In the beta-2 document, clause 10.8 defines a verb concept 'time point converts to time point sequence on time scale'. A typical use is 'Gregorian month converts to time point sequence on the Gregorian days scale', which is given as a specialization. The 'time scale' role is redundant in the main verb concept, and the use of individual concepts in the derived verb concepts is poor practice.

The RTF agrees that “on time scale” is redundant in the two conversion verb concepts. It is removed, the text preceding the verb concept entry, and the other elements of the entry, are revised to match. There is a corresponding Necessity (which is not stated): Each time point converts to at most one time point sequence/time set on any given time scale. Text in this section that refers to specializations for the Gregorian calendar is revised to refer to clause 11.
'Gregorian month converts to time point sequence on the Gregorian days scale' is a binary verb concept whose definition should be a use of 'time point converts to time point sequence'. The Definition given is a means of stating a Necessity. And this is also the case with the other two uses of ‘converts to’ in 11.8 and 11.9. Most of the perceived problem is resolved by restating the binary verb concepts more simply, e.g., Gregorian month has Gregorian days sequence, using the ‘converts to’ verb concept in the Definition, and stating the computations as Necessities.
The currently informal mechanism for relating month-of-year to day-of-year in 11.7 is formalized and used in converting a Gregorian month to Gregorian days.
Tables 11.1 and 11.2 incorrectly identify the columns as properties of Gregorian month – they are properties of Gregorian month-of-year. The table headings are corrected.
While the concepts in Section 11.8 and 11.9 are unchanged, the formulations are modified to use the simplified verbs and separate the Necessities.

The description for "Properly overlaps" in this section is as follows:

"The ‘properly overlaps’ relation distinguishes the case in which there is a part of each time interval that is not a part the other from all the cases in which one time interval is entirely a part of the other. The general ‘overlaps’ relation subsumes all of them. ‘Properly overlaps’ describes the first time interval as starting and ending earlier than the second, whereas ‘is properly overlapped by’ describes the first time interval as starting and ending later."

Problem:

In the phrase "‘Properly overlaps’ describes the first time interval as starting and ending earlier than the second," the sense which is intended is in fact "‘Properly overlaps’ describes the first time interval as starting earlier than the second starts and ending earlier than the second ends"

That is, a word was left implied in this phrase, but no one word would, when inserted here, have carried the correct meaning. For example "starting and ending earlier than the second [starts]" would be incorrect, as would "starting and ending earlier than the second [ends]". So when the reader parses this surface-level syntax and inserts any implied words for a deeper level cognitive representation of the meaning, any such representation would be incorrect compared to the intended sense of this term.

Similarly in the phrase which follows:
"... whereas ‘is properly overlapped by’ describes the first time interval as starting and ending later."

should then (presumably) be:
"... whereas ‘is properly overlapped by’ describes the first time interval as starting later than the second starts, and ending later than the second ends."

Proposed Solution:
Rewrite the offending paragraph as follows:

"The ‘properly overlaps’ relation distinguishes the case in which there is a part of each time interval that is not a part the other from all the cases in which one time interval is entirely a part of the other. The general ‘overlaps’ relation subsumes all of them. ‘Properly overlaps’ describes the first time interval as starting earlier than the second starts and ending earlier than the second ends, whereas ‘is properly overlapped by’ describes the first time interval as starting later than the second starts, and ending later than the second ends."

Replace text as described below.

Issue 17129 added a new Annex I titled "UML Profile for SBVR". The title is misleading; this is a profile for SBVR as used in the Date-Time Vocabulary, not a profile for SBVR in general.

Recommendation: change the title of this Annex and related text to make clear this profile documents the stereotypes used in the UML model of the Date-Time Vocabulary. The profile does not address all of SBVR and is not intended for use beyond DTV.

The UML model in the original Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) submission incorporated a number of stereotypes in order to capture SBVR semantics where UML does not provide equivalents. Issue 17129 thoroughly documented these stereotypes in the new Annex I. The documentation is needed to ensure consistent and complete implementations.

The title and introduction of the Annex imply that this profile is intended for generic use in any SBVR vocabulary mapped to SBVR. This was not the intent. The Annex selectively addresses only those SBVR concepts that are both used in the Date-Time Vocabulary and do not "map" directly to UML concepts. However, the Annex title and introduction imply otherwise. Therefore the resolution for issue 17129 is revised to:

• Clarify a sentence in clause 5.3 that introduces the UML model.
• Changethe title of Annex I.
• Reword the introduction of Annex I.

During the preparation of the resolution for this issue, the resolution author noticed that Annex I is omitted from the specification introduction in clause 6.3. That omission is also corrected by the revised version of 17129.

