The current definition of “rulebook” in SBVR is counterintuitive and simply wrong if judged on the basis of real-life rulebooks. People who use rulebooks expect to find a collection of rules first and foremost, not a terminological dictionary plus a set of rules. It is even possible (though not a good practice) to produce a rulebook with no definitions (terminological entries) whatsoever.

Also, the Note in the entry for “rulebook” seems to overlook definitional elements of guidance. Obviously a rulebook can and almost always do include definitional elements of guidance.

1. Change the current definition of “rulebook” in SBVR to remove the unintended consequence of the “terminological dictionary plus” that makes rulebook a subcategory of terminological dictionary, which was never intended.
2. Remove the unintended subtype connection in diagram Figure 19.5 from rulebook to terminological dictionary.
3. Change the Note in the entry for rulebook to remove the “terminological dictionary plus” which is superfluous.
4. Add an entry for the special case of '
SBVR rulebook' (or 'complete rulebook'), as reflected in SBVR Part 1:

• page 4, in Clause 1.4, second bullet.
• page 4, in Clause 1.5, second paragraph, fourth line.
• page 6, in Clause 2.2, fourth line from the very top.
  (The other uses of 'rulebook' in Part 1 do not relate to this Issue.)
  An 'SBVR rulebook' (or 'complete rulebook') is a rulebook that includes a complete terminological dictionary.
  5. Make other related edits (e.g., revised wording in Notes to correspond to these changes.)

Summary:
A fundamental idea in SBVR is that behavioral rules can be broken – that is, violated by people. This idea is intrinsic to the distinction SBVR makes between definitional rules and behavioral rules.

Yet nowhere does SBVR currently provide a means to capture the circumstances under which a particular behavioral rule is actually violated. This represents a critical shortcoming. An exact understanding of such circumstances is needed for any robust treatment of business rules.

Fortunately, the resolution of this issue is quite straightforward – SBVR already has the needed concepts to resolve it. In particular, SBVR already includes the concept of acceptable world, providing the necessary deontic basis for the resolution. Only a single new verb concept is needed, behavioral rule is violated, along with appropriate definition.

A behavioral rule can be imposed on a semantic community that is broader than, or different from, the authority that has business jurisdiction over the rule. For example, many of EU-Rent's behavioral rules are imposed on sub-communities of its employees, but some are imposed on its rental customers (mostly in the terms and conditions of the Rental Contract).
The enforcing authority for a behavioral rule is often, but not always, a sub-community within the authority that has business jurisdiction over the rule – for example, police and courts.
The enforcing authority for a behavioral rule needs to consider three things:
4. What remedial action is needed to address the violation
5. What consequential action may be needed
6. Whether some sanction should be applied to whoever is responsible for the violation
However, these actions are separate from the violation.
For example, EU-Rent has a rule that no rented car may be taken outside the area authorized for its rental. If EU-Rent discovers that the rented car of an open rental is outside the area authorized for the rental, it will apply the following enforcement:
4. EU-Rent will cancel the rental contract.
5. EU-Rent needs to: notify the insurer; advise the renter that the contract is canceled and that they are no longer insured and must not drive the car; recover the car and charge the cost to the renter; etc.
6. EU-Rent could cancel any future rental contracts for the renter, and bar the renter from being an additional driver on current or future rentals.
Since both determining and recording whether or not a behavioral rule has been violated is out of scope for SBVR, the concept ‘behavioral rule is violated’ is added to the list (at the end of the introduction to Clause 23.3 - added by SBVR Issue 19840) of concepts that do not go into an SBVR Content Model exchange document and the SBVR XMI metamodel.

There are over 50 places in SBVR where ”no” is used (styled) as a key word and yet it does not appear in any of the Annex A key word groups.

Add ”no” to the appropriate list of key words in Annex A, supporting its current use in the body of the SBVR document

Styled ”no” needs be added to the appropriate list of key words in Annex A, supporting its current use in the body of the SBVR document.
Add 'no' to the end of the A.2.1.1 list:

Issue: Stand-Alone 'Must' in a Necessity

The second Necessity for "adopted definition" on p.137 includes a stand-alone "must". Use of a stand-alone "must", with its inherent sense of obligation, in Necessities is inappropriate. (In reviewing the whole document, this is the only case I find of its use in a Necessity.)

