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.

2. Align SBVR Clause 2 Conformance with Simplified UML Conformance and the SBVR Restructured Table of Contents
The three objectives required to accomplish this alignment are to:
• Add the equivalent of the two Simplified UML Types of Compliance that are relevant to SBVR.
• Remove all references to specific compliance points except for the overall compliance with the SBVR specification.
• Clean up language to use terms agreed for SBVR v1.2 and simplify wording for clarity.
In the revised Clause 2 Conformance, Sub-clause 2.2 follows the pattern of Simplified UML where a parallel exists:

Simplified UML SBVR v1.3
Abstract syntax conformance Abstract syntax conformance
Concrete syntax conformance (not applicable – no normative SBVR syntax)
Model interchange conformance Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook interchange conformance
Diagram interchange conformance (not applicable – no normative SBVR syntax)
Semantic conformance Semantics conformance

Sub-clause 2.2 provides the specifics for “support for SBVR concepts that are defined in Clauses 8-21 of this specification and implemented in the SBVR XMI Metamodel as specified in Clause 23”
Sub-clause 2.4 provides the specifics for “Terminological Dictionary and/or Rulebook interchange conformance”.

3. Spin-off SBVR Issue 19439 for regrouping of concepts in SBVR Diagram Figures based on the Restructured SBVR Table of Contents and make fixes to narrative text resulting from Items 1. and 2. above.

Note: Except for Clause 2 Conformance, Clause 13 SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI, and the four Vocabulary Container Headers, references in narrative text to the removed vocabularies are updated in this Spin-off Issue.

All, The re-sequencing of Clause 11 has initially proven quite worthwhile, so I have been encouraged to do similar work on Clause 8. As before, I made no changes to the entries themselves whatsoever. (If I did, it was purely an error and should be corrected. Also, my work should be double-checked for any entries inadvertently omitted.) I used a Word version kindly supplied by Linda Heaton, which I believe is from the latest convenience document. (It does have some styling problems, which I have noted.) I hope we can move forward with this revision expeditiously. By the way, I found this re-sequencing much harder than Clause 11, which I am much more familiar with.

Ron

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Problem Statement: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 8 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high.

Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves (but does suggest some). Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. New subheadings are suggested.

Merger with Issue 18377

Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high.

Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning – never the case in SBVR – I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement.

Note: *This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.*

Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves.

Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR … I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material.

Merger with Issue 18377

In Clause 12.1.3 the preferred term for enforcement of a behavioral (operative) business rule is 'level of enforcement'. This concept is used only in examples in the specification - SBVR itself contains no behavioral business rules. In some examples (including the one in Clause 12.1.3) the older term 'Enforcement Level' is used. 'Enforcement Level' is not defined as a synonym for 'level of enforcement'.

An editorial correction is needed to replace each occurrence of 'Enforcement Level' with 'level of enforcement'.

Since “level of enforcement” is used nowhere else in the SBVR specification and “enforcement level” is the preferred term for this concept in the Business Motivation Model, replace “level of enforcement” with "enforcement level" as the preferred term and add “level of enforement’ as a synonym.

I spotted some typos in the logics table on p. 100 (PDF p. 114) of the SBVR 1.1 Convenience draft. Attached is an annotated screenshot of the errors.

To summarize, the errors are in column 3 of the deontic section:

the bold, capital letters need to be in italics (to match the legend on the following page, as well as the other places where these symbols appear).

the small 'p' needs to be in italics (to match the legend on the following page, as well as the other places where this symbol appears).

Make the edit corrections as identified in Issue Summary

OMG Issue No: 17451
Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
• ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’
• ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ – i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
• ‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
• ‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed.
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”.
Resolution:
1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.

Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept”

And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”

On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:

individual verb concept

Definition: proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
Note: … some explanatory comments
Example: … some illustrative examples

REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)

• … to be identified and added

REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:

• Figure 8.1
• Figure 9.3
• Figure 11.2

… plus fixes for any additional side effects:

withdrawn by submitter, duplicate of issue 17439

Title: Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data
Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com)
Summary:
Since SBVR v1.0 was published in January 2008 there has been widespread misinterpretation and misrepresentation of SBVR as a data modeling specification that is not easy to refute with finality because Clause 1 “Scope’ does not make it clear that the authority for the content of an SBVR Vocabulary is the usage of terms and other designations in a corpus of business documentation.
Further contributing to the problem is the fact that the Subclause 10.1 formal semantics for SBVR is one that is based on a fact-oriented data modeling paradigm. Even though the formal interpretation is meant to be specified only in terms of formal logic there is wide reference to “facts”. Since the representations of facts are what data is, without statements to the contrary this can be used as a basis for incorrectly interpret the SBVR vocabularies in Clause 7, 8, 9, 1 & 12 as a collection of vocabularies for fact-oriented data modeling rather than documentation of the business language used by business people.
Resolution:
1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation.
2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR
3. Explain that “Semantic Anchors” are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data.
4. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models models for and reasoning over data..
5. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks.
6. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word “fact”.
Revised Text:
… to follow

1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation.
2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR
3. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models and models designed for reasoning over instance data.
4. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks.
5. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word “fact”.

Problem: The Revised Text of 17017 makes no mention of clause 13.2.2.

In clause 13.2.2, the first paragraph contains the sentence: "The signifier of each synonym of the designation is an alias for the class." Nothing is said in 13.2.2 about how to encode the "alias", but the diagram in 13.2.2 shows an "element import". The revised text does not, but should, delete this drawing element as well.

Further, under the Rationale subhead in 13.2.2, the first sentence

reads: "Use of aliasing, though not common in MOF-based metamodels, keeps a strong alignment of the SBVR Metamodel with the SBVR vocabulary." Presumably, that will no longer be the case if the element imports are deleted.

I suggest it should rather read:

"In general, MOF does not provide a mechanism for declaring synonyms.

Therefore, the Synonym elements of the SBVR vocabularies do not have counterparts in the SBVR MOF metamodel. They are, however, captured in SBVR vocabularies that are instances of the SBVR MOF metamodel."

Add the three overlooked editing instuctions to complete those in Issue 17017 resolution.

SBVR makes use of ElementImports to give additional aliases to some elements in the same package. This is invalid use of ElementImport: the UML/MOF specs clearly state that ElementImports are only for elements “in another package”. I recently confirmed my understanding with the UML team that “another” does mean literally that (confirmed by OCL elsewhere in the spec) and it cannot be interpreted to mean “the same package”.

Even were the ElementImport to be permitted, it would not have the intended meaning which I believe is to add additional synonyms to elements. In contrast the alias in an ElementImport “Specifies the name that should be added to the namespace of the importing Package in lieu of the name of the imported PackagableElement.”

This issue is urgent since it affects the production of correct normative artifacts for SBVR 1.1.

Drop the use of elementImport to include aliases in the SBVR Metamodel file as it is an invalid use of elementImport.

Section 13.2.5 is based on a misunderstanding and misuse of MOF:

a) the phrase “In each case where an attribute and an association end represent the same role, the SBVR Metamodel includes a tag that tags both the attribute and the association end. “ is in ignorance of the fact that in MOF2 and UML 2 that “attributes” and “association ends” are both represented as instances of Property: and in such a case there would be a single instance of Property linked to the Class using the attribute meta-property and from the Association by the memberEnd (or ownedEnd) property: eliminating the need to link two separate elements.

b) attempting to use MOF Tags to link two properties. In fact MOF Tags are “Simple string name-value pairs”.

This is an urgent issue since it affects the production of the SBVR 1.1 artifacts: there is in fact no need for the tags that have caused some of the difficulties producing the machine-readable files: even the file I sent today for the metamodel, which uses the Tag value property does not match this section of the spec which states that value is the empty string.

