of a conceptual schema and, for one possible world, a set of facts (defined by semantic formulations using only the concepts of the conceptual schema)". The resolution of this issue must involve at least the following: 1. Selection of a new signifier for the meaning expressed by the above definition. As a strawman, I would propose "Possible World Model". That sounds like something of concern to (only) tool engineers, which is appropriate, since the notion would not interest business people. 2. To suit the signifiers "fact model" and "conceptual model" the current definition must be modified to exclude facts pertaining to deontic elements of guidance. 3. All appearances of these signifiers in SBVR must be reviewed to determine which concept was actually meant. The meaning then given for the signifiers "fact model" and "conceptual model" is one that would be important to business people. If not significant for clause 8 (or 9 or 10), it can be moved to clause 11.
With ‘fact model’ (and ‘conceptual model’) moved to Clause 10 (Issue 13138), the confusion that came from the use of “fact model” is removed. (The definition and uses of “fact model” and ‘conceptual model’ are now all contained within the Clause 10 material, which is where these terms are used.)
This Resolution adds the synonym ‘concept model’ to the existing concept 'body of shared concepts" to provide a business-friendly term
Title: Model expression structure
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.0
Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov
Summary:
SBVR clause 8.2 defines 'starting character position' as a means of reference to a substring of a Text object. And the definition of placeholder in clause 8.3.4 treats the placeholder as a syntactic substring that is identified by its starting character position.
This is a junior programmer model of expressions – a poor PSM – and it doesn't work reliably for a number of surface languages.
The idea is that the unspecified representation of a concept may involve an expression that has a syntactic structure. Since SBVR has no idea what that syntactic structure is (because it belongs to an undefined surface language for which SBVR is the metamodel), it must define a general model of expressions sufficient to support the idea that a placeholder is a subexpression, and has a surface-language-defined means of identification.
Recommendation:
In 8.2, Delete 'starting character position'. Replace it with a model of expressions that makes clear the point at which surface-language grammar and orthography determine the technical structure of the expressions.
In 8.3.4, delete all references to 'starting character position' in the entry for 'placeholder', and replace them with references to the structural concepts (to be) defined in 8.2.
In 8.3.4, delete 'placeholder has starting character position' and replace it with a relationship to a structural concept (to be) defined in 8.2.
The issue is resolved by the resolution to Issue 13802, which adds a caveat to the section on fact type forms:
The elements defined here are intentionally minimal and may or may not be adequate for specific languages.
It is not intended that the scope of SBVR expand to include language structure.
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Resolved
Title: Definition of signifier
Specification: SBVR
Version: 1.0
Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov
Summary:
SBVR clause 8.2 defines 'signifier' to be a role in a 'designation'.
But the concept 'designation' is defined in 8.3.1.
Recommendation:
Move the entry for 'signifier' to 8.3.1, where it is used.
Move the glossary entry for 'signifier' from 8.2 to 8.3.1, with no text change.
'Actuality' is a specialization of 'state of affairs'.
Clause 8 says:
fact type (synonym: verb concept): concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities
There are other instances of fact type that need to be accommodated, such as:
§ states of affairs that are planned to become actualities
§ states of affairs that might be actualities, but the semantic community does not yet know for sure
Instances of a fact type should be states of affairs.
Clause 8 ‘fact type’ has been renamed ‘verb concept’
1. Change the definition of ‘verb concept’ to specialize the concept ‘state of affairs’ to make it possible to structure propositions that are not known to correspond to actualities without having to use objectifications.
2. Separate the concept of verb concept as a structure of roles and a verb phrase from the more specific concpet of a verb concept with at least one open role (how it has always been understood in SBVR) to clarify ambiguity and support the addition of Unitary Verb Concept and Individual Verb Concept.
According to our observations, more than 95% of all business applications operate under the closed world assumption and the state of affairs interpretation. In order to give other approaches (standards) the option to work with SBVR, it is proposed to offer the following: for each fact type one of the following combinations can be selected:
1. Closed world assumption; state of affairs interpretation
2. Closed world assumption; actuality interpretation
3. Open world assumption; state of affairs interpretation
4. Open world assumption; actuality interpretation.
For convenience it is recommended to add the following four meta fact types:
1. The population of all fact types in <conceptual schema> is considered <closed_or_open>
2. The population of all fact types in <conceptual schema> is considered <state-of-affairs_or_actuality>
3. The population of <fact type> is considered <closed_or_open>
4. The population of <fact type> is considered <state-of-affairs_or_actuality>
Note that a fact type overrides a conceptual schema specification. Note that there is a business rule that for each fact type it holds that it can have only one value of closed_or_open and one value of state-of-affairs_or_actuality.
SBVR works with all business applications that are based on business vocabularies and rules, regardless of open/closed assumptions and regardless of whether fact models are interpreted as representing the real world or as representing hypothetical worlds.
Closed world assumption SBVR supports both open and closed world assumptions. Wherever there is a desire to assert that all fact types in a given conceptual schema are closed (or open), that proposition can be formulated with existing SBVR concepts using universal quantification. For example, for a conceptual schema C:
Each fact type that is in C is closed in C.
Any default selections of open or closed by tools that create conceptual schemas are a matter for tool builders to decide and are not a subject of the SBVR specification.
Characterizing a fact type as open or closed independently of any conceptual schema or fact model is inappropriate because the same fact type can be in multiple conceptual schemas. A fact type is a meaning. Since it is logically possible that the same meaning is in multiple conceptual schemas created by different people for different purposes, it is impractical to assume that anyone would know whether closure is universal. Therefore, no new fact type characterizing fact types as open or closed will be added.