Resolution

Change:

Necessity: Each adopted definition must be of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.

to

Necessity: Each adopted definition is of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.

Change:
Necessity: Each adopted definition must be of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.
to
Necessity: Each adopted definition is of a concept in the body of shared meanings that unites the semantic community that has the speech community.

A very common need for rules is to organize them into named sets. These named sets can be referenced by other rules. Because of that fact, this Issue is one pertaining to semantics – i.e., it is within SBVR scope.

SBVR-SE provides for the specification of rule sets (Annex A.5). This is a further reason for some appropriate entry/ies within SBVR proper for “rule set”.

SBVR currently includes the following entry:

body of shared guidance all of the elements of guidance within a body of shared meanings

But a rule set (or ruleset) organizes some, not all, elements of guidance within a body of shared meanings. In other words, a rule set need not be ‘complete’ (but should be non-redundant).

Annex A.5 indicates that a rule set can have a:

• Name
• Description
• Vocabulary
• Note
• Source

However, some or all of these same properties probably apply to many or all kinds of bodies/sets/collections, and so it properly addressed under Issue 17542 (Containers Holistically).

Resolution:

Add the following entries into Clause 19:

rule set
Definition: set of one or more elements of guidance within a body of shared guidance
Synonym: ruleset

ruleset
See: rule set

body of shared guidance includes rule set
Synonymous Form: rule set is included in body of shared guidance

rule set includes element of guidance
Synonymous Form: element of guidance is included in rule set

The concept ‘rule set’ is referenced in the context of the SBVR Content Model exchange document in SBVR Clause 23 which is normative, but it is not defined in the SBVR Vocabulary, nor is this concept included in either the SBVR XMI Metamodel file (Clause 25.2) or the SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema file (Clause 25.3). The concept ‘rule set’ and its two supporting concepts needs to be added to SBVR to close this internal gap in SBVR.

Add into Clause 19 the entries for:
• rule set (ruleset)
• body of shared guidance includes rule set
• rule set includes element of guidance

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.

A very fundamental idea about business rules is that they are practicable. The current SBVR entry for “business rule” (p.98), however, makes no mention of it:

rule that is under business jurisdiction

Yet, the counterpart of “business rule”, the entry for “advice” (p.99), does:

element of guidance that is practicable and that is a claim of permission or of possibility

If one is extremely observant and patient, one can work out that a business rule does have to be practicable. Here’s how:

• The entry for “business policy” (p.100) has a Necessity that says “No business policy is a business rule”. (*Typo: Needs a period.*)

• The definition of “business policy” (p.100) states that a business policy is an “element of governance that is not directly enforceable”.

--> Putting the meaning of those two expressions together means that business rules have to be directly enforceable ... because they're not business policies.

• The previous entry (p. 100) has a Necessity that says “Each element of governance that is directly enforceable is practicable.”.

--> Since business rules are directly enforceable they therefore have to be practicable.

Who would get that though?!
Resolution:

1. Change the current definition of “business rule” in SBVR from:

rule that is under business jurisdiction

to:

rule that is practicable and that is under business jurisdiction

1. Change the current definition of “business rule” in SBVR from:
rule that is under business jurisdiction
to:
rule that is practicable and that is under business jurisdiction

The current definition of “rule” in SBVR, while very precise, is opaque for practitioners. (The definition for “business rule” offers no help.) SBVR should be more definitive about the real-life sense/role/purpose of rules. It should also emphasize early-on the crucial distinction between necessities and obligations.

The SBVR v1.3 definition of “rule” in SBVR is:

proposition that is a claim of obligation or of necessity

SBVR Issue 19840 proposes a change to the definition. Regardless of the specifics of the changes made under that Issue, a precisely-crafted (fully formal) definition of 'rule' can be opaque for practitioners. To communicate, in real-world terms, the sense/role/purpose of rules the following Note is added to the entry for 'rule':

Note: Rules fall into two fundamental categories, as follows:

• A behavioral business rule indicates something people or organizations are either obliged to do (an obligation), or prohibited from doing (a prohibition). A behavioral business rule serves to shape conduct or action and to provide a basis for judging the propriety of behavior.