1. Item a) in Issue statement:

As per SBVR Clause 13, the class attribute element in the sameRole MOF Tag represents a different Property from the Property referenced by the association end element in the sameRole MOF Tag – not the same Property as asserted in the Issue statement. The semantics of using the two different properties is different in that one is used to identify a complete (closed-world) extension of a verb concept role with respect to a given subject, but the other is used to identify individual instances of the role with an open-world assumption.

There is no change required for this part of the Issue statement.
2. Item b) in Issue statement.

The resolution to this part of the Issue statement is to drop the sameRole MOF Tags from the SBVR Metamodel file as they are an invalid use of MOF Tags.
3. Paragraph 2 of the Issue Statement

Dropping the sameRole MOF Tags from the SBVR Metamodel file resolves the points in this paragraph of the Issue statement.

SBVR is intended for development of semantic models of businesses (and enterprises run on similar lines, such as public sector bodies and not-for-profit organizations). Its scope says “This specification defines the vocabulary and rules for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies, business facts, and business rules”.
A lot of SBVR RTF email and teleconference discussion seems to be taken up with examples that are at best tenuously related to business, and often not at all related to business. There is, of course, no reason that people should not use SBVR as SVR – Semantics of Vocabulary and Rules – for any universe of discourse, whether business-related or not. But it is important to keep focus on what SBVR is intended for.
Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions:
None
Discussion:
There are two aspects of keeping SBVR’s focus on business:
1. The context of an SBVR model of a business – a body of shared concepts, represented as one or more terminological dictionaries and rulebooks – is the actual world in which the business operates.
2. The content of an SBVR model of a business is the meanings of the definitions of relevant things, relationships and guidance in the business.
The universe of discourse is the part of the business selected by the business owners to be within scope. For example, in EU-Rent (as used in the SBVR specification) it is car rentals as opposed to finance, car purchasing and sales, premises management, HR, etc.
This issue is about a matter of SBVR practice and can be addressed with notes (or perhaps in more general editorial).
Resolution:
Add notes under the entry for ‘body of shared meanings’:
• To describe the universe of discourse modeled by the body of shared meanings
• To emphasize that the body of shared meanings comprises only meanings

Revised Text:
In 11.1.1.2, under the entry for body of shared meanings, add the following notes:
Note: When modelling a business (such as EU-Rent), the universe of discourse is bounded by what the business owners decide is in scope. That would be the actual world of some part of EU-Rent’s business (e.g. rentals, as opposed to, say, premises management, purchase/sales of cars, or HR) and some possible worlds that are reachable from the actual world. If the EU-Rent owners say that they are considering renting RVs or starting up in China, then possible worlds that include these kinds of business are in the universe of discourse.
If EU-Rent is not considering renting construction equipment or camping gear, then possible worlds that include these kinds of business are not in the universe of discourse – and neither are possible worlds that include impossibilities. Whether ‘Kinnell Construction rented backhoe 123 on 2012-08-28’ or ‘John rode into work on a unicorn’ correspond to states of affairs or not, are not relevant to EU-Rent. They are out of scope.
In-scope propositions may have to be constrained by necessities to ensure that they are not impossible. e.g. ‘Necessity: Each rental car is stored at at most one branch [at any given time].’
Note: A body of shared meanings contains meanings of:
• noun concepts that define kinds of thing in the universe of discourse
• verb concepts that define relationships between kinds of thing in the universe of discourse
• elements of guidance that constrain or govern the things and relationships defined by the concepts.
It does not contain ground facts or facts derived from ground facts (other than as illustrative examples), or things in the universe of discourse, or information system artifacts that model things in the universe of discourse – although it may provide vocabulary to refer to them.