However, any tool can certainly have defaults or allow defaults to be set regarding closure for the conceptual schemas that are created by that tool.
State-of-affairs interpretation SBVR defines ‘fact’ to be “proposition that is taken as true”, not as “proposition that is true”. A fact is a proposition that is taken to be true in the world that is the subject of discourse, whether that world is real or hypothetical.
Any tool can have its own default behavior with respect to assumptions about possible worlds. Defining such defaults is outside of the scope of the SBVR specification.
Disposition: Resolved with NO CHANGE
Figure 12-1 shows 'merged' arrowheaded lines from 'element of guidance' and 'rule' into 'propositiion'. While this is not formally meaningful our graphics have used a convention to bring the lines together for elements that are mutually exclusive and to show the lines separate when not ref. the separate lines into 'rule'. I suggest that Figure 12-1 be updated to show separate arrowheaded lines into 'proposition'.
Update Figure 12-1 to show separate arrowheaded lines into 'proposition'
Title: Inconsistent use/definition of keyword 'or'
Spec: SBVR
Version: 1.0
Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov
Summary:
In clause 9.2.1, p.52, 'bindable target' is defined as:
variable, expression or individual concept
In clause 11.1.5, 'contextualization fact type' is defined as:
is-role-of fact-type or is-facet-of fact-type
In clause 11.1.5, 'contextualized concept' is defined as:
role or facet
At the end of section C.3.2.1 in Annex C, the example is:
contextualized concept
Definition: role or facet
In Annex E, p.327, 'fuel level' is defined as:
full or 7/8 or 3/4 or 5/8 or 1/2 or 3/8 or 1/4 or 1/8 or empty
In all these, 'or' is stylized as a keyword. According to Annex C.3.2.1, these represent extensional definitions, i.e., the unions of the extensions of the concepts. But according to Annex C.1.1, the
keyword 'or' is defined to mean logical disjunction between two
propositions. So the definition of keyword 'or' is inconsistent with the usages.
One solution is to change the definitions.
E.g., for contextualized concept:
Definition: concept that is a role or is a facet
This form has a direct translation to the concepts in Clause 9.
An alternative is to change the meaning of the keyword in C.1.1, assuming it is never used for logical disjunction of propositions.
Another alternative is to introduce a new keyword.
Clarify the example at the end of C.3.2.1
Subclause 8.5 is about the interchange files defined in Clause 15.
The syntax for these files is (mostly) defined in Clause 13; the content of Subclause 8.5 should be placed in Clause 13.
From Issue 13138 (as of 5 Dec 2008):
"Subclause 8.5 includes concepts conceptual schema and fact model that have no bearing on the content of the SBVR metamodel (as defined in the Clause 15.1 XMI file) or an SBVR model (to be illustrated by Clause 15.3 SBVR model of SBVR file). Rather they explain the structure of the SBVR model file in Clause 15.3 as an XML file containing a fact model population for an externally referenced SBVR XSD conceptual schema."
The conceptual schema for interchange is the XSD, the facts are the XML content of the interchange file.
Supporting arguments for making the change:
The specification does not place the syntax of Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12 in Clause 8 - it is in Annex C
The specification does not place (most of) the syntax of Clause 15 in Clause 8 - it is in Clause 13
Some corrections are needed:
'fact model' has two parts: 'conceptual schema' and 'fact population'
'fact model is based on conceptual schema" should be 'fact population is based on conceptual schema'
'conceptual schema includes fact' should be 'fact population includes fact'
Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions
Issue 13138: Move Fact Model Container Concepts from Clause 8 to Clause 10
This issue removes the definitions in Subclause 8.5 from the scope of Issue 13138.
Resolution:
Move the content of Subclause 8.5 into Clause 13, with the corrections listed in Discussion, above.
Resolution:
Resolved by the resolution of Issue 13838
Revised Text:
None
Disposition: Closed, no change required
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined. This would address two concerns:
1. Separation of the two different meanings of 'fact type' into different models
2. Allow the definition-based model to have an open-world assumption and the fact model to have a closed-world assumption.
Merged with Issue 15623
Revised Text:
No change.
Disposition: Duplicate or Merged
The segmentation 'Thing in Context' is inconsistent with the definitions of 'role' and 'facet'. The segmentation is based on an assumption that the extensions of 'role' and 'facet' are completely disjoint. But there is nothing in the definitions of 'role' or 'facet' that cause them to be disjoint. It is possible that a situational role is relevant only from a certain viewpoint. Recommendation: Remove 'Thing in Context' and all references to it. Change Figure 11.1.5 to not show segmentation between 'role' and 'facet'.
Remove 'Thing in Context' and all references to it. Change Figure 11.1.5 to not show segmentation between 'role' and 'facet'.”
The concept "Partitive Fact Type" is based on the Concept "Partitive Relation" in ISO 1087. However, SBVR did not pick up the ISO synonym "Part-Whole Relation". This could raise questions about how the SBVR notion is being based on the ISO notion. Also, "Part-Whole" is more business-friendly than "Partitive". Proposed Resolution: Add "Part-Whole Fact Type" as a synonym of "Partitive Fact Type". (If for some reason this is deemed inappropriate or undesirable, a note should be added as to why.)
Add "Part-Whole Fact Type" as a synonym of "Partitive Fact Type".