• A definitional rule indicates either what is always the case (a necessity) or is never the case (an impossibility). A definitional rule serves to specify a condition, in addition to those specified in the definition of the concept, that is true for every instance of the concept(s) to which the rule applies.
As such it can be used as the basis for inference.

In SBVR clause 8.3, the definition of ?rule? uses the term ?necessity? and ?obligation? with markup that indicates that these terms are defined in one of the SBVR vocabularies. These terms are used again several times in Clause 17, also with markup. But I can not find a glossary entry for either term anywhere in the specification, and they do not appear in the Index of business designations.

The terms ‘necessity and ‘obligation’ have always been defined in the vocabulary in Clause 24.2 which defines the terms in Clause 24.1 “SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation”. These terms have never been part of the SBVR Vocabulary. For this reason they should never have been fundamental to the definitions of ‘rule’, ‘advice’, and other rule-related concepts central to the standard. The vocabulary entries and definitions in Clause 8.6 “Connections between Kinds of Meaning and States of Affairs in the Business” should have been used in the rule-related concepts from the beginning.
Appropriate definitions for the rule-related concepts should be as business-friendly as possible. The guiding SBVR principle in this regard is: “This specification is conceptualized optimally for business people rather than automated processing.” (SBVR Clause 1.2). The current dictionary basis for ‘rule’ clearly indicates the original intent for ‘rule’ in the standard:
Dictionary Basis: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity ... a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing, or prescribing what is possible or allowable. [ODE]
The rule-related concepts in SBVR fundamentally address states of affairs and actualities. Their definitions should be framed on that basis. Central to the set of rule-related concepts are “definitional rule” and “behavioral business rule”, which should therefore be defined as follows.
definitional rule
Definition: rule that necessitates a given state of affairs
behavioral business rule
Definition: business rule that obligates a given state of affairs
The verb concept element of guidance obligates state of affairs already exists in SBVR (see Clause 8.6.3) and is defined as “the element of guidance entails that the state of affairs must be an actuality”. This definition, with the addition of “in all acceptable worlds” at the end, is exactly suited for the definition of “behavioral business rule” above.
An appropriate definition of ‘rule’ therefore becomes:
rule
Definition: proposition that obligates a given state of affairs or that necessitates a given state of affairs
For the definition of ‘advice of permission’, SBVR already includes the appropriate verb concept in Clause 8.6.3, as follows:
element of guidance gives permission for state of affairs
The word ‘permission’ should be replaced in this verb concept since it is a modal operator like 'necessity' and 'obligation'. The revised verb concept becomes:
element of guidance permits state of affairs
Based on that verb concept, the appropriate definition of ‘advice of permission’ is:
advice of permission
Definition: advice that permits a given state of affairs

Currently in SBVR the verb concept element of guidance permits state of affairs is given as a synonymous form of element of guidance authorizes state of affairs. However, only in a ‘dark world’ do permissions become authorizations (SBVR Clause 16.4.1). Therefore, the main entry for this business concept should be element of guidance permits state of affairs rather than element of guidance authorizes state of affairs.

It is explicitly noted that the following Notes and Examples are correct (and remain unchanged by this issue):
1. The Note and three Examples for 'definitional rule statement' (p. 111).
2. The Note and three Examples for 'behavioral business rule statement' (p. 120).

As part of the work on 19840 it was discovered that ’can’ (a word paralleling ’may' but missing from the Annex A key word list) and ’need not’ (also missing) were being used in several places throughout the SBVR document to specify an intended modality. In some cases the key word was used to express the wrong modality. To make the usage clear (and formally styled) they need to be added to the lists in Annex A (A.2.1.3).

These are the charts from the July discussion. They illustrate the missing coverage of the two alternative keywords: can (for alethic possibility) & need not (for deontic non-obligation).

The key words 'can' and 'need not' should be added to the 2nd key word list in Annex A.2.1.3.

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.

SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The
definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only
singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in
some way.

Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains
whether individual things can recur. Add examples.

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.

