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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

(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)

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

• "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)

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

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 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

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

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

OMG Issue No: 16685
Title: Fix Entries in Subclause 10.1.2.1 to Align with Subclause 10.1
Source:
SBVR Co-chair, Donald Chapin [Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com]
Summary:
Spin-off from Resolution of Issue 15623 (and 14843 which was Merged into it)
Fix the entries in SBVR Subclause 10.1.2.1 to bring them in line with what Clause 10.1 says as revised by the resolution to Issues 15623 & 14843.

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

Annex H provides detailed guidance on the representation of SBVR vocabulary concepts in UML diagrams. Much of that guidance produces invalid UML constructs per UML 2.4.

H.1 "If there are additional terms for the concept they can be added within the rectangle, labeled as such – e.g., “also: is-category-of
fact type” as depicted in Figure H.1." There is no UML syntax for this.

H.2 "Alternatively, an individual concept can be depicted as an instance of its related general concept (noun concept), as in Figure H.3." The diagram uses an unidentified Dependency, which has no meaning. It should be formally stereotyped.

H.3.1 shows three representations of the fact type 'semantic community shares understanding of concept'. The third is invalid – an association can have only one name. Also the name of the association is 'shares understanding of'; it does not include the placeholder terms.

H.3.1 Figure H.4 shows associations that are navigable in both directions, inducing unnamed UML properties on 'semantic community' and 'concept' that are not intended. (This is a vestige of UML v1 ambiguity.) It should show no navigable ends, using UML 2.4 syntax.

H.3.4 Figure H.9 depicts an invalid relationship symbol; an association is required to have 2 or more roles.

H.4.2 Figure H.11 shows a stereotype <<is role of>> on a Generalization. I'm not sure this is valid UML, but in any case such a stereotype would have to be defined in a formal Profile. (Semantically, some "roles" are object types that specialize more general concepts, others are association ends (verb concept roles), and others are things in their own right that have the property 'role has occupant'.)

H.4.3 suggests that there is no consistent mapping for association names. In any case, the UML model of a 'fact type role' is a named association end, regardless of ownership.

H.6.1 Figure H.14. It is not clear what UML element has the name "Results by Payment type", and the text does not say. It may be a GeneralizationSet.

H.6.2 Figure H.16. ":modality" appears to be a TagValue associated with some unnamed and undefined Tag, or it may just be another string that names no model element.

H.8 In, Figure H.17 there is a meaningless dashed line between 'car recovery' and a ternary association (verb concept). It is said to represent 'objectification'. That dashed line should be a Dependency that has a stereotype indicating the nature of that relationship, e.g., <<objectification>>, defined in a Profile.

H.9 says that the default multiplicity on association ends is 0..*. According to the UML metamodel v2.4, the default multiplicity on a UML association end is 1..1, i.e., exactly one. This makes most of the SBVR UML diagrams implicitly erroneous.

So Annex H needs to be rewritten, and if it is to include standard stereotypes and tag values, it needs a standard UML Profile that defines them.

Further, it demonstrates the need for minor repairs to the UML diagrams throughout SBVR, to make them match the MOF model described in Clause 13.

Most or maybe all points are fixed by resolution of SBVR 15-08 - Review in SBVR v1.6

(see attached Word document)

When DTV v1.0-alpha was adopted, it contained a proposed simplified text representation for SBVR LRMV constructs (as distinct from the long and involved sequences of sentences used in SBVR examples, that make references to undefined concepts like'first variable'). The DTV FTF resolved issues about the disposition of the annex containing this SBVR LRMV notation by improving the description of the notation, but also revising the informative text that used the notation in such a way that the notation is no longer used in DTV. This LRMV notation therefore no longer has a use in DTV and is out of scope for the DTV specification. It is likely that the annex (DTV v1.1 Annex F) will be deleted from DTV v1.2.

The simplified LRMV notation has value for the wider SBVR community, and its description should be an informative Annex to SBVR. It is within the expertise and purview of the SBVR RTF to address any problems with the notation specification, and to maintain alignment with the SBVR specification generally. Accordingly, the SBVR RTF should maintain the adopted text of DTV Annex F as an Annex to SBVR.

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

SBVR Clause A.2.6 provides syntax for a concept called ‘intensional role’, but there is no such terminological entry and no clear definition.

In one of the business usage examples for DTV, we have encountered a usage of ‘time period’ in two intensional roles: ‘fixed period’ and ‘variable period’, but we can’t declare them: Concept type: intensional role.

As A.2.6 says, intensional roles arise when a concept designation is used with verbs of specification and change, and possibly others. The reference is to an unspecified thing of that will satisfy the concept. When one ‘specifies the rental period for X’, the rental period does not denote any time period. The whole idea is that one associates the concept ‘rental period for X’ with an extension that will only exist when the specifying action completes. Similarly, one cannot ‘change the rental period’, one can only change which time period “the rental period for X” denotes. With these verbs, the “intensional role” is equivalent to an ‘answer’ (at least in structure): one specifies “what time period the rental period is”.

The same idea seems to apply to a verb like ‘prevents’. If someone “prevents a forest fire”, there is no forest fire that is prevented; rather the concept ‘forest fire’ is not instantiated. But unlike the above, one does not prevent “what forest fire it is.” And if one ‘orders 1000 widgets’, they may or may not already exist so that they can be ordered. What one orders is a characterization of objects that are to be instantiated.

So, the intensional role seems to be a valuable concept for verb concept wordings, because it has real business use

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

Problem: If "body of shared concepts" were defined as [the set of] all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings", then I dont think the following entry would be needed: "body of shared concepts includes concept".

Resolution:

1. Change the definition of "body of shared concepts" to: the set of all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings"

2. Eliminate the entry: body of shared concepts includes concept

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

Need to establish approved baseline from SBVR v1.5 Issue Resolutions to proceed with the Rest

In the early days of team discussions about alethic vs. deontic modalities for rules and advices, the signifiers "structural" and "operative" were introduced to make this important distinction between modalities (respectively). Later, the signifiers "definitional" and "behavioral" were introduced as synonyms.

Over time the synonyms have proven more accurate, intuitive, and popular, both within SBVR team discussions and externally. For example:
• The signifier "operative" has not been used in the Business Rules Journal on www.BRCommunity.com as a primary signifier since at least 2009.
• Both of my books (Business Rule Concepts and Business Analysis with Business Rules) use the synonyms.
• In my judgment, an internet search on "behavioral (business) rules" produces more relevant results than one on "operative (business) rules".

The time has come to designate the newer pair as the preferred signifiers and to switch usage throughout the SBVR standard itself. There are at least two reasons this change over should be made immediately:

1) The re-sequenced /reorganized version of SBVR currently underway should not be appear in a revised form until the preferred terminology is corrected.
2) Version 3.0 of IIBA's BABOK, widely influential within the business analysis community and beyond, is now in its final public renew stage. (The deadline is July 11.) Several RTF team members would like to be in a position to inform them of the revised preferred terminology, and to be able to say it's mandated this is the standard terminology by according to SBVR. This window of opportunity will close for at least 3 years or so unless we do it now.

Change the entry for 'structural rule' (in 17.1.2) to use 'definitional rule' as the entry term and to use 'structural rule' as a Synonym. Make the corresponding changes to swap terms in the synonym ("See:") entry that follows. Also change the entry for 'structural business rule' (in 17.1.2) to use 'definitional business rule' as the entry term and to use 'structural business rule' as a Synonym. Make the corresponding changes to swap terms in the synonym ("See:") entry that follows.
Ignoring these four entries in 17.1.2 AND the cases listed below, change (everywhere) the term 'structural' to 'definitional'. The cases where "structural" does NOT change are:
• in Clause 14: the 14.1 title & the 14.2 title.
• in the uses of "structurally" — all such cases are valid as is and should not be changed.
Change the entry for 'operative business rule' (in 18.1.2) to use 'behavioral business rule' as the entry term and to use 'operative business rule' as a Synonym. Make the corresponding changes to swap terms in the synonym ("See:") entry that follows.
Ignoring these two entries in 18.1.2, change (everywhere) the term 'operative' to 'behavioral' and correct the article 'an' to use 'a', where needed.
Change the diagrams where 'structural' and 'operative' appear to reflect the new primary terms.