The definition of is-property-of fact type is based on the notion of ‘essential quality’. Use of the word ‘essential’ is misleading since ISO and therefore SBVR talks about ‘essential characteristic’ in quite a different sense. The three Dictionary Bases are poorly chosen (probably because they were chosen before the ISO notion of characteristic was introduced into SBVR). In any event, the current definition of is-property-of fact type does not accurately express the intended meaning of the concept. Resolution: 1. Change the definition of "Is-Property-Of" fact type to: associative fact type that is defined with respect to a given concept such that each instance of the fact type is an actuality that an instance of the concept has a particular quality or trait 2. A better Dictionary Basis should replace the existing ones. Use the following definition from MWUD: 1 a : a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing;
1. Change the definition of "Is-Property-Of" fact type to: associative fact type that is defined with respect to a given concept such that each instance of the fact type is an actuality that an instance of the concept has a particular quality or trait
2. A better Dictionary Basis should replace the existing ones. Use the following definition from MWUD: 1 a : a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing;
Problem Description: The signifier "Explicitness of Representation" for a categorization scheme in SBVR 11.1.3 is not intuitive, and the reason for the choice is not explained.
Explicitness of Representation
Definition: the categorization scheme of the concept definition that classifies a definition based on whether it is owned by its speech community or adopted by its speech community
Resolution: Change the signifier for the concept to "Origin".
Change the signifier "Explicitness of Representation" to “Definition Origin”.
All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR – namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution.
Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules
Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com
Summary:
SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement).
The current definition of “community” is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common
The current definition of “semantic community” is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with
By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ...
Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities.
Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the “business” part of “business rule”. This omission is a significant one.
In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the “under business jurisdiction” test in the definition of “business rule”.
Resolution:
Add a category of “community” called “governed community” as follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Definition: community that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules
Dictionary Basis [MWUD “govern”]: 1a: to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
Examples: societies, chartered organizations, businesses, government bodies
Example: EU-Rent is a legal entity, makes business rules for itself, and is therefore a governed community. Eu-Rent is also a member of each governed community (country) where it does business, as well as the European Union, a yet broader governed community.
Note: A governed community can adopt sets of business rules (and advices) as-is, just like vocabulary. The decision to adopt business rules ‘as-is’ is an act of free will and therefore satisfies the “under business jurisdiction” test in the definition of “business rule”.
Note: The “business” part of “business rule” is a popular, informal term for “governed community”.
Note: The question “Who makes the rules?” for a governed community is outside the scope of SBVR.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Revised Text:
Previously, I did a search of Clause 12, and sent my findings and recommendations. There are 5 segments of text where “semantic community”, “community” or “communities” appear. Below are (revised) recommendations for each.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance
Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings uniting a semantic community that takes the elements of guidance as true
RGR: This definition is problematic. Alethic elements of guidance might “unite” a semantic community (no real opinion), but I don’t see deontic elements of guidance as (a) “uniting” anything, or (b) pertaining to semantic community at all (unless the semantic community just happens to be a society, organization or business).
Also, from a business perspective (as appropriate for Clause 11), a “community” doesn’t “take elements of guidance to be true”. That’s a logician’s view. It would be more accurate to say ‘recognizes as applicable’.
Recommendation: Delete the phrase starting “uniting ...”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2] business rule
Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction
General Concept: rule, element of guidance
Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3.
RGR: There are 3 instances of “semantic community” in this note.
Recommendation: I would change this note to read as follows:
Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[3] advice of contingency
Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency
Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past.
RGR: There is one instance of “semantic community” in this note and one instance of “community”.
Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by “governed community”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4] advice of optionality
Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality
Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past.
RGR: There is one instance of “semantic community” in this note and one instance of “community”.
Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by “governed community”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[5] Section 12.5, page 178, the paragraph that reads:
In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement, there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions. Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what characteristics are incorporated by concepts.
RGR: There is one instance of “community” in this section and one instance of “communities”.
Recommendation: I have no strong feelings at present about whether these instances should be changed or stand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing:
A new noun concept (general concept): ‘authority’
Two new roles: ‘adopting authority’ and ‘owning authority’
Four new verb concepts:
1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it)
2. authority authors guidance statement
3. authority defines element of guidance
4. adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference
Notes , stating that:
1. Elements of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract. They must be adopted via representations guidance statements.
2. If elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings.
In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, “thing [individual concept] is changed”, defined thus: “the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time”. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ‘individual concept’: “ each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds”.
Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ‘individual concept’. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description.
A new concept type, ‘unitary concept’, is added. The examples and explanations in C.1.6 are changed to use the new concept. Also, one example in clause 9 and a fact type in Annex E that involve intensional roles are changed to be consistent with the changes to C.1.6.
In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins:
"'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.'
In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’.
The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification.
. The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300."
This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification.
"At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 litres of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities – the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read:
"EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kilolitres."
In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept – an amount of time. "300 kilolitres" is also an individual concept – a 'quantity value'.
If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance – a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns – petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl – but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example.
In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example – that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage – would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example.
The example is replaced by a straightforward example of mentioning a concept.
In recent RTF teleconferences, it was agreed that in Clause 11.1.3, Kinds of Definition, some additional notes are needed for “adopted definition” to explain that adoption of a definition is the mechanism for adopting the meaning of a concept.
Add notes to the entries in Clause 11.1.3 for “adopted definition” and “speech community adopts adopted definition citing reference” to reflect the discussion, above.
Replace the example under ‘adopted definition’ with actual examples from the SBVR specification, including adoption of the definition of ‘object’ from ISO 1087, and using the term ‘thing’ within SBVR
Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative “that” for objectification, refer more generally to “state of affairs” rather than to “actuality”.
Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative “that” for objectification, refer more generally to “state of affairs” rather than to “actuality”.