SBVR 1.2, 'role': 'ranges over' vs. 'specializes'.

Clause 8, entry for ‘role’. Should the addition at the end of the second Example text: "(which generalizes the role)" read: "(which the role ranges over)"? As I understand it, you mean to say that the role shipment ranges over the general concept shipment. The reverse reading of "ranges over" is not "generalizes" (there is a specific Note at the lemma "role ranges over general concept" that warns against this confusion).

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.

Note nr. 1 of 'proposition is true' reads:
"A proposition is true if and only the state of affairs..."
And should read:
"A proposition is true if and only if the state of affairs..."

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.

understand you will be discussing the topic of packaging SBVR tomorrow, and I want to provide a perspective on this topic and make a request.

In my view, the key packaging concepts “fact model” and “conceptual schema” need to be in the normative SBVR metamodel to support widespread sharing and reuse of SBVR models. We want to promote the development of libraries of SBVR fact models and conceptual schemas and to compose fact models and conceptual schemas from other fact models and conceptual schemas. The ability to package these in a standard way is crucial to this end. A normative approach to globally identifying these models is needed to support their sharing and reuse. Concepts of packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas are preferably included in Clause 8. As the most basic compliance point, Clause 8 needs to be expressible in terms of itself, and to include concepts for packaging, identification, and composition of fact models and conceptual schemas. I understand a proposal is under consideration to move “fact model” and “conceptual schema” entries to Clause 10. This would be a mistake, as we would then have no normative way of specifying the packaging.

The definition of “conceptual schema” should be refined to reflect the fact that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. The distinction between a conceptual schema and other fact models is that a conceptual schema includes at least one fact that asserts the existence of a concept. Other fact models that are not conceptual schemas contain only ground facts. The text of SBVR makes it clear that a conceptual schema is a fact model, that every SBVR interchange document is a fact model. That “conceptual schema” specializes “fact model” should be reflected in the definition of “conceptual schema.”

The term “vocabulary” is not used in the SBVR specification consistently with its definition as a “set of designations and fact type forms…” Each of the normative clauses of SBVR, called a “Vocabulary,” is actually an annotated conceptual schema. A conceptual schema comprises a “combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them)…” The designations and fact type forms in each SBVR normative “Vocabulary” constitute the vocabulary of that “Vocabulary”. The definitions and necessities in the SBVR entries are statements of schema facts. The notes and examples are annotations of the conceptual schema. Ability to include annotations is crucial to practical development and use of any model, and is universally provided for in other and modeling and programming languages. It should be possible to normatively include annotations in a SBVR conceptual schema or fact model. Accordingly, it is recommended that “description” and related concepts of notes and examples in Clause 11.2.2 be moved to Clause 8 to support annotation of fact models. With respect to the semantic formulations of a conceptual schema, it is preferred that Clause 8 only include statements of the definitions and schema facts, and leave it to Clause 9 to include the semantic formulations of these. Either “vocabulary namespace” and fact types that use the term should be moved to Clause 11, or “vocabulary” should be moved to Clause 8. The concept “vocabulary” is not necessary in Clause 8 but might be conveniently located there. Namespaces adequately serve the purpose of organizing designations and fact type forms. It is suggested the RTF consider providing recommendations for naming conventions for URIs of namespaces and related conceptual schemas that define and constrain the concepts represented by the designations and fact type forms in the namespaces.

Here are some suggested entries for Clause 8 that show how the concepts described above might be modeled:

conceptual schema

Definition: fact model that includes at least one existential fact asserting a concept

Note: This definition extends the definition of ‘conceptual schema’ in SBVR to formalize that a conceptual schema is a kind of fact model. This is evident in the specification text, but is not included in the current definition.

Note: The facts of a conceptual schema in addition to the concept existential facts describe what is possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world of the domain being modeled.

Note: Two levels of formalization of fact models (including conceptual schemas) are possible. 1) A fact model may contain only statements of definitions and other facts and not their semantic formulations. In this case, the fact model can meet the Meaning and Representation compliance point, 2.2.1. 2) A fact model may contain semantic formulations of its definitions and facts, in which case the fact model can meet the Logical Formulation of Semantics compliance point, 2.2.2.

fact model1 includes fact model2

Note: This fact type enables recursive composition of fact models and conceptual schemas.