Title: SBVR needs a consistently applied policy for styling or not styling signifiers
Source:
John Hall, RuleML Initiative
john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk
Summary:
There is some inconsistency in the SBVR specification regarding which signifiers are styled and which are not.
A policy needs to be agreed and applied consistently through the SBVR specification.
Resolution:
1. Style each use of the signifier of a concept (e.g. ‘thing’, ‘meaning’) where that use has the specific meaning defined in its SBVR entry;
2. If the signifier of a defined concept has an everyday English meaning that is different from its SBVR definition, don’t style uses of it where the everyday meaning is intended;
3. Add a paragraph to the introduction explaining the basis for styling/not styling.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In clause 8.3.4, the term 'verb concept wording' is defined as:
"representation of a verb concept by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept and signifiers for its verb concept roles"

In the same clause, the term 'noun form' is defined as:
"verb concept wording that acts as a noun rather than forming a proposition"

One would expect therefore, that a noun form of a verb concept would be a gerund, such as 'car transfer' for 'branch1 transfers car to branch2', where the 'noun form' denotes the same actualities as the verb concept.

But only the last Example (which is hard to understand because of a particularly bad choice of verb) is said to be about gerunds. The other examples clearly are not. The first Example is: "'transferred car of car transfer' for the verb concept 'car transfer has transferred car'. This form yields a transferred car."

The instances of 'car transfer has transferred car' are actualities of a car being involved in a car transfer. But the cited text says the instances of the 'noun form' 'transferred car of car transfer' are cars, not actualities. Similarly, the interpretation of the other two examples of 'noun forms' correspond to numbers, not actualities.

So the instances of a noun form of a verb concept need not be instances of the verb concept! The noun form therefore cannot be a 'verb concept wording'. The noun form does not represent the verb concept!

It appears that there are two different concepts here. Noun form 1 is "verb concept wording that acts as a noun." That is the gerund in the last Example. In the other examples, the noun form represents a derived concept that is what SBVR calls a 'situational role'. The intent of 'noun form 2' is "representation of a situational role by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a signifier for the verb concept that the role is derived from and signifiers for some of its verb concept roles".

Finally, use of noun form 2 in declaring a glossary item for a situational role would be preferable to using only the role designation. In particular, the explicit appearance of other role placeholders in the noun form would permit them to be used directly in defining the situational role.

For example:
cardinality
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in a given set or collection

could be declared with the noun form:
cardinality of set
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in the set

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In clause A.2.2, the keyword 'another' is introduced, with the interpretation:

(used with a term that has been previously used in the same statement) existential quantification plus a condition that the referent thing is not the same thing as the referent of the previous use of the term

The idea "existential quantification plus" is an unnecessary and undesirable addition. The useful keyword is 'other'. As described, "other X" means "instance of the general concept X that is not the same thing as the referent of the previous occurrence of the term X". But "another" is just a conventional spelling of "an other", and might equally have been spelled "some other". The term 'other' can be usefully quantified by quantifiers other than "an". Each other, at least n other, at most n other, exactly n other, and no other are all valid uses of 'other' with the given interpretation, less the "existential quantification plus".

Defining only the portmanteau keyword 'another' greatly and unnecessarily limits the expressiveness of SBVR Structured English in this area.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The first statement in Annex A.4.2.3 is misleading:

A definition given for a verb concept is an expression that can be substituted for a simple statement expressed using a verb

concept wording of the verb concept.

Unlike a noun concept definition, the definition of a verb concept cannot simply be substituted for an occurrence of the verb concept wording. Like the verb concept wording itself, it is a structured pattern with placeholder parameters, and the substitution process is complex. In “substituting the definition expression for a simple statement expressed using the verb concept wording”, it is also necessary to substitute the role phrases that are used in the verb concept wording in that simple statement for the corresponding placeholders in the definition. That is significantly different from what happens in the noun concept case.

In the same subclause, the sentence:

“A definition of a verb concept can generally be read using the pattern below ...
A fact that ... is a fact that ...”

is not quite general enough. The definition characterizes the same state of affairs, even when it is not a fact. It could be written:

A state of affairs in which ... is a state of affairs in which ...

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Figure C.11 the right-hand diagram is not clear since both renter and driver seem to be independent roles (a renter, even of a car, may or may not drive it)

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The notion of “well-formedness” in compliance point 1 should be defined

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR v1.1 Clause 8 says:
Note: in the glossary entries below, the words “Concept Type: role” indicate that a general concept being defined is a role.
Because it is a general concept, it is necessarily a situational role and is not a verb concept role.

How does one declare an attributive role that is not a general concept?

SBVR v1.1 appears to use such declarations to also declare roles that are attributive roles of a given noun concept and thus also in the attributive namespace of the noun concept. For example, clause 8.6 declares 'cardinality', which is an attributive role of integers with respect to 'sets', in a glossary entry with Concept type: role. But 'cardinality' is not a general concept; nothing is a 'cardinality', full stop. An integer can only be a 'cardinality' OF something. it is a purely attributive term. As a term for a general concept, 'cardinality' is thus a term in the Meaning and Representation namespace; it has no 'context'.

The problem arises in defining attributive roles of general noun concepts, such as 'occurrence has time span' and 'schedule has time span', where the definitions of the two roles are importantly different because they are attributes of different general concepts that are only similar in nature. Neither is a situational role. That is, neither is a general concept. No time interval is a 'time span', full stop. A time interval must be a time span OF something. One 'time span' is in the attributive namespace of 'schedule', and a different 'time span' designation is in the attributive namespace of 'occurrence'. Neither is in the DTV.Situations vocabulary namespace per se. How can this be declared using SBVR conventions? Declaring them both in glossary entries with Concept Type: role apparently makes them conflicting designations for 'situational roles' in the DTV.Situations vocabulary.

Does simply declaring the verb concept 'occurrence has time span' declare the attributive role? If so, how is the range of the role declared? And where does the definition of the attributive role go?

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In SBVR clause 8.5.2, the following Necessity appears:

Necessity: If a concept[sub]1 is coextensive with a concept[sub]2 then the extension of the concept[sub]1 is the extension of the concept[sub]2.

(where [sub] is used to show subscripts).

There are three problems with this Necessity:

1. This Necessity just restates the definition of ‘concept is coextensive with concept’ in 8.1.1.1. It adds nothing.

2. It is the only occurrence in SBVR v1.1 of the use of a subscript outside of a placeholder term, and that use is not defined in Annex C.

3. The meaning of the article ‘a’ before concept (1) and concept (2) is universal in this case, not existential, which contradicts Annex C.

Delete it!

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

(a) Clause 11 should include the verb concept "thing has property". This verb concept should appear in figure 11.5.

(b) Property needs to be indicated as an abstract concept in Clause 13 (since it is in the universe of discourse, not the model).

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR Clause 9.2 defines: ‘semantic formulation’ as ‘a conceptual structure of meaning’.

And then closed semantic formulation is defined as 'semantic formulation that includes no variable without binding'

But no SBVR concept associates semantic formulation (in general) with variables. And some other conceptual structure of meaning, e.g., phrased in SBVR structured English or OWL, might not have any notion of ‘variable’ or ‘binding’ at all. So the definition appeals to a delimiting characteristic that may be meaningless for the general concept, and thereby admit semantic formulations that were not intended.

Every structure of meaning presumably formulates a meaning; otherwise it formulates nonsense. But clause 9.2 has only ‘closed semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which suggests that open semantic formulations (involving free variables) formulate nonsense. That is simply not true of a ‘structure of meaning’ formulated in CLIF. What is really meant is that LRMV ‘closed logical formulations’ formulate propositions, and LRMV ‘closed projections’ formulate concepts. But those are special cases.

The definition of ‘closed semantic formulation’ should be ‘closed logical formulation or closed projection’, which makes it clearly an LRMV concept, and then those concepts must state their relationship to free variables.

The general idea for all conceptual structures of meaning is ‘semantic formulation formulates meaning’, which would allow other semantic formulations, e.g., in SBVR SE, OWL, etc., to be related to the meanings they formulate. If an LRMV projection or logical formulation that is not closed does not formulate a meaning, that is a LRMV Necessity for those specific concepts.

Finally, note that a (clause 8) Definition is always a representation of a conceptual structure of meaning that formulates a concept. The important idea in ‘definition serves as designation’ in clause 11.2.3 is that the representation of a semantic formulation (a conceptual structure of meaning) is used to refer to the concept itself, rather than just the properties contained in the formulation. This idea of semantic formulation as conceptual structure of meaning is fundamental to the notion ‘definition’, and should not be buried in the LRMV.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The title of this issue is an example of common problem in SBVR Structured English.