Add notes under the entry for ‘body of shared meanings’:
• To describe the universe of discourse modeled by the body of shared meanings
• To emphasize that the body of shared meanings comprises only meanings

There are four small but inportant wording additions need to clarify three entries in the Clause 10.1.2:
• In “possible world” and “universe of discourse” the word “object” has the signifier “thing” in sBVR
• Make it clear that the “at some point in time” is the “present time of the possible word” as set forth in SBVr Clause 10.1.1.
• The referents of “corresponding propositions or states of affairs” at the of the definition for ‘state of affairs’ is not clear.
Resolution:
Make the clarifications as identifed in Issue Summary.
Revised Text:
ADD in the second sentence in the Note in the entry for “possible world” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 117 after the phrase “any given set of objects”:

[things]

ADD to the end of the last sentence in the Note in the entry for “possible world” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 117:

Thus, in the context of a static constraint declared for a given business domain, a “possible world” would correspond to (but not be identical to) a state of the domain’s fact model that could exist at some point in time.

the following text:

, which is the “present time” of the possible world.“

ADD the word “respectively” at the end of the Definition in the entry for “state of affairs” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 119 after the phrase “set of objects”:

ADD at the beginning of the Definition in the entry for “universe of discourse” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 120 after the phrase “set of objects”:

[things]

Make the clarifications as identifed in Issue Summary

The definitions in most of the model entries in Clause 8.1.2 do not align with Clause 9 and Clause 10 modal definitions.
Resolution:
Align the definitions in Clause 8, 9 & 10 by changing the definitions in Clause 8; adding an intermediate concept to make the definition of “proposition is permitted to be true” intelligible to business people; and adding a definition for “actual world” to Clause 10.
Revised Text:
REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “proposition is necessarily true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 26:

Definition: the proposition always corresponds to an actuality

WITH:

Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in all possible worlds

REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “proposition is possibly true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 26:

Definition: it is possible that the proposition corresponds to an actuality

WITH:

Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in some possible world

Add a new Entry after the entry for “proposition is obligated to be true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 26:

proposition is obligated to be false
Definition: the proposition does not correspond to an actuality in any acceptable world

REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “proposition is permitted to be true” in Clause 8.1.2 on printer page 27:

Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in at least one acceptable world.

WITH:

Definition: the proposition is not obligated to be false

REPLACE the Definition in the entry for “permissibility formulation” in Clause 9.2.4 on printer page 57:

Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is true in some acceptable world

WITH:

Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is permitted to be true

ADD immediately after the entry for “acceptable world” in Clause 10.1.2 on printed page 111 the following new entry:

actual world
Definition: the possible world that is taken to be actual for some purpose, in particular, for the conduct of business and the application of business rules
Note: the actual world is a set of things, situations and facts about them that some person or organization takes to be true for some purpose. In most cases, it is the best estimate of the actual state of the world that is of interest at a particular time.

Align the definitions in Clause 8, 9 & 10 by changing the definitions in Clause 8; adding an intermediate concept to make the definition of “proposition is permitted to be true” intelligible to business people; and adding a definition for “actual world” to Clause 10.

Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
In a recent SBVR RTF telecon it was discovered that that are two possible interpretations of the definition of ‘proposition’:
meaning that has a logical structure involving concepts and that corresponds to a state of affairs and that is either true or false based on whether that state of affairs is actual or not
The intended interpretation was that, to be a proposition, it must always in all possible worlds be able to be determined whether is it true or false, but that the assertion of that truth value is separate from the proposition, which SBVR defined to be a meaning.
The second interpretation is that the truth value is part of the proposition.
This ambiguity needs to be removed.
Resolution:
Clarify the entry for ‘proposition’ to remove the ambiguity. Part of the exisitng definition, “and that corresponds to a state of affairs”, is included as the entry, ‘proposition corresponds to a state of affairs, with its own definition in the resolution to Issue 10803.
Revised Text:
REPLACE the current definition of ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Definition: meaning that has a logical structure involving concepts and that corresponds to a state of affairs and that is either true or false based on whether that state of affairs is actual or not
WITH:
Definition: meaning of a declarative sentence that is not a paradoxical and that is invariant through all the paraphrases and translations of the sentence
Note: A wff is a special case of statement in which there are no free occurrences of any variable, i.e. either it has constants in place of variables, or its variables are bound, or both