Revised Text:
None: all revisions are incorporated in the revised resolution of 17129.
Disposition: Merged

Issue 17426 added a verb concept 'atomic time coordinate has index' to clause 10.5.3 for consistency with figure 10.10. Issue 17428 redefined 'atomic time coordinate', and deleted this concept from the figure but failed to delete 'atomic time coordinate has index' because it was not in the convenience document of the time.

Recommendation: delete 'atomic time coordinate has index'.

The resolution of issue 17428 is revised to delete the 'atomic time coordinate has index'. Therefore this resolution is merged with that of 17428.

Revised Text:

Disposition: Merged

Clause 10.8 defines the verb concept 'time point1 shares common time scale with time point2'. This verb concept is then specialized with verb concepts such as 'Gregorian year shares the Gregorian days scale with Gregorian month'. These specialized verb concepts are defining 'ground facts', and probably should be given as Necessities rather than verb concepts.

The various verb concepts are changed to Necessities, capturing the same meaning in a form that is more consistent with SBVR usage.

In support of the addition of a very generic concept for all kinds of occurrences to SBVR at the DTV RTF’s request, so that all specifications that define a particular kind of occurrence based on this generic SBVR concept, the Date-Time Vocabulary needs entries to do this.
Resolution:
1. Adopt ‘occurrence‘ from SBVR as specialize it as ‘temporal occurrence’.
2. Adopt ‘what-happens state of affairs has occurrence’ from SBVR as specialize it as ‘what-happens state of affairs has temporal occurrence’.

Revised Text:
In clause 16 immediately before the entry for ‘situation model', INSERT two new entries:
temporal occurrence
Definition: occurrence that occurs for a given time interval

… add whatever contraints are required by DTV on ‘temporal occurrence’, which is adopted from SBVR …

Necessity: A state of affairs will have occurred for a time interval if and only if the state of affairs has an occurrence and the occurrence interval of the occurrence is the time interval.

Necessity: A state of affairs has been actual if and only if an occurrence of the state of affairs is in the past.
Necessity: A state of affairs is actual if and only if an occurrence of the state of affairs is current.
Necessity: A state of affairs will be actual if and only if an occurrence of the state of affairs is in the future.

Necessity: An occurrence has been actual if and only if the occurrence is in the past.
Necessity: An occurrence is actual if and only if the occurrence is current.
Necessity: An occurrence will be actual if and only if the occurrence is in the future.
what-happens state of affairs

… add whatever contraints are required by DTV on ‘what-happens state of affairs’, which is adopted from SBVR …

what-happens state of affairs has temporal occurrence
Definition: ’ what-happens state of affairs has occurrence’ that includes only temporal occurrences

… add whatever contraints are required by DTV between ‘temporal occurrence’ and ‘what-happens state of affairs’, which are adopted from SBVR …

In clause 16.7, in the entry for ' situation model occurs now', ADD a Nole:
Note: The statement “the state of affairs has an occurrence that is current” is semantically equivalent to the SBVR characterisitc “state of affairs is actual”.

The SBVR-RTF has decided not to add support for 'occurrence' or 'what-happens state of affairs' to SBVR, leaving them entirely to the Date-Time Vocabulary. Therefore, the DTV FTF-2 has chosen to retain the original Date-Time approach to these concepts but adapt them to more closely align them with SBVR. The following changes are made by this issue resolution:
1. 'Situation model' is renamed 'situation kind' on the belief that this term is more acceptable to business users, and that it is a better match to the intended meaning. 'Individual situation model' and 'general situation model' are renamed to 'individual situation kind' and 'general situation kind' to match.
2. 'Situation kind' and 'occurrence' are redefined as specializations of SBVR 'state of affairs', thus defining the relationship between SBVR 'state of affairs' and these DTV concepts.
3. The SBVR Necessity ' Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs.' is replaced with ' Each proposition corresponds to exactly one situation kind.' because the original SBVR Necessity prevents a proposition from having multiple occurrences.
4. A Necessity is added to make clear that 'occurrences' are 'actual' iff they are current.
5. A Necessity is added to make clear that a 'situation kind' is actual iff there exist occurrences of the situation kind at the current time.
6. The relationship of verb concepts and verb concept objectification with 'state of affairs', 'situation kind', and 'occurrence' is described.
7. An unused Date-Time concept is removed to improve the alignment with SBVR:
situation model is realized
8. The 'proposition describes situation model' is dropped in favor of SBVR's 'proposition corresponds to state of affairs'.
Examples are used to explain how and why the Date-Time Vocabulary differs from SBVR with respect to 'states of affairs'.

This resolution also addressed most of the concerns raised by issues 16664, 16678, 16768, and 17597:

• 16664 raises a number of issues about the relationship of 'situation kind' and 'occurrence' to 'state of affairs', about when a proposition is true, and related concerns. These issues are all resolved here.
• 16678 asked for a better integration with SBVR 'state of affairs' and 'state of affairs is actual'. This resolution addresses that concern in detail.
• 16768 also asked for a better integration with SBVR 'state of affairs'.
• 17597 asked for a reorganization of the 16.1 and 16.1.1 headings. That reorganization is made in this resolution.