Impossibility: An SBVR SE statement contains a qualifier whose subject is a property of the referent.

Given the verb concept 'sequence has member' aka 'thing is member of sequence', how is the following definition to be written in SBVR SE: "sequence each member of which is a time point"?

The referent of the pronoun 'which' is the sequence, but the subject of the qualifier clause is a quantified property of the referent. But SBVR SE only permits the (anaphor) pronoun to be 'that' or 'who' and apparently requires it to follow the referent noun immediately.

SBVR SE does not permit: "sequence of which each member is a time point".

And it does not provide a 'where' or 'such that' construct that would allow the back reference to be represented by 'the sequence', as in: "sequence where each member of the sequence is a time point".

Even the simpler case of a reference to a unique property of the referent in the qualifier clause --"shipment whose delivery date has passed" – requires a circumlocution ("shipment that has a delivery date that has passed"), because 'whose' is not an SBVR SE keyword. And the cascading 'that's interfere with the expression of compound qualifiers (using 'and that …').

In our experience, this shortcoming significantly limits the clear expression of definitions and rules in SBVR SE.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The Date Time Vocabulary specification contains several Definitions and Necessities that use subscripted terms, e.g.,

Necessity: For each time interval(2) and each time interval(3) that finishes time interval(2), the duration of the time interval(1) that starts time interval(2) complementing time interval(3) is equal to the duration of time interval(2) minus the duration of time interval(3).

time point1 to time point2 specifies time period

Definition: time point(1) is the first time point of a time point sequence and time point(2) is the

last time point of the time point sequence and there is a time point(3) that is just before time point(2) in

the time point sequence and time point(1) through time point(3) specifies the time period

Each case introduces a subscripted term that is used to denote the same ‘referent’ ‘thing’ elsewhere in the definition/necessity. In the Necessity, all the subscripts are introduced terms. In the Definition, time point(1) and time point(2) refer to placeholders in the verb concept wording being defined, but time point(3) is an introduced term. These introduced terms were patterned on a usage of subscripts in SBVR clause 8.5.2 that introduces similar “local names”. SBVR Annex C does not describe such usages. Without them, it is not possible to formulate these definitions and necessities in SBVR Structured English.

Is it the intent of SBVR SE to support such usages? If yes, then SBVR Annex C needs wording to support them. If no, then DTV needs to convert these formulations to plain text.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In SBVR clause 8.4.4, there is a necessity in the entry for ‘placeholder’: “Each placeholder is in exactly one verb concept wording”. Now, immediately before section 8.4.4, in the entry for ‘statement expresses proposition’, there is a synonymous form: ‘proposition has statement’. So, ‘statement’ is the text of two placeholders. A.4.12 (Synonymous forms) tries to say that these two different placeholders refer to the same verb concept role, but the statement is garbled: “The ones using the same designation as placeholders of the primary form represent the corresponding verb concept roles…” The ‘designation used by a placeholder’ is the representation of the range concept by a signifier for that concept, per 8.4.4 ‘placeholder uses designation’. What is intended here is: “A placeholder that has the same expression as a placeholder of the primary verb concept wording represents the same verb concept role.”

Further, in that same example entry, there is a Definition: “the statement represents the proposition”. According to A.4.2.3, the expression ‘statement’ refers to a placeholder in the verb concept wording, but that is ambiguous, since there are two verb concept wordings. That text should say the primary verb concept wording, so as to disambiguate the reference.

Again, in A.4.12, the following sentence appears: “The order of placeholders for verb concept roles can be different.” What does that mean? By the necessity above, the placeholders are different, so they cannot be reordered. The intent is that the relative positions of the placeholders for the same verb concept role may be different.

Finally, all of this is an elaborate convention to maintain the given Necessity. It seems that it would be much easier to make the placeholder a representation of the verb concept role throughout the terminological entry, as distinct from having it denote the verb concept role in the primary entry and in the Definition(s), but not in Synonymous forms, Descriptions, Notes, etc. The only function of that Necessity is to make a single ternary fact type: “Verb concept wording has placeholder at starting character position” into two binary fact types that each convey half the concept. A great deal of effort is expended to explain use of a business-friendly syntax that violates the stated model of a purely syntactic concept – the intent is that the placeholder expression represents the same verb concept role throughout the entry. And verb concept wordings are ONLY about expressions. The underlying problem is that the concept ‘terminological entry’ is not part of the clause 8 vocabulary, and is therefore not available to be the scope of a placeholder. But then, the concept ‘primary verb concept wording’ is not in the clause 8 vocabulary, either.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The use of UML described in the Annex does not represent any known UML tool nor the UML specification. The examples are UML-like diagrams presumably created with a drawing tool.

• 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

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

New SBV issue: Distinguishing the senses of infinitive and present tense
From Don Baisley

There are many verbs for which the present tense of a verb conveys a particularly different sense than the infinitive. The difference I refer to is not about "the present time", but about "occurring at least occasionally". For example, the statement that "Pam surfs" (present tense) combines the meaning of "to surf" (the infinitive) and the meaning that “it happens at least occasionally”.

For such verbs, there is a challenge when using SBVR's typical pattern of defining verb concepts in the present tense. It tends to conflate the infinitive sense of a verb with the different sense meant by the present tense. That conflation causes problems. This is not an issue for ORM or other approaches that do not try to support natural language tense in a generic way. The problem has no apparent impact for many verbs where the present tense sense of "occurring at least occasionally" is inconsequential or inapplicable. The problem is especially troublesome for eventive verbs. Most SBVR verbs are stative, so the problem has tended to go unnoticed in the SBVR vocabulary itself.
If supporting tense in a generic way, in logical formulations, the other tenses should be built on objectifications that start with the infinitive sense of a verb, not with the present tense. Also, modal operations like obligation build on the infinitive sense.

For examples below, I define verb concept forms for generic "tense" concepts using the verb "occurs" (where the there is a role that ranges over the concept 'state of affairs'). The choices of signifier and form are arbitrary (not necessary), but seem to convey the sense of the tenses naturally.

Example:
'person surfs' (present tense)
'person surf' (the infinitive sense)

Where someone puts 'person surfs' in a business glossary, there is an underlying verb concept that has the sense of "to surf", the infinitive. I show it here in examples as 'person surf' (leaving out the infintizing "to"). This underlying verb concept is necessary to correctly formulate other tenses, and even necessary to formulate use of the present tense in some cases, which I will show later.

Here are several examples of statements and interpretations using generic tense concepts built on the verb "occur". To be terse, I show objectification using brackets.

Pam surfs.
[Pam surf] occurs

Pam is surfing.
[Pam surf] is occurring

Pam was surfing.
[Pam surf] was occurring

Pam has been surfing.
[Pam surf] has been occurring

Pam surfed.
[Pam surf] occurred

Pam will be surfing.
[Pam surf] will be occurring

Pam will surf.
[Pam surf] will occur

Pam will have been surfing.
[Pam surf] will have been occurring

The second example above, "Pam is surfing", can serve to illustrate the need to build on the infinitive rather than the present tense sense. To build on the present tense would be to say the thing that “is occurring” is Pam surfing at least occasionally, which is incorrect. The present continuous and other tenses do not include the present tense sense of occurring at least occasionally, so they cannot rightly be built upon a concept that conveys that sense.

I said above I would show where the infinitive sense is sometimes needed even for the present tense. Here is a case where the infinitive 'person surf' concept is needed to formulate a statement that uses "surf" only in the present tense:

Pam talks while she surfs.

Wrong Interpretation I1: [Pam surfs] occurs while [Pam talks] occurs

I1 misses the key sense of the statement, because [Pam surfs] (present tense) means that surfing is something Pam does at least occasionally and [Pam talks] means that talking is something that Pam does at least occasionally. I1 applies 'state of affairs1 occurs while state of affairs2 occurs' to the wrong states of affairs (the states in which Pam occasionally surfs and Pam occasionally talks).

Right Interpretation I2: [[Pam surf] occur while [Pam talk] occur] occurs

I2 correctly factors out the tense and applies it at an outer level (as we often do with modal operations). The conjunction joins objectifications of the underlying sense of "to surf" and "to talk" without the added meaning of the present tense (that the surfing or talking is at least occasional). The sense of present tense (happening at least occasionally) is then added at the outside where it applies to the simultaneous actions.