Necessity: This fact type is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive, i.e. related fact models are at least partially ordered.

fact model includes description

Note: This fact type enables the annotation of fact models and conceptual schemas.

thing has URI

Note: This fact type enables modeled things to be identified globally for future reference.

I am requesting that these concepts, or some refinement of them, be included in the next release of SBVR.

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 recognizing that an organization is not necessarily interested in recording all information about the real world, the SBVR proposes that there be two models of the world: a ‘reality model’ (of the real world) and an ‘in-practice model’ (of the organization’s view of the real world), which leads to some bizarre rule statements, listed below. Surely there is only 1 model in which both real-world objects and representations of them exist. The relevant quote from the SBVR is “Suppose the following two fact types are of interest: Employee was born on Date; Employee has Phone Number. In the real world, each employee is born, and may have more than one phone number. Hence the reality model includes the constraint ‘Each Employee was born on at least one Date’ (sic) and allows that ‘It is possible that the same Employee has more than one Phone Number.’ [If] the business decides to make it optional whether it knows an employee’s date of birth, [and] is interested in knowing at most one phone number for any given employee, … the in-practice model excludes the reality constraint ‘Each Employee was born on at least one Date’, but it includes the following constraint that does not apply in the reality model: ‘Each Employee has at most one Phone Number’. ”
I believe there should be one model (not two), in which for each fact type there may be multiple rules reflecting specific requirements. Considering just dates of birth, the assertion “Each Employee was born on at least one Date” (which might be better worded as “Each Employee was born on exactly one Date”, “Each person has exactly one date of birth” or perhaps “Each person has a date of birth”) is a statement about the real world.
Consider an insurance business that decides that it must collect the date of birth of each customer purchasing personal life insurance but does not need it for those purchasing only home insurance. Following the logic expressed in the SBVR (as quoted above) the ‘in-practice model(s)’ contain a new constraint: “Each person purchasing personal life insurance has a date of birth” (or “Each person purchasing personal life insurance must have a date of birth”) and an advice: “Each person purchasing only home insurance may not have a date of birth”.
In fact the original assertion (“Each person has a date of birth”) still applies in the world view of the business, even to persons purchasing only home insurance. What is required is an additional constraint, which may be worded in one of the following forms “Each person who purchases personal life insurance must supply the date of birth of that person.” or “Each application for personal life insurance must specify the date of birth of the applicant.” and an advice “A person who purchases home insurance need not supply the date of birth of that person.”

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.

SBVR 1.2, Annex B, references to diagramming conventions

Annex B has a number of references to diagramming conventions that are too colloquial. The implication is that the reader is already familiar with the UML or CDG diagramming conventions, but this is not appropriate, since the whole point of the Annex is to be explanatory at this level. For example:

B.3.5. “UML’s arrow style for ‘instantiation’” What is this arrow style? Where is it explained?

B.3.5. The notation has been adapted from standard UML notation to make it more ‘business friendly’. For example, in UML, in instance (‘object’) would be labeled as, Canada: country.

This information does not belong here, but in Annex C.

B.3.5. “the box in box style”. Where is this explained? Is it UML or CDG?

Suggested solution: when referencing UML or CDG diagramming conventions, do not attempt to be descriptive of symbols or drawing conventions, but use ‘base’ references instead: all the diagramming information should be in one place, ie., in Annex C or I respectively, but not in Annex B. Make sure the same format is used for all references to Annexes C and I, and that the difference between the two diagramming techniques is signposted adequately. An even better, more practical solution would be in each case to depict the symbol(s) involved and to refer to the appropriate paragraph in Annex C or I for any textual explanation. This would cause duplication of symbols between the Annexes but it would make Annex B much more helpful.

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.

'categorization scheme' and 'categorization type' are related, yet SBVR says nothing about this relationship.

Upon comparing the entries for these terms in 11.2.2.3, it is seen they are coextensive; the extension of each is a set of concepts; they could be defined having the same extensions. Compare the examples in each entry.

A difference is that categorization schemes are restricted to categorizing general concepts, whereas categorizations types are not so restricted.