In clause 8.3.3, in the glossary entry for "statement", SBVR has the
Necessity "Each statement expresses exactly one proposition ". This
Necessity is also shown in figure 8.4 and is cited as an example on printed
page 6. The issue is that some statements do not express propositions
(i.e. a meaning that is true or false, per the definition of 'proposition'
in 8.1.2). There are at least two types of statements that are neither
true nor false: (a) paradoxes, such as "This statement is false"; (b)
atemporal statements used with temporal worlds. For example, the statement
"the board of director meets" is a proposition (i.e. either true or false)
in an atemporal world (i.e.a world that only contains facts about one
moment in time). But in a world that has records of multiple meetings of
the board of directors, the statement is ambiguous. It can be understood as
true if read as meaning "the board of directors meets at some time". It is
either true or false (according to the facts in the world) if it is read as
"the board of directors meets right now". Clearly a statement does not
express a proposition when the statement is paradoxical or ambiguous.
Suggested resolution:
Revise the Necessity to read "Each statement expresses at most one
proposition." Revise the figure and the example to match
Suggested resolution:
Revise the Necessity to read "Each statement expresses at most one
proposition." Revise the figure and the example to match.
Resolution:
A sentence that does not express a proposition is not an expression of a statement. It should be referred to simply as a “sentence”.
1. Add some clarifying words to the definition of ‘statement’ without changing the meaning.
2. Add a note to state that if an expression is an ambiguous sentence, one that represents two different propositions, each of the two representations is a separate statement.
3. Add a note that a paradoxical expression (e.g., “This sentence is false.”) that fails to represent a meaning that is true or false is not considered to be an expression of a statement.
4. Add a note that clarifies the use of “sentence” in relation to ‘statement’.
5. Add a note that time, if it is to be part of the proposition, must be explicit in the statement.
6. Add a Note that using a statement is a descriptive example is merely illustrative and is not an assertion of truth-value.
7. Add a note clarifying the relationship between closed logical formulations and statements of a proposition.
8. Add the fact type ‘expression is unambiguous to speech community’.
Summary: SBVR makes an important distinction between the meanings of the word “exists” (existential quantification) and the word “occurs” (used to describe a state of affairs). A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations) even if it does not occur, even if it never occurs. SBVR should explicitly define and explain the characteristic ‘state of affairs occurs’, and should then use that characteristic to define ‘actuality’.
Note that this issue is related to issue 14849 and became important in discussing 14849, but its resolution should be independent of 14849.
1. Add a new characteristic, ‘state of affairs is actual’ and use it to define ‘actuality’ (“is actual” is taken as a preferred alternative to “occurs”).
2. Explain the difference between ‘is actual’ and ‘exists’.
There appears to be something missing ("is" – or, the more verbose, "that is") in the Definition given for "expression" (p. 26 – PDF p. 38),
i.e., ..."but is independent"... (... "but that is independent"...).
After discussion at the May 13, 2011 telcon, the wording "but considered independently" was agreed as the correction to the wording.
Issue Title: Conflation of the signifier “rulebook” with the concept/definition for Speech Community Representations (a container concept /set)
Clause: 11.2.2.3
Printer Page: 155
Issue Statement:
The concept (definition) in Clause 11.2.2.3 defined as:
the set of representations determined by a given speech community to represent in its language all meanings in its body of shared meanings
is conflated with the undefined concept most commonly associated with the signifier “rulebook.”
The set defined in this entry is only the representations for one speech community and does not include any semantic connections between meanings, which are required to compose the content of a rulebook.
Proposed Solution:
Separate the two concepts by creating a new entry for “rulebook”; provide a definition for rulebook that can be used to produce one; and replace the signifier “rulebook” on the existing entry with “speech community representations”.
Separate the two conflated concepts into two separate entries by creating a separate entry for rulebook with the appropriate definition and changing the signifier of the current entry to “speech community representations”.
An elementary fact quoted in section 10.1.1.2 is “The Prime Minister named ‘John Howard’ was born in the Country named ‘Australia’” using yet another typography. This ‘fact’ is no longer true as, while John is still Australian-born he is no longer prime minister. An example, perhaps of the inadvisability of using role names in rules if they are not relevant to the rule. The following facts are correct but not time-dependent:
a. The Man named ‘John Howard’ was born in the Country named ‘Australia’.
b. The Man named ‘John Howard’ was Prime Minister of the Country named ‘Australia’ from 1996 to 2007.
This discussion (on p. 88) is explaining 'elementary fact'. The phrases "Prime Minister named 'John Howard'" and "Country named 'Australia'" illustrate ways to refer to specific individuals individuals denoted by definite descriptions. These examples are not for rules and they are not using role names.
For this discussion the sense of 'President' is not to be interpreted as meaning only the current office-holder. For example, another example could talk about "the President named 'George Washington'" to give another use of a definite description.
It was felt that this discussion of elementary fact could be improved by (1) replacing the Australian example with one from the US (where the sense of being 'President' is not time-dependent) and (2) continuing the example used in the first boxed example into the second boxed example (rather than introducing the new, Mary McAleese example).
The typography used in Clause 10.1.1 is that of ORM see Annex I.
“Each FemaleAustralian is a Person who was born in Country ‘Australia’ and has Gender ‘Female’” (section 10.1.1.2) and “Each Australian is a Person who was born in Country ‘AU’” (section 10.1.1.7) fly in the face of the meaning of citizenship: I was born in the UK but am an Australian, having taken out Australian citizenship, whereas Rupert Murdoch was born in Australia but is not an Australian, having renounced his Australian citizenship as a prerequisite of taking US citizenship. By the way these rules use a non-standard typography.
Change the examples from using "born in" to being "a citizen of". By the way the typography is different but not "non-standard" it uses ORM conventions (as explained in Annex I).