SBVR does not prevent verbs concepts from being defined in glossaries in the infinitive , as is typical of dictionary definitions of verbs. That approach has always been available. But that approach is not used in SBVR’s own glossary and examples. In general, the sense of “occurs at least occasionally” is absent from SBVR’s own verb concepts, so the distinction is unimportant. But business rules and facts run into the problem. E.g., a EU-Rent rule about whether a renter smokes vs. a rule about whether he is smoking when in a rental car.

Recommendation:

It will be best to resolve this in a way that does not disturb the business-friendly approach of showing verb concept readings in the present tense. It might be possible to define a pattern in SBVR Structured English by which verb concepts with an infinitive sense are implied where present tense versions are explicitly presented in a glossary.

Examples of formulations need to show the distinction. Existing examples should be examined and fixed as needed. New formulation examples might be helpful to demonstrate using generic tense concepts to build on a root verb concept.
None of this changes the meaning of 'state of affairs' or 'objectification', but understanding this issue and its solution might help bring clarity to some of the examples that have been discussed.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined. This would address two concerns:
1. Allow the definition-based model to have an open-world assumption and the fact model to have a closed-world assumption.
The proposed resolution is:
1. Define that Clause 10 ‘fact models’ are by default closed world models

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The problem statement: The Annex is out of date with respect to RuleSpeak notation, probably the newly released version of EU-Rent, and perhaps newer aspects of SBVR itself.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Section C.10 states that the default assumed multiplicity for an unannotated association end is *. That’s a terrible idea since the UML default is 1 (i.e. 1..1).

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, the entries for ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ contain reference schemes that refer to the concept ‘closed projection’ and related fact types that do not appear in the MRV itself. In the MRV per se, these are undefined terms. I am told, but do not find in SBVR v1.2, that if only the MRV is implemented, such Reference Schemes are ignored, while clause 13.4.2 explicitly says that the UML/MOF classes must have the corresponding properties. If properly documented, this approach may be fine for the specification of SBVR itself. In general, however, this approach assumes that the speech community that develops a formal vocabulary is omniscient about reference schemes used by speech communities who ADOPT the original vocabulary. In general, an adopting community might add new fact types about an adopted concept that result in new reference schemes for the concept. Also, the adopting community might add new synonyms or synonymous forms for an adopted concept. There is no reason to suppose that the original speech community is even aware of the adoption, and there is no way these additional elements can have been present in the original terminological entry. So, the approach used in SBVR itself is unworkable for general use.

When a concept is adopted by another vocabulary, it should be expressly possible for the “adopting entry” to include new reference schemes and synonymous forms, and possibly other elements of a terminological entry.

Further, if such a mechanism is introduced, the SBVR vocabularies themselves should use it, rather than incorporating reference schemes in the base terminology entry that refer to fact types that don’t exist in that vocabulary per se. For example, the LRMV should formally adopt the MRV concepts and add the reference schemes involving closed projections in the ADOPTING ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ entries.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In SBVR clause 8.3.4, in the entry for ‘placeholder’, it is stated that a placeholder exists in only one verb concept wording, and it refers to some role of the verb concept in that wording. It follows that the two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ in ‘concept1 specializes concept2’ and in the Synonymous form: ‘concept2 generalizes concept1’ (in 8.1.1.1) refer to two roles of the verb concept being defined. Since these two placeholders spelled ‘concept1’ are different designations, how are they related?

Annex C.3.1 does not say anything about the relationship between placeholders in the primary verb concept wording and placeholders in synonymous forms. (It just says something about subscripts being used to differentiate placeholders.) The intent is that the placeholder expression represents the SAME verb concept role in ALL primary and synonymous forms. That is, the placeholder is the SAME DESIGNATION in all verb concept wordings for the same verb concept. The text of 8.3.4 contradicts this intent, saying that the placeholder only has meaning within a given verb concept wording. If the text is correct, it is necessary to state some rule about the meaning of the same placeholder expression (the distinct designation) in the different synonymous forms.

Further, in the Definition of ‘concept1 specifies concept2’, the expression ‘concept1’ appears. Since that expression only refers to a verb concept role within a verb concept wording, it is utterly meaningless in the Definition! There are no placeholders in a Definition, and ‘concept1’ is not a signifier for any concept. And yet, the intent is that ‘concept1’ in the Definition is the placeholder expression and is intended to be interpreted as a reference to the thing that plays that verb concept role in an actuality of ‘concept1 specializes concept2’. Annex C says nothing about the use of placeholder expressions in Definitions, and 8.3.4 makes these usages meaningless, but they appear in every verb concept definition in SBVR.

It appears that the real intent is that a placeholder expression refers to one and the same verb concept role throughout the terminological entry for the verb concept, including at least all synonymous forms and definitions. Whether it also refers to the verb concept role in embedded Necessities needs to be clarified (it is not clear that SBVR ever assumes that, but DTV apparently does). The only aspect of a placeholder that is specific to a given verb concept wording is the ‘starting character position’, which suggests only that that relationship should be ternary, i.e., placeholder has starting character position in verb concept wording.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR should cover the concept of IRI as well as/instead of URI.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The current definition of "categorization scheme contains category" is poorly constructed and therefore hard to understand.

Current Definition: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories divided into by the scheme

Perhaps the definition means the following?

Possible Revision: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories into which the scheme divides things

I think a better definition would perhaps include the verb concept " ... classifies ... ".

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Inadequate, Overlapping and Disorganized Specifications for Sets and Collections of Concepts, Meanings, and Representations

Problem:

Assumptions

Two assumptions are basic to the eight points of this problem statement:
• SBVR must provide a business vocabulary for business people and business analysts to talk clearly and precisely about terminological dictionaries and rulebooks and what they represent.
• The various aspects of this Issue must be addressed holistically. They can be resolved only by unifying, normalizing and completing all related specifications. (Thus, the need for a new unifying Issue.)

Problems

1. A known problem in SBVR is that the current version does not make clear what the fundamental unit of interoperability in SBVR is. No matter how that issue is resolved the unit should:
• Be identifiable from a business point of view.
• Not always have to be the full, non-redundant set of concepts, meanings, or representations.
The existing content of Clause 11 does not currently provide an adequate term for the second of these. This Issue proposes “collection” for that purpose.

Note: The term “collection” in the following discussion is never actually used on its own. Rather, it always appears with qualification – e.g., ‘collection of representations’.

2. Another known problem in SBVR centers on the use of the word “container” in e-mails and discussion. (Use of the signifier “container” per se is not part of this Issue.) It is unclear (to some) whether “container” refers to the ‘thing that contains’, to ‘what is contained’, or to both. The term is easily misused and misinterpreted. Also there are many variations of what is (or could be) contained (e.g., sets, collections, etc.). SBVR needs a precise, non-overlapping vocabulary for these things from a business point of view.

3. Another known problem in SBVR is that the existing content of Clause 11.2.2.3 “communication content” (a.k.a. “document content”) is not adequate for all purposes to which it might be put. SBVR needs a richer (but still minimal) set of concepts to address this area.

4. Certain existing terms in the existing content of Clause 11 (e.g., ‘terminological dictionary’ and ‘rulebook’) conflate ‘completeness and non-redundancy’ (i.e., being a set) with ‘primary purpose’ or ‘essence’. This conflation needs to be eliminated. In the real world for example, a rulebook does not have to be complete (e.g., it may contain only what is appropriate for a given audience), and it does not have to be non-redundant. It can contain the same rule statements in different sections, the intent being to provide the greatest clarity when being used by members of some speech community.

5. SBVR currently provides no means to talk about a collection of representations that is complete with respect to one or more specific concepts, but not complete with respect to all concepts in the body of shared meanings. Example: A listing of all baseball rules that address the concepts “strike” and “ball” only.

6. With respect to interoperability there is a minimum set of pragmatic business specifications (such as completeness, effective date, shelf life, mutability, etc.) needed for things communicated. SBVR does not currently support such specifications.

Note: There is no intent or need to get into document management or rule management. The dividing line is this: SBVR does not get into organizational issues (e.g., author, sponsor, reviewer, etc.), workflow issues (e.g., status, pre-approval distribution, sign-off, impact assessment, etc.), motivation (rationale, goals, risks), etc. SBVR must, however, provide minimum viability criteria for any sets or collections communicated. Otherwise the communicated content is not really useful and trustworthy on the receiving end. Consequently the purpose of interoperability is defeated.

7. Certain kinds of collections relevant to inter-operability are missing from the current content of Clause 11 – most notably ‘record’ (not IT ‘records’). Proper incorporation of this and other kinds of collections is needed.