Another difference is that categorization schemes define partitionings, whereas categorization type are not so restricted.

Accordingly, it seems like the definition should be:
categorization scheme: categorization type that defines a partitioning of one or more general concepts.

'categorization type' is defined in such a way that it is not meaningfully different from 'concept type' (p.22); compare the definitions on p.22 with that on p.149. A concept, by its very nature and definition, defines a category of things. See 'concept', p.21. 'categorization type' should be made a synonym of 'concept type'.

'Categorization scheme' is involved in the verb concept 'categorization scheme is for general concept'. The general concept(s) are inferred by the general concepts of the concepts in a categorization scheme or a categorization type coextensive with the it. This verb concept is not necessary.

'Categorization scheme' is involved in verb concept 'categorization scheme contains category'. Either can be defined to have the same extension, by an extensive definition. This verb concept is not necessary.

The two verb concepts mentioned above are redundant; their purpose is more simply served by providing extensional definitions of categorization types and categorization schemes, as suggested by the examples. They could be deprecated or deleted, as they do not add any new information to a model. They increase the complexity and maintenance burden on the model.

The changes suggested here would affect Figure 11.2 on p.146.

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, Annex G, G 6.2.8, lemma ‘rental is open’

There is a color-coded occurrence of ‘end date/time is in the future’ but there is no such declared concept.

Discussion: The way this Annex has been set up suggests that each colour-coding is meant to imply that the colour-coded concept is either explicitly listed or specifically adopted from a different vocabulary.

The only like concept is in G.8.5, ‘period is future’. SBVR 1.1 Annex E used to have a concept ‘date/time is in the future’.

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.

In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form
"fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role
is in fact type".

Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing
to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous
form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate
that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly
not in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has
role".

Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed
to "fact type has fact type role".

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.

There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1:
1. a conflation of 'proposition' with "'performative' + 'proposition'"
2. a disconnect between 'concept' and its subcategories and 'proposition' and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing.

Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"

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

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

o proposition + "deontic" performative = behavioral guidance
o proposition + "alethic" performative = definitional rule
o proposition + "taken to be true" performative = fact

The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept 'fact' at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements – which are really out of scope for a standard for "concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries". Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative "taken to be true") so that fact statements can be used as examples.

Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories

Clause 8.1 defines two concepts ('concept' and 'proposition') as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing:

· general noun concept = open (existential) proposition
· individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition
· general verb concept = open (relational) proposition
· individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition
(this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs)

Resolution:
Remove the Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'"
1. Add the concept (definition) for "performative" and term it "communicative function" [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 "Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts".
2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: "taken to be true", "true by definition", and behavioral guidance.
3. Add the concept (definition) for "performative' + proposition" and term it "dialogue act" [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2.
4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition.
5. Review all references to 'proposition' to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition).
Remove the Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories
1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories.
2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both 'concept' and 'proposition' as more general concepts for the subcategories.
3. Replace all current uses of 'individual concept' to 'individual noun concept'.

Revised Text:
…to follow, including redrawn diagram(s)

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 precedence of logical operators ("and", "or", etc.) in Structure English is unspecified which may make some rules ambiguous. Furthermore, they sould be called "operators" and not "operations".

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.

Definite descriptions do not always define individual concepts

The entry for ‘definite description’ in SBVR 11.1.3 includes this structural rule:

Necessity: Each definite description is the definition of an individual concept.

The rule is incorrect. A definite description defining a concept in a schema might well be taken as defining an individual concept, but a definite description within a statement of a fact in a model need not define an individual concept because it need not identify the same individual in all possible worlds. It would identify an individual in the world described by the fact. Similarly, a definite description in the context of a rule statement might identify a single individual in each situation addressed by the rule, but not necessarily the same individual in all possible worlds. E.g., “the previous calendar month” definitely describes one month, but which month it describes depends on the current month, which can vary across possible worlds.

Also, a note should be added to the entry for “definite description” to point out that the one thing defined by a definite description can be a set (e.g., “the cars owned by EU-Rent”, which, by the way, is not the same set in all possible worlds).

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.

SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:

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

Some issues: 2) No relationship is defined between the clause 8 concepts and the clause
11 concepts. Is a body of shared concepts based on a conceptual schema?
How does a fact model relate to a terminological dictionary?

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.

Describing the facts of a fact model, SBVR’s clause 10 says, “Population facts are restricted to elementary and existential facts.”

This “restriction” appears to be a restriction on the clause 10 mapping to a relational database, requiring a sort of normalization. It is certainly not a restriction discernable from SBVR’s definition of “fact model”. Nor is it a restriction on formal interpretation of fact models for knowledge bases in general. Facts that do not fall into those two categories (elementary and existential) can occur in fact models and can be mapped to formal logic. They can be formulated using concepts in a fact model’s conceptual schema, even if they cannot be formulated using those concepts in a way that is considered existential or elementary. Facts can be formulated using disjunction, universal quantification, etc.

A fact model can have a fact like the following, not as a rule in its schema, but simply as a fact:

“Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”.

Whether this is a “good” fact in terms of being structured according to best practices is not relevant. Once we have a fact model, then we can use tools or guidelines to measure quality and recommend improvements. But that comes after we have fact model to examine.

Is the fact elementary? Not if it can break into “Every son of Mary has a car” and “Every son of Mary has a kayak”.

Is it existential? I cannot see it that way.

But it can map to formal logic, so clause 10 of SBVR should accommodate that mapping. It does not map directly into a relational table, but there is no reason to limit SBVR’s formal underpinnings to relational modeling.

As it turns out, clause 10 would handle the fact, “Every son of Mary has a car and a kayak”, just fine as long as it is formulated using a unary fact type as would be represented by a unary predicate like this: EverySonOfHasACarAndAKayak(Mary). That sort of contrived fact type is not likely to be found in a conceptual schema made up of meanings of words in a business vocabulary. Requiring a fact model with a business origin to have such a contrived fact type in its conceptual schema is inappropriate for SBVR, even though such contriving is sometimes part of database design. Conceptual schemas based on business vocabularies, rather than database design, involve meanings of words used by business people. Use of such vocabularies starts with an assumption that basic language works (quantifiers, conjunction, disjunction, restriction, demonstration, etc.) for putting words together to make statements. So formulations of facts so stated can tend towards complex formulations involving various sorts of quantifications, objectifications, logical operators, etc. Mapping such fact models into normalized databases is great, but requiring a direct mapping is not and must not be a limitation imposed by SBVR.

Some confusion is created in clause 10 from using the words “elementary” and “existential” as attributes of facts, when they seem to be attributes of formulations of facts, not of the facts themselves. For example, if the characteristic ‘employee number is assigned’ is define as “there exists an employee that has the employee number”, then by definitional substitution, these are two statements of the very same fact:

Employee number 777 is assigned.

There exists an employee that has the employee number 777.

So we have one fact that appears to be both elementary and existential. The difference is in formulation, not the fact.

It would be more clear for clause 10 to apply the ideas of “ground”, “elementary” and “existential” to formulation of facts rather than to facts. “Population” in the clause 10 sense seems to be strictly tied to formulation. It gives an example: “pop(Employee drives Car)= set of (employee, car) pairs …”.

Recommendation:

Remove the clause 10 general “restriction” to elementary and existential facts. Any such restriction should apply only to the clause’s relational mappings.

In clause 10, clarify how the concepts of “ground”, “elementary”, “existential” and “population” are tied to formulation.

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.

Clause 10 of SBVR provides a formal logic interpretation of SBVR in terms of Object Role Modeling (ORM).

There has been a long-standing agreement within the OMG community to provide a formal interpretation in terms of Common Logic (CL). CL is an ISO standard (ISO 24707) for which there is an OMG standard metamodel in the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) specification, and which is being used as a basis for logical interpretation in the OMG Date Time vocabulary.

A partial interpretation of SBVR in CL is given in clause 10.2, but significant work is needed to complete this grounding. Completion is essential to supporting downstream alignment of OMG specifications that are expressed in terms of other logic languages, to reuse of SBVR vocabularies by commercial rule engines, and to facilitate interoperability with other work in the ISO community. It may also be needed to support development of new vocabularies in SBVR, such as potential financial services vocabularies related to the FIBO (Financial Industry Business Ontology) effort in the Finance DTF.