Title: Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data
Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com)
Summary:
Since SBVR v1.0 was published in January 2008 there has been widespread misinterpretation and misrepresentation of SBVR as a data modeling specification that is not easy to refute with finality because Clause 1 “Scope’ does not make it clear that the authority for the content of an SBVR Vocabulary is the usage of terms and other designations in a corpus of business documentation.
Further contributing to the problem is the fact that the Subclause 10.1 formal semantics for SBVR is one that is based on a fact-oriented data modeling paradigm. Even though the formal interpretation is meant to be specified only in terms of formal logic there is wide reference to “facts”. Since the representations of facts are what data is, without statements to the contrary this can be used as a basis for incorrectly interpret the SBVR vocabularies in Clause 7, 8, 9, 1 & 12 as a collection of vocabularies for fact-oriented data modeling rather than documentation of the business language used by business people.
Resolution:
1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation.
2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR
3. Explain that “Semantic Anchors” are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data.
4. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models models for and reasoning over data..
5. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks.
6. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word “fact”.
Revised Text:
to follow
1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation.
2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR
3. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models and models designed for reasoning over instance data.
4. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks.
5. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word “fact”.
Problem: The Revised Text of 17017 makes no mention of clause 13.2.2.
In clause 13.2.2, the first paragraph contains the sentence: "The signifier of each synonym of the designation is an alias for the class." Nothing is said in 13.2.2 about how to encode the "alias", but the diagram in 13.2.2 shows an "element import". The revised text does not, but should, delete this drawing element as well.
Further, under the Rationale subhead in 13.2.2, the first sentence
reads: "Use of aliasing, though not common in MOF-based metamodels, keeps a strong alignment of the SBVR Metamodel with the SBVR vocabulary." Presumably, that will no longer be the case if the element imports are deleted.
I suggest it should rather read:
"In general, MOF does not provide a mechanism for declaring synonyms.
Therefore, the Synonym elements of the SBVR vocabularies do not have counterparts in the SBVR MOF metamodel. They are, however, captured in SBVR vocabularies that are instances of the SBVR MOF metamodel."
Add the three overlooked editing instuctions to complete those in Issue 17017 resolution.
SBVR makes use of ElementImports to give additional aliases to some elements in the same package. This is invalid use of ElementImport: the UML/MOF specs clearly state that ElementImports are only for elements “in another package”. I recently confirmed my understanding with the UML team that “another” does mean literally that (confirmed by OCL elsewhere in the spec) and it cannot be interpreted to mean “the same package”.
Even were the ElementImport to be permitted, it would not have the intended meaning which I believe is to add additional synonyms to elements. In contrast the alias in an ElementImport “Specifies the name that should be added to the namespace of the importing Package in lieu of the name of the imported PackagableElement.”
This issue is urgent since it affects the production of correct normative artifacts for SBVR 1.1.
Drop the use of elementImport to include aliases in the SBVR Metamodel file as it is an invalid use of elementImport.
Section 13.2.5 is based on a misunderstanding and misuse of MOF:
a) the phrase “In each case where an attribute and an association end represent the same role, the SBVR Metamodel includes a tag that tags both the attribute and the association end. “ is in ignorance of the fact that in MOF2 and UML 2 that “attributes” and “association ends” are both represented as instances of Property: and in such a case there would be a single instance of Property linked to the Class using the attribute meta-property and from the Association by the memberEnd (or ownedEnd) property: eliminating the need to link two separate elements.
b) attempting to use MOF Tags to link two properties. In fact MOF Tags are “Simple string name-value pairs”.
This is an urgent issue since it affects the production of the SBVR 1.1 artifacts: there is in fact no need for the tags that have caused some of the difficulties producing the machine-readable files: even the file I sent today for the metamodel, which uses the Tag value property does not match this section of the spec which states that value is the empty string.
1. Item a) in Issue statement:
As per SBVR Clause 13, the class attribute element in the sameRole MOF Tag represents a different Property from the Property referenced by the association end element in the sameRole MOF Tag not the same Property as asserted in the Issue statement. The semantics of using the two different properties is different in that one is used to identify a complete (closed-world) extension of a verb concept role with respect to a given subject, but the other is used to identify individual instances of the role with an open-world assumption.
There is no change required for this part of the Issue statement.
2. Item b) in Issue statement.
The resolution to this part of the Issue statement is to drop the sameRole MOF Tags from the SBVR Metamodel file as they are an invalid use of MOF Tags.
3. Paragraph 2 of the Issue Statement
Dropping the sameRole MOF Tags from the SBVR Metamodel file resolves the points in this paragraph of the Issue statement.
SBVR is intended for development of semantic models of businesses (and enterprises run on similar lines, such as public sector bodies and not-for-profit organizations). Its scope says “This specification defines the vocabulary and rules for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies, business facts, and business rules”.
A lot of SBVR RTF email and teleconference discussion seems to be taken up with examples that are at best tenuously related to business, and often not at all related to business. There is, of course, no reason that people should not use SBVR as SVR Semantics of Vocabulary and Rules for any universe of discourse, whether business-related or not. But it is important to keep focus on what SBVR is intended for.
Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions:
None
Discussion:
There are two aspects of keeping SBVR’s focus on business:
1. The context of an SBVR model of a business a body of shared concepts, represented as one or more terminological dictionaries and rulebooks is the actual world in which the business operates.
2. The content of an SBVR model of a business is the meanings of the definitions of relevant things, relationships and guidance in the business.
The universe of discourse is the part of the business selected by the business owners to be within scope. For example, in EU-Rent (as used in the SBVR specification) it is car rentals as opposed to finance, car purchasing and sales, premises management, HR, etc.
This issue is about a matter of SBVR practice and can be addressed with notes (or perhaps in more general editorial).