8. Issue 16103, which addresses “speech community representation”, needs to be worked into a holistic solution.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR apparently assume that business terms are composed of natural language words, and that those words may have multiple morphemes that are nonetheless the same word and the same term. That is, a vocabulary term like 'purchase contract' may also have the form 'purchase contracts', and a vocabulary term like 'is owned by' may be expressed as 'has been owned by'. But SBVR says nothing about any of this in defining 'designation' or 'signifier'.
When a signifier for the same concept is in a formal language like OWL or CLIF, this idea of multiple morphemes is not (usually) part of the language syntax. So this should be carefully addressed.

For the SBVR Structured English language, Annex C.1 explicitly says that these alternate morphemes are "implicitly available for use", which may mean they are treated as equivalent, or just that they are recognized as uses of the same designation.

In natural language, such morphemes carry additional meaning , e.g., plurality or tense or mood. And a morphological variant of the same designation may or may not carry additional meaning, This is important, because SBVR examples assume that plurals are conventional and irrelevant, but the Date Time Vocabulary says that the use of verb tenses in natural language conveys indexical time intent. That is:
'John is in London' and 'John was in London' have different meanings in English. Do they have different meanings in SBVR SE?
And if so, do they always have different meanings? Natural language convention requires that a statement that dates a past event uses the past tense, e.g., 'John was in London in 2008.' Is it meaningful in SBVR SE to say (in 2012) 'John is in London in 2008'? And does that mean a different proposition from 'John was in London in 2008'?

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The objectification example “EU-Rent reviews each corporate account at EU-Rent Headquarters” in SBVR v1.1 clause 9.2.7 (as modified per the resolution to issue 16309), is expressed in the usual sequence of sentences. The formal logic interpretation of those sentences is:
For each corporate account A, there exists a state of affairs S such that

S objectifies “EU-Rent reviews A”,

and S occurs at EU Rent HQ.

Now, per Clause 8 there is only one such state of affairs; and its existence is a given, that is, for every proposition of the form ‘company reviews account’, the corresponding state of affairs necessarily exists. But nothing is said here about that state of affairs being actual. Moreover, since there is probably more than one “occurrence” of that state of affairs, the definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ would be less than obvious. Or is it the intent that there is only one review of each corporate account? Whatever it means for an abstract state of affairs (that might be a set, including the empty set) to ‘occur at a place’, it is not clear, and it is important to the example of objectification – what is the state of affairs that it produces.

In SBVR v1.0, the variable S ranges over the verb concept ‘company reviews account’, because the instances of the verb concept were then said to be actualities. The resolution of Issue 14849 makes instances of a verb concept ‘states of affairs’ instead of actualities. But states of affairs need not be actual. It is obvious that some thought was given to this example, because v1.1 changed it. What is not clear is whether it is any closer to what was intended.

A definition of ‘state of affairs occurs at place’ should probably follow the DTV pattern for ‘state of affairs occurs at time’. In DTV parlance, what was intended is: Each occurrence of the state of affairs “EU Rent reviews A” ‘occurs at’ EU Rent HQ. But SBVR lacks the vocabulary to express that.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Date/Time Annex F is titled: Annex F Simplified Syntax for Logical Formulations.

First, the title is wrong. The Date/Time standard contains logical formulations in OCL and CLIF. This Annex is a syntax for SBVR 'logical formulations', and this language, like SBVR Structured English, is somehow related to the vocabulary of SBVR clause 9. It should be titled: Simplified Syntax for SBVR Logical Formulations.

Secondly, as a consequence, this Annex is totally out of place in the Date/Time Vocabulary specification. If this is a useful notation for SBVR formulations, and is used in the SBVR community, then it should surely be an informative annex to the SBVR v1.1 specification, and simply be referenced in the Date/Time Annex (E) that uses it. If it is not used in the SBVR community, then it is certainly inappropriate for Date/Time to include it.
Recommendation: Delete Annex F and refer to the OMG (SBVR) specification that actually includes it. Otherwise, use a standardized SBVR notation in Annex E.
The Date/Time final submission should have identified Annex F as a proposed addition to the SBVR specification – a new informative Annex, and we may assert that OMG adoption of the Date/Time submission constitutes adoption of Annex F as an addition to the SBVR specification.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Many business rules, laws of nature, etc., are given ‘names’ that are representations of those rules/laws as ‘individual concepts’.

For example, “Murphy’s Law” represents the proposition: Anything that can go wrong will. Similarly, “Newton’s First Law of Motion” represents the proposition: A body at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. (Laws like “Sarbanes-Oxley” are not just propositions, they are actually bodies of guidance.)

What is the SBVR relationship between these signifier expressions and the propositions? The expressions are very like designations, there are different expressions in different languages, and a few such ‘laws’ are known by different names in different subject areas. But it does not appear that they can be contained in Vocabularies or terminological dictionaries.

These representations cannot be ‘designations’. Propositions cannot be (individual) concepts, unless the dichotomy of ‘meaning’ (= concept xor proposition) is not valid. And they are clearly not ‘statements’.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Figure C.8: it should seem that composition in UML (black diamond) should be used for “contains”.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR 1.2 beta annex G (EU Rent Example) adopts concepts from the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) but deliberately gives them names that are both inconsistent with DTV and in fact are confusingly similar to the names of other concepts that are defined in DTV. Although any business can use any vocabulary terms desired, an OMG standard should maintain consistency with other OMG vocabularies for reasons of quality and to avoid user confusion. Especially a portion of a standard that is specifically intended to "to provide an aid to help them understand the specification " (annex G.2).

The Annex is also inconsistent in its own terminology with respect to dates and times. For example, "maximum rental period" (Annex G.6.6) is a kind of "duration" even though G.8.6 defines "period" as a kind of "time interval" and a "rental period" (G.6.8.3) is a kind of "period".

This annex also defines its own concepts that relate states of affairs to time, and for quantities – rather than using the corresponding concepts defined by the Date-Time Vocabulary. It fails to give definitions for these concepts, which means they are subject to varying interpretations. The example would be stronger if it used the carefully worked-out concepts defined in the Date-Time Vocabulary.

Specifically:

• 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".

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR 1.2, Formal Specification

Problem: In Annex B.2.3 the term ‘sentential form’ is used with a different meaning than defined for this term in Clause 8.4.4.

· In Annex B, it means the standardised form or ‘handle’ by which a verb concept is known in a presentation format such as a glossary. Going by this meaning, ‘customer rents car’ is the sentential form (Annex B uses ‘primary reading’ as a synonym) for the verb concept in question, and “car is rented by customer” is not a sentential form of the verb concept.

· In Clause 8.4.4, it means any verb concept wording that is available for a given verb concept, except noun forms. Going by this meaning, as the examples provided make clear, “car is rented by customer” and “customer rents car” are alternative sentential forms.

Suggested solution: Keep 8.4.4 as it is. Remove occurrences of ‘sentential form’ from Annex B, keeping only ‘primary reading’ in that context.

Discussion:

The dictionary basis for selecting the adjective ‘sentential’ in Annex B seems to be the meaning of ‘aphoristic’, as in ‘sentential saying’ or ‘sentential book’.

The dictionary basis for selecting the adjective ‘sentential’ in 8.4.4. seems to be the meaning ‘of a sentence, concerning a sentence’, i.e., the association with ‘sentence’ as a linguistic term.

The former use of ‘sentential’ in English seems to be the more common. This would explain why the issue has occurred. It also suggests that ‘sentential form’ in Clause 8 is not ideal.

‘Verb form’ as a complementary concept of ‘noun form’ would not have this problem but I agree that, because of cases where the wording contains no verb form at all, ‘verb form’ cannot be used. It could be said that ‘verb concept wording’ has the same problem, but I think it is more acceptable to say that a word like ‘of’ or ‘in’ is a “verb concept wording” than to say that it is a “verb form”.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

When DTV v1.0-alpha was adopted, it contained a proposed simplified text representation for SBVR LRMV constructs (as distinct from the long and involved sequences of sentences used in SBVR examples, that make references to undefined concepts like'first variable'). The DTV FTF resolved issues about the disposition of the annex containing this SBVR LRMV notation by improving the description of the notation, but also revising the informative text that used the notation in such a way that the notation is no longer used in DTV. This LRMV notation therefore no longer has a use in DTV and is out of scope for the DTV specification. It is likely that the annex (DTV v1.1 Annex F) will be deleted from DTV v1.2.

