Page 8 currently includes the following Note.

Note: As indicated in 2.4.1, an SBVR producer may produce instances of concepts not defined in SBVR as well. In such a case, the SBVR fact model would be only a part of the exchange document.

SBVR proper does not use the term “fact model”. The second sentence of the Note should probably read as follows:

“In such a case, the instances of concepts specified in the SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema (Clause 25.3) would be only a part of the exchange document.”

Replaced "fact model" wording with appropriate wording to clarify sentence

see attached Word document

Correctly style the text at the end of the Definition text of two entries on p. 36. The styling should not be all in ’keyword’ style.

Correct the styling errors in Definition text

Correct the styling errors in the Definition text for the entries "element of guidance necessitates state of affairs" and "element of guidance obligates state of affairs" (see attached Word Document)

Acceptance of the Resolution for 19840 under Ballot 4 in the second half of 2016 resulted in the following text being substituted for a Note in the entry for Advice of Possibility.
Note: Every definitional rule implies an advice of possibility. Consider the definitional rule expressed as:
It is necessary that each rental has exactly one car group.
Alternatively:
Each rental always has exactly one car group.
This definitional rule implies an advice of possibility that can be expressed as:
It is possible that a rental has exactly one car group.
Alternatively:
A rental can have exactly one car group.
There is no practical reason, however, to express the advice of possibility implied by a definitional rule explicitly. In such cases, best practice generally favors keeping the number of elements of guidance to be managed to a minimum.
The equivalent substitution needs to be done for Advice of Permission. It’s just a clarification of the Note, which is otherwise somewhat hard to decipher

Clarify Note for Advice of Permission

Clarify wording and add two examples to Note (see attached Word Document)

This core SBVR concept needs an example.

Example: Eu-Rent has cars that people rent. The verb concept “rents” includes placeholders for two verb concept roles, one for the person renting and one for the car rented. Two verb concept role designations are specified for these verb concept roles: “renter” and “rented car”, respectively.

This entry needs an example.

I suggest the following ...

Example: The situational role 'negotiator' is the part a person plays, or function a person assumes, in the situation 'resolution of contractual disputes'.

Issue:
In the current definition of verb concept role designation, the phrase “is recognizable in use in the context of another role of the same verb concept” is obscure. As currently worded, the definition also precludes designations for unary verb concept roles. In addition, the definition fails to express the inherent and necessary linkage in meaning between a verb concept role designation and the verb concept itself. Finally, figure 11.2 is misleading because it omits “noun concept” as being the more general concept of “role”.

Resolution:
1. Change the definition of ‘verb concept role designation’ to:
designation that is of a verb concept role and that has an expression whose representation of the verb concept role is meaningful only in the context of the verb concept that has the verb concept role
2. Add “noun concept” as being the more general concept of “role” in figure 11.
3. Add these examples before the existing example for the entry:
Example: In the verb concept "party rents property", “renter” might be the verb concept role designation for party, and “rented property” might be the verb concept role designation for property.
Example: In the unary verb concept "shipment is late", “late shipment” might be the verb concept role designation for shipment.

Problems:

1. By my count, the verb "classifies" appears 8 times in SBVR in stylized font, indicating there should be a defined verb concept for it. However, I do not find one.

2. These 8 instances do not appear to me to necessarily conform to a single meaning. They should be reviewed if kept in stylized font.

3. Issue 15-28 (was 19631) "Definition of 'categorization scheme contains category'" addressed a minor wording improvement for this verb concept. It has been noted that "divides" in that definition should probably be replaced by "classifies". However, that point was deferred to this new issue.

Discussion:

In SBVR, “classification” is a relationship between two concepts. That meaning is generally not what 'classification' means in natural language. Any formal definition of "classifies" should align itself with the existing meaning of "classification". Doing so, however, is likely to result in further misinterpretations.

Recommendations:

1. Remove the styling from the 8 existing uses of 'classifies'.

2. Change "divides" in the definition of "categorization scheme contains category" to "classifies" (unstyled).

On physical page p. 45 of Version 1.4 of SBVR, the Necessity listed under the entry for Implied Characteristic includes ”logical implication” as a defined (styled) term. However, there is no definition entry for “logical implication” in SBVR 1.4.

Logical implications underlie a very important form of (business) rules. A standard covering rules from the business perspective is incomplete without appropriate treatment. Such treatment must fully explain what “logical implication” means ­ and does not mean ­ selectively for both behavioral and definitional rules. SBVR needs to address the fundamental semantics of rules based on implications.