ADD the following Source after the Definition in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Source: [SubeGFOL]: proposition (2 & 3), Wff, Closed Wff

ADD the following Necessity after the newly added Source in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Necessity: It is necessary that each proposition that is created by quantifying all the verb concept roles of a given verb concept means what the definition of the verb concept defines it to mean.
ADD the following Note after the last existing Note in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Note: The truth-value of the proposition is separate from the proposition (i.e. the meaning of the statement). The proposition means the same thing regardless of the possible world that is referenced to determine the truth-value. Documenting the truth-value of a proposition is out of scope for SBVR and belongs to the domain of data management or rules enforcement.

Clarify the entry for ‘proposition’ to remove the ambiguity. Part of the exisitng definition, “and that corresponds to a state of affairs”, is included as the entry, ‘proposition corresponds to a state of affairs, with its own definition in the resolution to Issue 10803.

There are two minor ambiguities in definitions of types of noun concept:
1. ‘unitary concept’ is defined as ‘individual concept or general concept that always has at most one instance’ .
This is ambiguous because it is not clear whether ‘that always has at most one instance’ applies to both ‘individual concept’ and ‘general concept’ or only to ‘general concept’.
2. ‘individual concept’ is defined as ‘concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]’ (adopted from ISO 1087-1)
This is ambiguous because it is not clear whether ‘only’ means ‘exactly one’ or ‘at most one’. The second note in the entry says “While each referring individual concept has at most one and the same instance …” suggesting that ‘only’ means ‘at most one’.
Also, terms used for types of noun concept do not match their definitions. In SBVR, ‘concept’ includes both ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’, but some terms use ‘concept’ for ‘noun concept’. For example, the definition for ‘general concept’ is for a specialization of ‘noun concept’.
Discussion:
The terms for types of noun concept became a concern after ‘fact type’ was replaced by ‘verb concept’ in Clause 8.
Resolution:
Update the definitions of ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ to remove the ambiguities.
Throughout the specification, replace the terms ‘general concept’, ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ with, respectively, ‘general noun concept’, ‘unitary noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’
Revised Text:
On printed page 21 in Clause 8.1.1

REPLACE
unitary concept
Definition: individual concept or general concept that always has at most one instance
General Concept: noun concept

WITH
unitary noun concept
Definition: general noun concept that always has at most one instance or individual noun concept

On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1

REPLACE
individual concept FL
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual concept’]
Definition: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]
General Concept: unitary concept
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: No individual concept is a general concept.
Necessity: No individual concept is a verb concept role.

WITH
individual noun concept FL
Source: based on ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual concept’]
Definition: noun concept that corresponds to at most one thing
General Concept: unitary noun concept
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: No individual noun concept is a general noun concept.
Necessity: No individual noun concept is a verb concept role.

UPDATE NOUN CONCEPT TERMS:

REPLACE the signifier “general concept” WITH “general noun concept”
… list of replacement locations to be provided

REPLACE the signifier “unitary concept” WITH “unitary noun concept” everywhere
REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” everywhere except for the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in the entry for the concept currently termed “individual concept’

UPDATE DIAGRAMS:

REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that replace the signifiers “general concept”, “unitary concept” and “individual concept” with, respectively, “general noun concept”, “unitary noun concept” and “individual noun concept”:

• Figure 8.1
• Figure 9.3
• Figure 11.2
• Diagram in Clause 13.4 on printed page 198

Add a synonym ‘general noun concept’ to ‘general concept’.
Update the definitions of ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ to remove the ambiguities.

Throughout the specification, replace the terms ‘unitary concept’ and ‘individual concept’ with, respectively, ‘unitary noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’

Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
• ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’
• ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ – i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
• ‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
• ‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed.
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”.
Resolution:
1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.

Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept”

And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”

On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:

individual verb concept

Definition: proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
Note: … some explanatory comments
Example: … some illustrative examples

REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)

• … to be identified and added

REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:

• Figure 8.1
• Figure 9.3
• Figure 11.2

… plus fixes for any additional side effects:

Add to Clause 8:
• unitary verb concept: a general verb concept that has one instance (which can change over time) in its extension
• individual verb concept: a proposition that is derived from a general verb concept by closing each of its roles with an individual noun concept, so that it has one instance (which cannot change over time) in its extension
• general verb concept: to complete the segmentation of verb concept and distinguish this kind of verb concept from the other two.

Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
During recent in-depth SBVR RTF discussion on the topic of state of affairs a number of clarifications and fixes were identified as needed:
1. Add a missing Reference Scheme for ‘state of affairs’.
2. Add a Necessity to unambiguously distinguish states of sffairs from propostions.
3. Add a Note to clarify how the representations of the meanings in the reference schemes of state of affairs serve as definite descriptions of the state of affairs.
4. Clarify the relationship between 'is actual' and 'exists', and the relationship between actualities and potential states of affairs.
Resolution:
Makr the the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above.
Revised Text:

ADD the following Reference Scheme, Necessity and Note to the “state of affairs” entry in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40:

Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs
Necessity: No state of affairs is a proposition.
Note: Any representation of a proposition may be used to denote the state(s) of affairs that it corresponds to. A proposition statement serves as a definite description for the state of affairs that the proposition coressponds to.

In the entry for “state of affairs is actual” in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40, REPLACE the Note and the Example:

Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’should not be confused with ‘exists,’ meaning existential quantification. A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens.
Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether it is ever actual. The state of affairs is actual only when the branch is profitable, but it exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept ‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable.

WITH:
Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’should not be confused with logical existence, which just means being a thing in the possible world that is of interest. A potential state of affairs can 'exist' as a 'thing' in the possible world and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens.
Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the desired state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The desired state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether there is ever an actual state of profitability. It exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept ‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable. The nature of the desired state of affairs is that it is a 'desired state of affairs' – conceived, not perceived.
The actual state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable exists only when the branch is profitable. The nature of the actual state of affairs, if it exists, is that it is a happening in the world. It is perceived, not conceived.

In the list of Necessities” in Clause 8.5.2 on printed page 41, REPLACE:

Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs.

WITH:

Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs.

Make the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above

The DTV RTF has pointed out the value of adding to SBVR a very generic concept for all kinds of occurrences so that all specifications that define a particular kind of occurrence, e.g. occurrence in time, occurrence in space, can be consistent if they adopt and specialize the SBVR generic occurrence concept. This approach also provides the ability of specifications that deal with occurrence to constrain the generic concepts adopted from SBVR to fit their specification.
Resolution:
1. Incorporate that a state of affairs is not a meaning in its definition.
2. Add a generic, overarching ‘occurrence’ noun concept.
3. Add a “what happens” noun concept that is a role of ‘state of affairs’.
4. Add a verb concept that defines the multiple relationship between “what happens’ and ‘occurrence’.
5. Fix the definiiton of ‘state of affairs is actual’
6. Clarify the Note for ‘actuality’.
7. Remove confusing and unnecessary wording in the entry for ‘situation’.