Resolution:
Add notes under the entry for ‘body of shared meanings’:
To describe the universe of discourse modeled by the body of shared meanings
To emphasize that the body of shared meanings comprises only meanings
Revised Text:
In 11.1.1.2, under the entry for body of shared meanings, add the following notes:
Note: When modelling a business (such as EU-Rent), the universe of discourse is bounded by what the business owners decide is in scope. That would be the actual world of some part of EU-Rent’s business (e.g. rentals, as opposed to, say, premises management, purchase/sales of cars, or HR) and some possible worlds that are reachable from the actual world. If the EU-Rent owners say that they are considering renting RVs or starting up in China, then possible worlds that include these kinds of business are in the universe of discourse.
If EU-Rent is not considering renting construction equipment or camping gear, then possible worlds that include these kinds of business are not in the universe of discourse and neither are possible worlds that include impossibilities. Whether ‘Kinnell Construction rented backhoe 123 on 2012-08-28’ or ‘John rode into work on a unicorn’ correspond to states of affairs or not, are not relevant to EU-Rent. They are out of scope.
In-scope propositions may have to be constrained by necessities to ensure that they are not impossible. e.g. ‘Necessity: Each rental car is stored at at most one branch [at any given time].’
Note: A body of shared meanings contains meanings of:
noun concepts that define kinds of thing in the universe of discourse
verb concepts that define relationships between kinds of thing in the universe of discourse
elements of guidance that constrain or govern the things and relationships defined by the concepts.
It does not contain ground facts or facts derived from ground facts (other than as illustrative examples), or things in the universe of discourse, or information system artifacts that model things in the universe of discourse although it may provide vocabulary to refer to them.
Add notes under the entry for ‘body of shared meanings’:
To describe the universe of discourse modeled by the body of shared meanings
To emphasize that the body of shared meanings comprises only meanings
There are four small but inportant wording additions need to clarify three entries in the Clause 10.1.2:
In “possible world” and “universe of discourse” the word “object” has the signifier “thing” in sBVR
Make it clear that the “at some point in time” is the “present time of the possible word” as set forth in SBVr Clause 10.1.1.
The referents of “corresponding propositions or states of affairs” at the of the definition for ‘state of affairs’ is not clear.
Resolution:
Make the clarifications as identifed in Issue Summary.
Revised Text:
ADD in the second sentence in the Note in the entry for “possible world” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 117 after the phrase “any given set of objects”:
[things]
ADD to the end of the last sentence in the Note in the entry for “possible world” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 117:
Thus, in the context of a static constraint declared for a given business domain, a “possible world” would correspond to (but not be identical to) a state of the domain’s fact model that could exist at some point in time.
the following text:
, which is the “present time” of the possible world.“
ADD the word “respectively” at the end of the Definition in the entry for “state of affairs” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 119 after the phrase “set of objects”:
ADD at the beginning of the Definition in the entry for “universe of discourse” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 120 after the phrase “set of objects”:
[things]
Make the clarifications as identifed in Issue Summary
The definitions in most of the model entries in Clause 8.1.2 do not align with Clause 9 and Clause 10 modal definitions.
Resolution:
Align the definitions in Clause 8, 9 & 10 by changing the definitions in Clause 8; adding an intermediate concept to make the definition of “proposition is permitted to be true” intelligible to business people; and adding a definition for “actual world” to Clause 10.
Revised Text:
REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “proposition is necessarily true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 26:
Definition: the proposition always corresponds to an actuality
WITH:
Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in all possible worlds
REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “proposition is possibly true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 26:
Definition: it is possible that the proposition corresponds to an actuality
WITH:
Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in some possible world
Add a new Entry after the entry for “proposition is obligated to be true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 26:
proposition is obligated to be false
Definition: the proposition does not correspond to an actuality in any acceptable world
REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “proposition is permitted to be true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 27:
Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in at least one acceptable world.
WITH:
Definition: the proposition is not obligated to be false
REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “permissibility formulation” in Clause 9.2.4 on printer page 57:
Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is true in some acceptable world
WITH:
Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is permitted to be true
ADD immediately after the entry for “acceptable world” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 111 the following new entry:
actual world
Definition: the possible world that is taken to be actual for some purpose, in particular, for the conduct of business and the application of business rules
Note: the actual world is a set of things, situations and facts about them that some person or organization takes to be true for some purpose. In most cases, it is the best estimate of the actual state of the world that is of interest at a particular time.
Align the definitions in Clause 8, 9 & 10 by changing the definitions in Clause 8; adding an intermediate concept to make the definition of “proposition is permitted to be true” intelligible to business people; and adding a definition for “actual world” to Clause 10.
Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
In a recent SBVR RTF telecon it was discovered that that are two possible interpretations of the definition of ‘proposition’:
meaning that has a logical structure involving concepts and that corresponds to a state of affairs and that is either true or false based on whether that state of affairs is actual or not
The intended interpretation was that, to be a proposition, it must always in all possible worlds be able to be determined whether is it true or false, but that the assertion of that truth value is separate from the proposition, which SBVR defined to be a meaning.
The second interpretation is that the truth value is part of the proposition.
This ambiguity needs to be removed.
Resolution:
Clarify the entry for ‘proposition’ to remove the ambiguity. Part of the exisitng definition, “and that corresponds to a state of affairs”, is included as the entry, ‘proposition corresponds to a state of affairs, with its own definition in the resolution to Issue 10803.