The simplified LRMV notation has value for the wider SBVR community, and its description should be an informative Annex to SBVR. It is within the expertise and purview of the SBVR RTF to address any problems with the notation specification, and to maintain alignment with the SBVR specification generally. Accordingly, the SBVR RTF should maintain the adopted text of DTV Annex F as an Annex to SBVR.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR should re-consider the use of smart quotes

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR should use the latest MOF rather than sticking with MOF 2.0.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Annex H provides detailed guidance on the representation of SBVR vocabulary concepts in UML diagrams. Much of that guidance produces invalid UML constructs per UML 2.4.

H.1 "If there are additional terms for the concept they can be added within the rectangle, labeled as such – e.g., “also: is-category-of
fact type” as depicted in Figure H.1." There is no UML syntax for this.

H.2 "Alternatively, an individual concept can be depicted as an instance of its related general concept (noun concept), as in Figure H.3." The diagram uses an unidentified Dependency, which has no meaning. It should be formally stereotyped.

H.3.1 shows three representations of the fact type 'semantic community shares understanding of concept'. The third is invalid – an association can have only one name. Also the name of the association is 'shares understanding of'; it does not include the placeholder terms.

H.3.1 Figure H.4 shows associations that are navigable in both directions, inducing unnamed UML properties on 'semantic community' and 'concept' that are not intended. (This is a vestige of UML v1 ambiguity.) It should show no navigable ends, using UML 2.4 syntax.

H.3.4 Figure H.9 depicts an invalid relationship symbol; an association is required to have 2 or more roles.

H.4.2 Figure H.11 shows a stereotype <<is role of>> on a Generalization. I'm not sure this is valid UML, but in any case such a stereotype would have to be defined in a formal Profile. (Semantically, some "roles" are object types that specialize more general concepts, others are association ends (verb concept roles), and others are things in their own right that have the property 'role has occupant'.)

H.4.3 suggests that there is no consistent mapping for association names. In any case, the UML model of a 'fact type role' is a named association end, regardless of ownership.

H.6.1 Figure H.14. It is not clear what UML element has the name "Results by Payment type", and the text does not say. It may be a GeneralizationSet.

H.6.2 Figure H.16. ":modality" appears to be a TagValue associated with some unnamed and undefined Tag, or it may just be another string that names no model element.

H.8 In, Figure H.17 there is a meaningless dashed line between 'car recovery' and a ternary association (verb concept). It is said to represent 'objectification'. That dashed line should be a Dependency that has a stereotype indicating the nature of that relationship, e.g., <<objectification>>, defined in a Profile.

H.9 says that the default multiplicity on association ends is 0..*. According to the UML metamodel v2.4, the default multiplicity on a UML association end is 1..1, i.e., exactly one. This makes most of the SBVR UML diagrams implicitly erroneous.

So Annex H needs to be rewritten, and if it is to include standard stereotypes and tag values, it needs a standard UML Profile that defines them.

Further, it demonstrates the need for minor repairs to the UML diagrams throughout SBVR, to make them match the MOF model described in Clause 13.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

"vocabularies" is miss-spelled "vocabulaires" in the sixth paragraph of clause 10.1.1 in convenience document 8.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

OMG Issue No: 16685
Title: Fix Entries in Subclause 10.1.2.1 to Align with Subclause 10.1
Source:
SBVR Co-chair, Donald Chapin [Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com]
Summary:
Spin-off from Resolution of Issue 15623 (and 14843 which was Merged into it)
Fix the entries in SBVR Subclause 10.1.2.1 to bring them in line with what Clause 10.1 says as revised by the resolution to Issues 15623 & 14843.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Spin-off from Issue 14843 (via Issue 15623 Issue Resolution into which it was Merged)
The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined.
The underlying issue is:
1. SBVR’s metamodel is defined in Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Its instances (domain models) are linguistic models of meanings.
2. The model defined in Clause 10 is included in the normative SBVR model to support a formal logic interpretation of SBVR’s metamodel. Its instances (domain models) are fact models.
The proposed resolution is:
1. State, in introductory text in Clauses 8 and 10, that the models are different
2. Somewhere in Clause 10:
a. List the major differences between the two models
b. Describe informally what transformation would be needed to derive a domain fact model from a corresponding linguistic model. It is probably beyond the scope of this RTF to develop a formal specification

Resolution:
1. Add a subclause to Subclause 10.1.1 to discuss to an appropriate level of detail all aspects of the relationship between the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 and the formal interpretation in Subclause 10.1.1, as well as removing ambiguity from Clause 10.1.1 by consistent use of terms intension, extension, fact population, and the set of all possible facts..

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

C.5.2, including the diagram, should use single guillemet characters not >> and <<

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

In SBVR clause 8.x, in the entry for 'at least n quantification', the Definition ends with the term ‘logical fomulation kind’, which makes no sense in the context.

What was intended is a new paragraph:

Concept Type: logical formulation kind

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The figure on p. 6 of Annex E (SBVR 1.2) contains an error (use of 'fact type'). Ref. leftmost box in the screenshot below.

If you can supply the image source I will make the correction

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Rectifying the Relationship Between SBVR and ISO 1087 Terms "Concept System" and "Relation"

SBVR uses two terms "concept system" and "relation" found in ISO 1087 but extends these notions in important ways. Specifically, SBVR supports more "elements of concept system structure" than ISO 1087 does – especially, but not exclusively, associations (verb concepts). ISO 1087 defines only some kinds of relation, such as 'generic relation', 'partitive relation', 'hierarchical relation'. Use of the terms "concept system" and "relation" in SBVR should be rectified.

1. "Concept System" appears in several places in SBVR, as follows:

• 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).

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Problem: The current definition of "representation uses vocabulary" is "the representation is expressed in terms of the vocabulary". I think the un-styled "term" (in terms of) is a bad choice for the definition. A better choice might be based on.

Resolution:

Change the definition of "representation uses vocabulary" to: "the representation is expressed based on the vocabulary".

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

The description in C.4.2 leaves it very ambiguous as to whether “has” is to be assumed or not. In particular

Again, no UML tool will be able to add/remove “has” in diagrams.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR provides for a speech community to adopt a definition, or an element of guidance, but no clear way for a vocabulary to adopt a term and its definition from another vocabulary. The Date Time Vocabulary (clause 4) formally adopts a set of terms from the SBVR specification with the intent that the term means the definition given in SBVR and has whatever other associations that term may have to other adopted SBVR terms. (This is the usual practice for adopted terminology in an ISO standard.) But SBVR does not provide a formal expression for this. Instead, it appears that DTV must introduce all the required SBVR terms and their definitions and then cite SBVR as the Source of the definitions. (This is a practice ISO recommends against, because of the problem of synchronization of changes.) We believe that this is a shortcoming in SBVR.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR Clause A.2.6 provides syntax for a concept called ‘intensional role’, but there is no such terminological entry and no clear definition.

In one of the business usage examples for DTV, we have encountered a usage of ‘time period’ in two intensional roles: ‘fixed period’ and ‘variable period’, but we can’t declare them: Concept type: intensional role.

As A.2.6 says, intensional roles arise when a concept designation is used with verbs of specification and change, and possibly others. The reference is to an unspecified thing of that will satisfy the concept. When one ‘specifies the rental period for X’, the rental period does not denote any time period. The whole idea is that one associates the concept ‘rental period for X’ with an extension that will only exist when the specifying action completes. Similarly, one cannot ‘change the rental period’, one can only change which time period “the rental period for X” denotes. With these verbs, the “intensional role” is equivalent to an ‘answer’ (at least in structure): one specifies “what time period the rental period is”.

The same idea seems to apply to a verb like ‘prevents’. If someone “prevents a forest fire”, there is no forest fire that is prevented; rather the concept ‘forest fire’ is not instantiated. But unlike the above, one does not prevent “what forest fire it is.” And if one ‘orders 1000 widgets’, they may or may not already exist so that they can be ordered. What one orders is a characterization of objects that are to be instantiated.

So, the intensional role seems to be a valuable concept for verb concept wordings, because it has real business use

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

SBVR 1.2, p. 225, the Index entry for ”proposition” appears twice (and once out of alpha order).

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

• "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.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Problem: If "body of shared concepts" were defined as [the set of] all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings", then I dont think the following entry would be needed: "body of shared concepts includes concept".

Resolution:

1. Change the definition of "body of shared concepts" to: the set of all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings"

2. Eliminate the entry: body of shared concepts includes concept

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

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.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.

Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
The resolution to SBVR Issue 18377 (and Issues 17097,17452,19276 merged into it) restructured the SBVR Table of Contents for greater clarity, regrouped the SBVR terminological entries under the new sub-clauses, and updated Clause 2 conformance to align it with the conformance approach in Simplified UML.
Given the new SBVR Table of Contents and revised Clause 2 Conformance:
• Since the SBVR Figures are derived from the SBVR terminological entries, they need to be redrawn based on the grouping of concepts under sub-clauses
• The Clause 8, 11 & 12 narrative text needs to be moved into the new document structure described in the resequenced Table of contents, and updated as required.
Resolution:
1. Produce a new set of diagrams that group the concepts the way they are grouped in the sub-clauses given in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
2. Add edit instructions to move the existing SBVR v1.2 narrative text as revised by SBVR V1.3 Ballot 1 and 2 into the equivalent places indicated in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
3. Update narrative text with new clause / sub-clause reference numbers and the Ballot 2 revisions to SBVR v1.2 Clause 7.

1. Produce a new set of diagrams that group the concepts the way they are grouped in the sub-clauses given in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
2. Move the existing SBVR v1.2 narrative text as revised by SBVR V1.3 Ballot 1 and 2 into the equivalent places indicated in the resequenced SBVR Table of Contents.
3. Update narrative text
a. with new clause / sub-clause reference numbers and the Ballot 2 revisions to SBVR v1.2 Clause 7,
b. to clean a few references to things no longer in Clause 2, and
c. to update introductory text for Part II and Part III to match the revised Table of Contents.
NOTE: The SBVR XMI Metamodel is generated from the terminological entries in SBVR v1.2 Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 (and their equivalent SBVR v1.3 Clauses 7 through 21) according to the transformation rules in SBVR v1.2 Clause 13 (SBVR v1.3 Clause 23). Since this Issue Resolution makes no changes to terminological entries except to update clause references, this Issue Resolution has no impact on the SBVR XMI Metamodel; i.e. the SBVR XMI Metamodel is not changed in any way by this Issue Resolution.

Some words/phrases used in SBVR vocabulary entry Definition subentries that are the expressiosn of SBVR-defined designations are unstyled. Add appropriate styling to words/phrases used in SBVR Definition subentries where the unstyled words/phrases used were intended to have the meaning as defined in SBVR, rather than a different natural language meaning.

Add appropriate styling to terms/wordings used in SBVR Definition clauses where the terms/verbs used have the meaning as defined in SBVR .

Some entries of SBVR 1.2 have styling and captioning errors that need to be fixed

1) the entry "unitary verb concept" has a styling error in the 1st Necessity.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:

The term "unitary verb concept" should be in term styling.
2) the entry "proposition is possibly true" is missing a caption.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:

The second line of text needs a "Possibility:" caption, the first word of the sentence needs to be capitalized, and the wording needs to be clarrified.
3) The entry "proposition is obligated to be false" has a styling error in its Definition text.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:

The word "not" should be in keyword styling.
4) The entry "concept has implied characteristic" has a styling error in its Definition text.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:

The word "does" should be in verb styling.
5) the entry "categorization scheme contains category" is missing a caption.
Here is how the entry appears in SBVR 1.2:

The line following the Synonymous Form caption — i.e., with the value "partitive verb concept" — needs a "Concept Type:" caption.

In SBVR 1.2, there are 2 verb concept entries for the same meaning: “verb concept incorporating verb symbols”. This resulted from SBVR meaning and representation entries being arbitrarily separated into two clauses.
It is clear from

the “Note:” under ‘verb concept wording demonstrates designation’;
the “See:” under ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’;
the lack of a definition under ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’;
the definition of verb symbol; and
all the subentries of 'verb concept wording'
that these are already intended to be the same meaning that is split across two clauses.

In addition, the definition under ‘verb concept wording demonstrates designation’ is quite opaque and needs to be worded more like the Note.

The verb concept wording ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’ most accurately gathers up the meaning and should therefore be the preferred verb concept wording.

In the SBVR restructuring work these two entries now appear in the same sub-clause, where they should be combined into a single entry with a clarified definition as follows:
verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol
Definition: the verb concept wording shows a pattern of using the expression of the verb symbol plus expressions of the placeholders for each of the roles of the verb concept that has the verb concept wording
Synonymous Form: verb symbol is incorporated into verb concept wording
Synonymous Form: verb concept wording demonstrates designation
Necessity: Each verb concept wording incorporates at most one verb symbol.
Necessity: Each verb symbol is incorporated into at least one verb concept wording.
Note: If a verb concept wording demonstrates a designation, the signifier of that designation is what is seen in the expression of the verb concept wording when placeholder expressions have been removed.

In SBVR 1.2, a vocabulary entry for "element" is missing. This term appears (formally styled in term styling) in the verb concept wording "set has element", but the supporting vocabulary entry for the concept termed "element" is missing. (The term "element" is, therefore, also missing from the Index.)

A vocabulary entry for "element" needs to be added. Also, the Definition-captioned text of the related entry "thing is in set" needs to be corrected to avoid the use of "element" as an unstyled (informally understood) concept in stating the meaning of the verb concept where this concept plays a role.

In SBVR 1.2, there are 2 verb concept entries for the same meaning: “concept incorporating characteristics”. This resulted from SBVR meaning and representation entries being arbitrarily separated into two clauses. They need to be consolidated into a single entry.

In the SBVR restructuring work, these two entries now appear in the same sub-clause, where they should be combined into a single entry, as:
concept incorporates characteristic FL
Definition: the characteristic is an abstraction of a property of each instance of the concept and is one of the characteristics that makes up the concept
Synonymous Form: characteristic is essential to concept
Synonymous Form: concept has essential characteristic
Concept Type: is-role-of verb concept

Correct typos in SBVR 1.2:

The Necessity for "proposition" (p. 29) uses "very" where "verb" is intended.
'proposition' is misspelled in the 2nd Necessity of "statement" (p. 34).
The first vocabulary entry at the top of p. 45 uses the entry term "state of affairs". It should be "actuality". (The entry for "state of affairs" correctly appears on p. 43.)
The Definition text for "speech community representation set" (p. 168) should not begin with an article.
The Definition text for "enforcement level" (p. 176) should not begin with an article.

Make the corrections.

In SBVR 1.2, there are 2 verb concept entries for the same meaning: “concept generalization/specialization”. This resulted from SBVR meaning and representation entries being arbitrarily separated into two clauses. They need to be consolidated into a single entry.

clause, where they should be combined into a single entry, as:
concept1 specializes concept2 FL
Definition: the concept1 incorporates each characteristic that is incorporated by the concept2 plus at least one differentiator
Synonymous Form: concept2 generalizes category1
Synonymous Form: concept1 has more general concept2
Synonymous Form: concept2 has category1
Clarify the definition of concept1 specializes concept2 by making it fully formal:
Definition: the concept1 incorporates each characteristic that is incorporated by the concept2 and the concept1 incorporates at least one characteristic that is not incorporated by the concept2

The figure for the Semiotic/Semantic Triangle (Figure 8.9 of SBVR 1.2) should say "terminological dictionary" rather than "business vocabulary" so that it is parallel with the term 'rulebook' in that diagram.

1. Correct the text in Figure 8.9 [SBVR 1.2] to read "Terminological Dictionary" rather than "Business Vocabulary"
2. Add the following text to the end of the last sentence in the narrative of SBVR 1.2, sub-clause 8.6.2 — "; i.e., the world of the organization that uses the Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook" — so that the complete, final sentence reads:
But the following necessities are about the correspondence of meanings to things in the universe of discourse; i.e., the world of the organization that uses the Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook.

For many years, I have been critical of the organization of SBVR. It's overall structure was neglected during the periods of rapid development. As a result the SBVR document proves difficult to approach – needlessly so.

Earlier this year, I was tasked with working on re-sequencing the material. After months of careful consideration, my proposed reorganization is attached. The work is directly based on, and builds from, team discussion and consensus from earlier this year.

In place of the three existing Clauses 8, 11 and 12, I am proposing the following 9 replacements:

• 8 Vocabulary for a Community's Meanings
• 9 Vocabulary for a Community's Representations
• 10 Vocabulary for a Community's Terminology
• 11 Vocabulary for Concept System Structure
• 12 Vocabulary for an Authority's Business Rules
• 13 Vocabulary for an Authority's Business Rule Statements
• 14 Fundamental Principles for Business Rules
• 15 Vocabulary for Collections of Meanings and Representations
• 16 Vocabulary for Adoption

Ironically, I personally do not agree with some of the placement of entries and sections. However, I tried to take into account the concerns and preferences (at least as far as I understand them) of all team members. I have proposed a holistic solution, so please understand and evaluate it that way.