Revised Text:
REPLACE Figure 8.8 in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40 WITH:

In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'state of affairs', REPLACE the Definition:
Definition: event, activity, situation, or circumstance
with
Definition: res that is an event, activity, situation, or circumstance
In clause 8.5, immediately before the entry for 'state of affairs is actual', INSERT three new entries:
occurrence
Definition: state of affairs that is the happening of another state of affairs for a given time interval and/or at a given location and/or in some other dimension
what-happens state of affairs
Definition: state of affairs that can happen for a given time interval and/or at a given location and/or in some other dimension
what-happens state of affairs has occurrence
Definition: the occurrence is the realization of the state of affairs
In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'state of affairs is actual', REPLACE the existing Definition:
Definition: the state of affairs happens (i.e., takes place, obtains)
with:
Definition: the state of affairs is happening (i.e., takes place, obtains)

In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'actuality', REPLACE the Note:
Note: Actualities are states of affairs that actually happen, as distinct from states of affairs that don’t happen but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned.
with:
Note: Actualities are states of affairs that are actually happening, as distinct from states of affairs that are not happening but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned.

In clause 11.1.5.2, in the entry for 'situation' on printed page 154, REMOVE
• The phrase “that provides the context from which roles played may be understood or assessed” at the end of the Definition as it is about purpose and not essential meaning.
• the words “a state of affairs” at the end of the first Dictionary Basis.

ADD two noun concepts, ‘occurrence’ and ‘what-happens state of affairs’, to the following line in the paragraph beginning with “The classes in the metamodel that mirror …” in 13.2.2 “MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts”:

Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set

ADD two noun concepts, ‘property’ and ‘viewpoint’, to the following line in the paragraph beginning with “The classes in the metamodel that mirror …” in 13.2.2 “MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts”:

Clause 11: community, situation, res

After lengthy and diligent RTF discussion, it turned out not to be possible to reach consensus on the definition of ‘occurrence’. The concerns on which consensus could not be reached were primarily:
• Limiting ‘occurrences’ to only those that have actually happened, If this were done, it would remove the ability of SBVR to support talking about occurrences that have yet to happen.
• Including instances in the universe of discourse (the real things in the universe of the business) in SBVR Business Vocabularies. These are not meanings and are therefore out of scope for SBVR.
As a result, this resolution requires no changes.

Revised Text:
None

Disposition: No Change

Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
• ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’
• ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ – i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
• ‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
• ‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed.
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”.
Resolution:
1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.

Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept”

And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”

On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:

individual verb concept

Definition: Definition to be replaced
proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
… some explanatory comments
Example: … some illustrative examples

REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)

• … to be identified and added

REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:

• Figure 8.1
• Figure 9.3
• Figure 11.2

… plus fixes for any additional side effects

Merger with Issue 17439.
Revised Text:
None.
Disposition: Merged

The SBVR document is far larger than optimal. It needs to be reduced in size. Many of the Annexes do not contribute directly to core content.

Resolution

Delete Annexes that are not essential to the SBVR specification. Evaluation of the Annexes:

Annexes essential to the correct interpretation of the normative specification and that must be kept:
Annex C - SBVR Structured English
Annex E - EU-Rent Example
Annex H - Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to Represent SBVR-Style Vocabularies
Annex M - Additional References
Annexes that are not essential and can be deleted. Their owners can choose whether to publish them independently:
Annex F - The RuleSpeak® Business Rule Notation*
Annex G - Concept Diagram Graphic Notation
Annex I - The ORM Notation for Verbalizing Facts and Business Rules*
Annex J - ORM Examples Related to the Logical Foundations for SBVR
Annex L - A Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the NIAM2007 Procedure to Specify a Conceptual Schema
The SBVR RTF should decide on a case by case basis whether the following Annexes are essential to the correct interpretation of the normative clauses or can be deleted:
Annex A - Overview of the Approach
Annex B - The Business Rules Approach
Annex D - SBVR Structured English Patterns
Annex K - Mappings and Relationships to Other Initiatives
*To be discussed by the RTF: Since (a) SBVR-SE is not normative, and (b) RuleSpeak and ORM (Norma) served as reference notations in creating the specification, it might be useful to illustrate parts or all of Annexes C and/or E, and/or examples given in the specification itself, in these other two notations. Annexes F and I already did something like this, but (a) are much too large, (b) not well-focused on complementing SBVR, and (c) may need to be revised.

No Data Available