Revised Text:
REPLACE the current definition of ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Definition: meaning that has a logical structure involving concepts and that corresponds to a state of affairs and that is either true or false based on whether that state of affairs is actual or not
WITH:
Definition: meaning of a declarative sentence that is not a paradoxical and that is invariant through all the paraphrases and translations of the sentence
Note: A wff is a special case of statement in which there are no free occurrences of any variable, i.e. either it has constants in place of variables, or its variables are bound, or both
ADD the following Source after the Definition in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Source: [SubeGFOL]: proposition (2 & 3), Wff, Closed Wff
ADD the following Necessity after the newly added Source in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Necessity: It is necessary that each proposition that is created by quantifying all the verb concept roles of a given verb concept means what the definition of the verb concept defines it to mean.
ADD the following Note after the last existing Note in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Note: The truth-value of the proposition is separate from the proposition (i.e. the meaning of the statement). The proposition means the same thing regardless of the possible world that is referenced to determine the truth-value. Documenting the truth-value of a proposition is out of scope for SBVR and belongs to the domain of data management or rules enforcement.
Clarify the entry for ‘proposition’ to remove the ambiguity. Part of the exisitng definition, “and that corresponds to a state of affairs”, is included as the entry, ‘proposition corresponds to a state of affairs, with its own definition in the resolution to Issue 10803.
There are two minor ambiguities in definitions of types of noun concept:
1. ‘unitary concept’ is defined as ‘individual concept or general concept that always has at most one instance’ .
This is ambiguous because it is not clear whether ‘that always has at most one instance’ applies to both ‘individual concept’ and ‘general concept’ or only to ‘general concept’.
2. ‘individual concept’ is defined as ‘concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]’ (adopted from ISO 1087-1)
This is ambiguous because it is not clear whether ‘only’ means ‘exactly one’ or ‘at most one’. The second note in the entry says “While each referring individual concept has at most one and the same instance
” suggesting that ‘only’ means ‘at most one’.
Also, terms used for types of noun concept do not match their definitions. In SBVR, ‘concept’ includes both ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’, but some terms use ‘concept’ for ‘noun concept’. For example, the definition for ‘general concept’ is for a specialization of ‘noun concept’.
Discussion:
The terms for types of noun concept became a concern after ‘fact type’ was replaced by ‘verb concept’ in Clause 8.
Resolution:
Update the definitions of ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ to remove the ambiguities.
Throughout the specification, replace the terms ‘general concept’, ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ with, respectively, ‘general noun concept’, ‘unitary noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’
Revised Text:
On printed page 21 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE
unitary concept
Definition: individual concept or general concept that always has at most one instance
General Concept: noun concept
WITH
unitary noun concept
Definition: general noun concept that always has at most one instance or individual noun concept
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE
individual concept FL
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual concept’]
Definition: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]
General Concept: unitary concept
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: No individual concept is a general concept.
Necessity: No individual concept is a verb concept role.
WITH
individual noun concept FL
Source: based on ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual concept’]
Definition: noun concept that corresponds to at most one thing
General Concept: unitary noun concept
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: No individual noun concept is a general noun concept.
Necessity: No individual noun concept is a verb concept role.
UPDATE NOUN CONCEPT TERMS:
REPLACE the signifier “general concept” WITH “general noun concept”
list of replacement locations to be provided
REPLACE the signifier “unitary concept” WITH “unitary noun concept” everywhere
REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” everywhere except for the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in the entry for the concept currently termed “individual concept’
UPDATE DIAGRAMS:
REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that replace the signifiers “general concept”, “unitary concept” and “individual concept” with, respectively, “general noun concept”, “unitary noun concept” and “individual noun concept”:
Figure 8.1
Figure 9.3
Figure 11.2
Diagram in Clause 13.4 on printed page 198
Add a synonym ‘general noun concept’ to ‘general concept’.
Update the definitions of ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ to remove the ambiguities.
Throughout the specification, replace the terms ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ with, respectively, ‘unitary noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’
Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’
‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed.
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”.
Resolution:
1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.
Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept”
And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”
On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:
individual verb concept
Definition: proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
Note:
some explanatory comments
Example:
some illustrative examples
REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)
to be identified and added
REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:
Figure 8.1
Figure 9.3
Figure 11.2
plus fixes for any additional side effects:
Add to Clause 8:
unitary verb concept: a general verb concept that has one instance (which can change over time) in its extension
individual verb concept: a proposition that is derived from a general verb concept by closing each of its roles with an individual noun concept, so that it has one instance (which cannot change over time) in its extension
general verb concept: to complete the segmentation of verb concept and distinguish this kind of verb concept from the other two.
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
During recent in-depth SBVR RTF discussion on the topic of state of affairs a number of clarifications and fixes were identified as needed:
1. Add a missing Reference Scheme for ‘state of affairs’.
2. Add a Necessity to unambiguously distinguish states of sffairs from propostions.
3. Add a Note to clarify how the representations of the meanings in the reference schemes of state of affairs serve as definite descriptions of the state of affairs.
4. Clarify the relationship between 'is actual' and 'exists', and the relationship between actualities and potential states of affairs.
Resolution:
Makr the the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above.
Revised Text:
ADD the following Reference Scheme, Necessity and Note to the “state of affairs” entry in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40:
Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs
Necessity: No state of affairs is a proposition.
Note: Any representation of a proposition may be used to denote the state(s) of affairs that it corresponds to. A proposition statement serves as a definite description for the state of affairs that the proposition coressponds to.
In the entry for “state of affairs is actual” in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40, REPLACE the Note and the Example:
Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’should not be confused with ‘exists,’ meaning existential quantification. A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens.
Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether it is ever actual. The state of affairs is actual only when the branch is profitable, but it exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept ‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable.
WITH:
Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’should not be confused with logical existence, which just means being a thing in the possible world that is of interest. A potential state of affairs can 'exist' as a 'thing' in the possible world and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens.
Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the desired state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The desired state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether there is ever an actual state of profitability. It exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept ‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable. The nature of the desired state of affairs is that it is a 'desired state of affairs' – conceived, not perceived.
The actual state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable exists only when the branch is profitable. The nature of the actual state of affairs, if it exists, is that it is a happening in the world. It is perceived, not conceived.
In the list of Necessities” in Clause 8.5.2 on printed page 41, REPLACE:
Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs.
WITH:
Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs.
Make the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above
The DTV RTF has pointed out the value of adding to SBVR a very generic concept for all kinds of occurrences so that all specifications that define a particular kind of occurrence, e.g. occurrence in time, occurrence in space, can be consistent if they adopt and specialize the SBVR generic occurrence concept. This approach also provides the ability of specifications that deal with occurrence to constrain the generic concepts adopted from SBVR to fit their specification.
Resolution:
1. Incorporate that a state of affairs is not a meaning in its definition.
2. Add a generic, overarching ‘occurrence’ noun concept.
3. Add a “what happens” noun concept that is a role of ‘state of affairs’.
4. Add a verb concept that defines the multiple relationship between “what happens’ and ‘occurrence’.
5. Fix the definiiton of ‘state of affairs is actual’
6. Clarify the Note for ‘actuality’.
7. Remove confusing and unnecessary wording in the entry for ‘situation’.
Revised Text:
REPLACE Figure 8.8 in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40 WITH:
In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'state of affairs', REPLACE the Definition:
Definition: event, activity, situation, or circumstance
with
Definition: res that is an event, activity, situation, or circumstance
In clause 8.5, immediately before the entry for 'state of affairs is actual', INSERT three new entries:
occurrence
Definition: state of affairs that is the happening of another state of affairs for a given time interval and/or at a given location and/or in some other dimension
what-happens state of affairs
Definition: state of affairs that can happen for a given time interval and/or at a given location and/or in some other dimension
what-happens state of affairs has occurrence
Definition: the occurrence is the realization of the state of affairs
In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'state of affairs is actual', REPLACE the existing Definition:
Definition: the state of affairs happens (i.e., takes place, obtains)
with:
Definition: the state of affairs is happening (i.e., takes place, obtains)
In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'actuality', REPLACE the Note:
Note: Actualities are states of affairs that actually happen, as distinct from states of affairs that don’t happen but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned.
with:
Note: Actualities are states of affairs that are actually happening, as distinct from states of affairs that are not happening but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned.
In clause 11.1.5.2, in the entry for 'situation' on printed page 154, REMOVE
The phrase “that provides the context from which roles played may be understood or assessed” at the end of the Definition as it is about purpose and not essential meaning.
the words “a state of affairs” at the end of the first Dictionary Basis.
ADD two noun concepts, ‘occurrence’ and ‘what-happens state of affairs’, to the following line in the paragraph beginning with “The classes in the metamodel that mirror ” in 13.2.2 “MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts”:
Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set
ADD two noun concepts, ‘property’ and ‘viewpoint’, to the following line in the paragraph beginning with “The classes in the metamodel that mirror ” in 13.2.2 “MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts”:
Clause 11: community, situation, res
After lengthy and diligent RTF discussion, it turned out not to be possible to reach consensus on the definition of ‘occurrence’. The concerns on which consensus could not be reached were primarily:
Limiting ‘occurrences’ to only those that have actually happened, If this were done, it would remove the ability of SBVR to support talking about occurrences that have yet to happen.
Including instances in the universe of discourse (the real things in the universe of the business) in SBVR Business Vocabularies. These are not meanings and are therefore out of scope for SBVR.
As a result, this resolution requires no changes.
Revised Text:
None
Disposition: No Change
Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’
‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed.
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”.
Resolution:
1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.
Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept”
And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”
On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:
individual verb concept
Definition: Definition to be replaced
proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
some explanatory comments
Example:
some illustrative examples
REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)
to be identified and added
REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:
Figure 8.1
Figure 9.3
Figure 11.2
plus fixes for any additional side effects
Merger with Issue 17439.
Revised Text:
None.
Disposition: Merged
The SBVR document is far larger than optimal. It needs to be reduced in size. Many of the Annexes do not contribute directly to core content.
Resolution
Delete Annexes that are not essential to the SBVR specification. Evaluation of the Annexes:
Annexes essential to the correct interpretation of the normative specification and that must be kept:
Annex C - SBVR Structured English
Annex E - EU-Rent Example
Annex H - Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to Represent SBVR-Style Vocabularies
Annex M - Additional References
Annexes that are not essential and can be deleted. Their owners can choose whether to publish them independently:
Annex F - The RuleSpeak® Business Rule Notation*
Annex G - Concept Diagram Graphic Notation
Annex I - The ORM Notation for Verbalizing Facts and Business Rules*
Annex J - ORM Examples Related to the Logical Foundations for SBVR
Annex L - A Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the NIAM2007 Procedure to Specify a Conceptual Schema
The SBVR RTF should decide on a case by case basis whether the following Annexes are essential to the correct interpretation of the normative clauses or can be deleted:
Annex A - Overview of the Approach
Annex B - The Business Rules Approach
Annex D - SBVR Structured English Patterns
Annex K - Mappings and Relationships to Other Initiatives
*To be discussed by the RTF: Since (a) SBVR-SE is not normative, and (b) RuleSpeak and ORM (Norma) served as reference notations in creating the specification, it might be useful to illustrate parts or all of Annexes C and/or E, and/or examples given in the specification itself, in these other two notations. Annexes F and I already did something like this, but (a) are much too large, (b) not well-focused on complementing SBVR, and (c) may need to be revised.
No Data Available
