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.

• In Figure C.1 the right hand class is shown with 2 names and an italicized label “also:” – this is not supported.

• Section C.3 and Figure C.2: in UML, Instance diagrams only the class and not the instance name is ever underlined

• Figure 6.3 is not a valid UML diagram if the lower shapes are InstanceSpecifications: they should have a colon after the names which should not be underlined. The use of Dependencies is not valid for class membership.

• Figure 6.4 is not valid – an association may have only one name optionally accompanied by one direction indicator.

• Figure C.7, C.12: In general UML does not include the notion of underline/font within a name: it’s modeled only as a text string.

• Figure C.9 is not valid – one cannot have an association with only one end.

• C.7.1, Figure 14: these 2 renderings are semantically identical in UML and serialized the same in XMI. UML has the ability to render the distinction using a GeneralizationSet with isDisjoint – so why not use that?

• C.15: powertypes should not have a name before the colon in UML, though the property of type “branch type” may

• C.9, Figure C.17: the dashed lien to association diamond is not valid in UML

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:

• conceptual schema (clause 8.5)
• fact model (8.5)
• body of shared meanings (11.1.1)
• body of shared concepts (11.1.1)
• terminological dictionary (11.1.1)
• vocabulary (11.1.1)
• rulebook (11.2.2.4)

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:

• conceptual schema (clause 8.5)
• fact model (8.5)
• body of shared meanings (11.1.1)
• body of shared concepts (11.1.1)
• terminological dictionary (11.1.1)
• vocabulary (11.1.1)
• rulebook (11.2.2.4)

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

• The entry for Noun Form in SBVR is currently silent as to whether or not a noun form can be based on a unary verb concept.
• If the answer is no, a Note should say as much.
• If the answer is yes, an example should be given.

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)

• "Partitioning" is a defined term in SBVR. It is a synonym of Segmentation.
• "Segmentation" is a category of Categorization Scheme. Segmentation has a very particular, more restrictive meaning than Categorization Scheme: "categorization scheme whose contained categories are complete (total) and disjoint with respect to the general concept that has the categorization scheme ".
• Yet the word "partitioning" is used in the definition of Categorization Scheme: "scheme for partitioning things in the extension of a given general concept into the extensions of categories of that general concept ". That could be very confusing (even though not stylized ... and shouldn't be). It potentially suggests constraints that are not meant.

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'"

• 'proposition' meaning that is true or false (the "semantic content"
  part in 'proposition' + performative')

• 'proposition' + 'performative' (where the 'performative' part is the
  "communicative function") e.g.:

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:

• Annex G.8.4 specifies, but does not define, concepts such as "state of affairs at point in time". 'Point in time' is a synonym for Date-Time's 'time point', which is a time interval that is a single member of a time scale. The authors of this Annex apparently did not understand that the duration of a time point depends upon the granularity of the time scale that is used. Consider a time scale of years. What does it mean to say that a "state of affairs at [a year]? Is the state of affairs "at" throughout the year or just during some portion of the year. The Annex G concept is fundamentally ambiguous.
• Annex G.8.5 defines concepts such as "period", "period1 overlaps period2", and many others, using the definitions from Date-Time's "time interval", "time interval1 overlaps time interval2", etc., but with its own terms. This is particularly confusing because Date-Time has other concepts with similar names, such as "time period". (I do not object to terms that are clearly business specific, such as "rental period".) Moreover, the Annex probably should be built on the DTV "time period" concept, rather than "time interval". The discussion of the "Rental Time Unit" makes it clear that EU-Rent is interested in periods that are based on calendars (i.e. DTV "time period") rather than arbitrary periods ("time interval"). Probably the authors of the Annex did not understand the difference.
• Annex G.8.5 defines a concept "date-time1 is before date-time2" that is unnecessary in light of the fact that a "date-time" is a kind of "time coordinate", which is a representation of a "time interval". The existing "time interval1 precedes time interval2" is applicable to all time coordinates, in the same way that representations of quantities (e.g. "5") may be used in instance of the verb concept "quantity1 is less than quantity2".
• Annex G.8.5 misquotes some definitions from the Date-Time Vocabulary. For example, the definition of "current day" is misquoted.
• The concept "date time" is defined twice: in G8.5 and in G.8.9.5. Another concept "date-time" has almost the same spelling, but has a different definition – another likely source of user confusion. Plus the definition does not make sense.
• The Annex mixes two distinct types of concepts: "time intervals" (spans of time) and "time coordinates" (representations of time intervals). It should use one or the other throughout. The confusion is particularly obvious in places like the definition of "rental is late", which talks about the "end date-time" of a "grace period".

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:

• In the definition of Characteristic Type (p. 147)
• In the name and definition of "Elements of Concept System Structure" (p. 154)
• In text (p. 190 and p. 195)
  However, "concept system" is not defined in SBVR.

2. "Relation" (in the ISO sense roughly meaning 'connection') appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:

• In the definition of Body of Shared Meaning (p. 142) and in a note for that entry.
• in the definition of Category (p. 148) Note: Its use here may not be inconsistent with ISO.
• In the definition of More General Concept (p. 148) Note: Its use here may not be inconsistent with ISO.

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.