The UML diagram in Figure 13.1 shows 'leap second' as a subtype of 'second of day'.
The Definition of 'leap second' in clause 13.2 defines it to be an instance of 'second of day'.
The text is correct. The UML diagram should show that it is an instance, like 'midnight'.

Correct the UML diagram

The definitions of the indexical time intervals in clause 15 include references to time point concepts that either do not exist or are not visible in the included vocabularies. These concepts include:

day of year (which does not exist)
hour of day (in clause 13, which is not included in clause 15)
minute of hour (in clause 13, which is not included in clause 15)
calendar week (in clause 12, which is not included in clause 15)
week period (in clause 12, which is not included in clause 15)

Recommendation: define 'day of year' in clause 10.2, and move the other concepts from their current locations to clause 10.2.

The structure of the Date-Time Vocabulary is revised to make the Indexical Time Vocabulary include the vocabularies that define these concepts, thus resolving the issue. The reference to 'day of year' is corrected to reference 'Gregorian day of year'.

In clause 15.1 page 154 DTV defines 'time interval is current' as:
"time interval that includes a time interval1 that is past and that includes a time interval2 that is not past"

That definition is ambiguous and the most likely parse is nonsense. The problem is that 'and that includes' might be parsed to refer to time interval1, which is not what was intended. The intent is
"time interval that includes both a time interval that is in the past and a time interval that is not past". I believe SBVR SE might support this latter formulation (perhaps without the 'both').

This is a minor problem with formulating the definition in SBVR Structured English. The definition is reworded to eliminate the 'and that includes'.

Source: Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research, mlinehan@us.ibm.com
Summary:
The verb concept 'time interval1 precedes time interval2', defined in clause 8.1.4, appears to have the same semantics as 'time interval1 is before time interval2' in clause 8.1.2. Also, figure 8.5 fails to show 'time interval1 precedes time interval2'.

‘Time interval1 precedes time interval2’ is redundant. It and its synonymous forms should be made synonymous forms for ‘time interval1 is before time interval2’ in clause 8.2.2. The entry can be kept in 8.2.4 with a See reference to the entry in 8.2.2. The UML model (which only captures primary terms) need not be modified.
Note: In 8.2.2, one of the synonymous forms for ‘is before’ is incorrect. It is also corrected by the changes below.

Title: Clause 8.3.2 dependency upon clause 10.2
Source: Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research, mlinehan@us.ibm.com
Summary:
The definitions of several standard time units that are defined in clause 8.3.2 are dependent upon "period" concepts that are defined in clause 10.2. Specifically:

The Definition of day in 8.3.2 references calendar day, which is in 10.2
The Definition of year in 8.3.2 references calendar year, in 10.2
The Definition of month in 8.3.2 references calendar month, in 10.2
The Definition of week in 8.3.2 references calendar week, in 10.2

This violates the Vocabulary structure shown in figure 7.3

It is not necessary for any of these units to make definitive references to the concepts in clause 10.2. Two of these units are taken to be precise multiples of ‘day’. The other two are nominal units that approximate the time intervals of astronomical events. Those same intervals are cited in the definitions in clause 10.2. They can be used in both places, so that (v1.0) clause 8.4.2 does not definitively reference clause 10.

In DTV Beta-2,Clause 8.2.3, there are two verb concepts:
time interval1 is duration before time interval2
time interval1 is duration after time interval2

From the alternative form: "duration before/after time interval2", it seems clear that the intent of these verb concepts is to allow a time interval to be defined by a reference time interval and a duration, e.g., the two weeks before the jump-off date, the day after the meeting (day). Each of these denotes exactly one time interval.

But the Definitions mean that the verb concepts simply state the duration between two time intervals. This may be useful when the intent is to state the duration between two events, but it is not the meaning of 'duration before time interval', and it cannot be used to define a time interval. Either these verb concepts should be defined to be the ones intended by the alternative forms, or the alternative forms should be separate verb concepts.

The intent of these two verb concepts is to define time intervals, but there are two ways to define time intervals in terms of durations. ‘the two weeks before the meeting’ refers to a time period of two weeks, ending with the meeting, as the issue describes. ‘two weeks before the meeting’ refers to a time interval (a day) that is separated from the meeting by two weeks, which is the intent of the existing text. The concepts in the issue statement are additional concepts, not replacement concepts. They are added.
The RTF also notes that the most common bases for duration before and after are used with events rather than time intervals. This simplifies the business usage by avoiding the circumlocution ‘the time interval when ...’. The corresponding verbs are added to clause 16. These are simplifications of concepts that use the verb concepts at issue.
Clause 16.7 was already very large. The edit also formally creates two subsections at the obvious boundary.