Notes and Observations

• The resequencing did not require as many Clauses as I earlier anticipated. There are only 3x more than at present.

• Nowhere does the material dip below 3 levels of structure (2 levels of subclauses). For approachability, I strongly recommend staying within 3 levels.

• I did not strictly adhere to the rule of "no use of a term in definitions until the term is itself defined". The Chair advised that even ISO had not done this. However, it's certainly a good rule of thumb to follow. whenever possible.

• Before the new Clauses 15 & 16, which are focused on different themes than the new Clauses 8-14, I stuck to the strict rule of not mixing meanings and representations in the same Clause. I think that rule dramatically improves approachability for those Clauses.

• Although the new proposed headings and subheadings are not normative (I believe), they are crucial for understanding and accessibility. I considered all choices carefully. I purposely prefixed all 1st and 2nd level (sub)headings with "Vocabulary for ...". I think a constant reminder of what SBVR is about will prove very helpful. (Some subsets of terminology are 'deep'.) Since non-normative (unless I'm wrong), I chose optimal descriptiveness over compulsive precision.

• The hardest work is likely to be with the very first new Clause (8). These are very fundamental entries from early on in SBVR's development and have suffered from the most entropy. (So don't be discouraged after looking at only that document.)

• I found a few outlier entries that seemed wildly out of place in their current positions (not too many). You might or might not notice their proposed new placement.

• I included a lot of attention points to omitted stylings of terms in definitions. (I probably didn't catch them all.) It's very important that we clean this up. I believe it's pure editorial work? (I might be wrong.)

• The proposed re-sequencing needs to be carefully checked for inadvertent omissions. I did the best I could using documents previously created and others available to me.

• I have purposely included a number of suggestions and recommendations that either already are, or would need to be, issues. (They are are carefully highlighted in red.) In general, they are mostly related to improving approachability, (In particular I have included notes about my own issues. This is my way of tracking them, as they never seem to bubble up to the agenda. They should not be considered part of the resequencing work per se, although obviously related.)

• I did not try to address Clauses 9, 10 and 13 (and 14 and 15). All 5 of these Clauses should come after the 9 proposed Clauses above. IMO, I don't think these 5 Clauses should be sequenced as at present. I feel confident there is some overall logical sequencing to be found for them (too). I do feel that existing Clause 10 should be broken into 4 separate Clauses, along the lines of its current 4 subclauses. I haven't studied Clause 9 well enough to know what to recommend there.

Even though the Chair initiated this whole-document resequencing initiative, I'm not sure there's actually an issue for it. (My original issues applied only to resequencing Clauses 8 and 11 individually.) Obviously there needs to be an issue (if none at present).

Finally, I am currently on an around-the-world speaking 'tour' including South Africa and Australia for the next 3+ weeks. Please carefully consider the proposal as a whole. I believe the real SBVR shines through.

Merger with Issue 18377

Simplification of SBVR by Integrating Clauses 8 & 11 which Cover the Same Topics and Removing Multiple Compliance Points
Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
It is not possible to see all of the SBVR “Meaning and Representation” model constructs (terminological entries) on the same subtopics in one place because there are split almost evenly between Clause 8 and Clause 11.
Since “Meaning” and “Representation” are the foundation topics of SBVR, this is a particularly significant problem.
It is not easy to see how the whole of SBVR fits together on any one topic. Ambiguities, inconsistencies, and internal disconnects, which lead to significant confusion and misinterpretation, are masked and therefore persist.
In addition there are a number of Issues that require moving terminological entries between Clause 8 and Clause 11, with equal arguments for having then in both Clauses.
Further, it is not possible to re-sequence the entries in Clause 8 and Clause 11 in a cohesive way while those two clauses remain as separate top level SBVR Clauses.
Part of the simplification of SBVR to gain full benefits should follow the example of Simplified UML. UML v2.5 has removed separate conformance levels related to subject areas and relies on vendors providing lists of specific model constructs that they support.
SBVR already has a very formal requirement for providing list of model constructs supported. Since conformance is already defined in SBVR at the terminological entry level, removing the four level 1 Clause conformance levels will free up the structure of SBVR Clauses to enable the principles below to be implemented.
Resolution:
1. Integrate the terminological entires in Clauses 8 and 11 by subtopic.
2. Remove the four Comformance Levels following the example of UML 2.5.
Revised Text:
… to follow

1. Restructure the SBVR Table of Contents and Regroup/Resequence Terminological Entries from Clauses 8, 11 & 12 under the New Sub-clauses following these principles:
General Simplification / Clarification Guidelines
• As part of the simplification of UML, UML v2.5 removed separate conformance levels related to subject areas and now relies on vendors providing lists of specific model constructs that they support.

SBVR already has a formal requirement at the terminological entry level for providing a list of model constructs supported. Since conformance is already defined in SBVR, it has remained essentially unchanged. Four level-1 Clause conformance levels were removed, thereby freeing up the SBVR clause structure to enable the principles below to be implemented.
• No changes are proposed to any individual SBVR vocabulary entries in the SBVR Re-sequencing/Reorganizing Issue Resolutions (Ballots 2 & 3) except for updating of clause references.
o After ballot 3, consistency of styling will be addressed as a separate issue.
Clause Grouping Guidelines used in the proposed resequencing
• Existing Clauses 8 and 11, which extensively covered the same topics, have been consolidated and reorganized into topic-focused subclauses.
• The depth of clause levels has been limited to 3 in all cases. This approach avoids poorly-differentiated, confusing ‘deep dives’ into narrowly-focused topical areas. Some clauses have only 2 levels; 3 levels were not forced where unnecessary. The number of level-1 clauses has been more than doubled to provide clearer, more selective entry points into overall document content.
• Short, descriptive clause headings were chosen at each of the 3 levels. These headings focus on essential subject matter, not mechanics or underlying assumptions. This approach keeps them as understandable and as unbiased as possible.
• The reorganization makes it easy for business users who are primarily concerned with terminological dictionary content to recognize the SBVR clauses they need for concept definitions and definitional rules. Similarly, those primarily concerned with rulebooks can easily recognize the SBVR clauses they need for behavioral guidance.
• "Meaning" entries and "representation" entries have been included under the same level-1 clause only in special circumstances (e.g., the guidance clauses). This separation visibly reflects the importance of the distinction between these kinds of entries, a fundamental principle in SBVR.
• With a few important exceptions, including those listed below, sets and collections (sometimes referred to as “containers”) are treated in their own unified clause. This clause, which includes vocabularies, terminological dictionaries and rulebooks, forms a natural grouping of entries. These containers are quite different from the individual things making them up. This new clause has been placed after all clauses that introduce the kinds of individual members the containers might include. Also, the definitions and relationships of these containers are carefully separated from the verb concepts that indicate what goes into them.
o Exception: The concept “extension” is included in the very first clause since it is fundamental to understanding of Semiotic Triangle, part of the linguistic foundation of SBVR.
o Exception: Communities and Authorities are included in an early, level-1 clause. Without them, no meanings or elements of guidance can be birthed.
• Adoption also forms a natural grouping in its own right and therefore is the basis of a new clause. This new clause follows the new clause on sets and collections (containers).
Terminological Entry Grouping Guidelines
• The re-sequencing and reorganization of entries is based on natural groupings, which build logically from one to the next. Generally (but not always) this permits introduction of terminological entries before they are referenced by other entries.
• List verb concepts near the general concepts and roles they refer to.
• List synonyms and antonyms near each other.
• List 2 concepts that exhibit an interesting difference near each other.
• Sub-clauses have been kept as small as possible, and based on tightly-related concepts. In turn, this permits small, focused diagrams to illustrate them.
Unchanged Clauses
• No changes were made to existing Clauses 1 and 3-6, except for clause reference numbers.
• The following existing Clauses have not been re-sequenced or reorganized. They have been placed (and renumbered) after all business vocabulary and business rules level-1 clauses, as well as the new clauses devoted to sets and collections (“containers”) and adoption.
.1. Clause 9 “Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary”.
.2. Clause 10 “Providing Semantic and Logical Foundations for Business Vocabulary and Rules”.
.3. Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI”.
.4. Clause 15 “Supporting Documents”.
• The existing Clause 14 “Index of Vocabulary Entries (Informative)” will be regenerated from terminological entry headings.