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.

We're currently building a Corporate Vocabulary and our idea is to use the SVBR provided XML Schema for all source documents.

However, when trying the XSD-file available at the SVBR specification page in an XML Schema validator a got the error message:

Src-import.3.1: The Namespace Attribute, 'http://schema.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.1', Of An <import> Element Information Item Must Be Identical To The TargetNamespace Attribute, 'http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/20071213', Of The Imported Document.

The XML Schema validator is available at the URL:
http://www.freeformatter.com/xml-validator-xsd.html

I have a sceen dump as well that I can send via email.

I downloaded the XSD-file and changed the namespace to match the namespace in the import element.
But it only resultet in a new fault.

Any ideas?

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.

Clause 11 includes an entry for 'rulebook' (specifically, in 11.2.2.4). To maintain the separation of vocabulary-related items from rule/governance-related items (which has been the convention for Clauses 11 and 12), this should appear in Clause 12 rather than Clause 11.

Resolution: Move 'rulebook' to Clause 12.

[issue requested in the telcon of Mar. 18 2011]

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.

SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:

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

Some issues:

1) Clause 8 does not include the concepts needed to represent itself, even
though clause 2 says clause 8 is a standalone compliance point. Clause 8
claims to be a vocabulary, but the concept "vocabulary" is in clause 11,
not clause 8. Hence an implementation of clause 8 cannot model clause 8
itself.

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 Issue – Clean up and Complete Vocabulary for Clause 10.1.1 (Was Issues 11296-1a and 11303-b) (Part of Separating 11296 & 11303 into Manageable Pieces)Please see attached Word document for Issue details.

This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions:

• the proposed resolution of this spin-off Issue which will be posted when it has a number;

• the proposed resolution to Issue 12540; and

• the proposed resolution of the Issue 12540 spin-off Issue which will be posted when it has a number.

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.

Inconsistent use of terminology when relating facts to fact types

It has been noted that there are a few places in clause 10 where the relationship between facts and fact types are described using inconsistent language. SBVR makes clear that not every fact is of a particular fact type – obviously, some facts are formulated using quantifiers, logical operators, etc. SBVR makes clear that instances of fact types are actualities, not facts. SBVR describes concepts as having instances, but not facts as having instances. A few places in clause 10 can be lead to confusion in this regard. They are listed below with recommended rewordings.

Thanks go to Mark Linehan who graciously went through clause 10 last September and located these places.

Recommended changes:

1. In the third paragraph of the introduction to clause 10, REMOVE the sentence that says:

A ‘Fact’ is of a particular ‘Fact Type.’

2. REPLACE the third paragraph of 10.1.1.2, which says this:

The conceptual schema declares the fact types (kinds of facts, such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.

With this:

The conceptual schema declares the fact types (such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules relevant to the business domain.

3. In the last paragraph of page 89 (in 10.1.1.2) there is a sentence that says:

The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of fact instances that instantiate the fact types in the schema).

REPLACE it with this:

The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of facts that are formulated using the fact types and other concepts in the schema).

4. Just above figure 10.1 on page 90 there is the following sentence.

Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (instances of domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.

REPLACE it with this:

Figure 10-1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population facts (formulated using domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of 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.

Disposition: Resolved
OMG Issue No: ????
Title: Need business-oriented verb concepts to support "local closure"
Source:
Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research
Summary:
Clause 10.1.1.3 has an extensive discussion of "Open/Closed World Semantics". In particular, the penultimate paragraph near the bottom of page 94 of version 1.0 of the specification says:
"For any given schema, the business might have complete knowledge about some parts and incomplete knowledge about other parts. So in practice, a mixture of open and closed world assumptions may apply. We use the term “local closure” (or “relative closure”) for the application of the closed world assumption to just some parts of the overall schema. One might assume open world semantics by default, and then apply local closure to specific parts as desired; or alternatively, assume closed world semantics by default and then apply “local openness.” We adopt the former approach as it seems more realistic when modeling real business domains."

In SBVR 1.0, local closure is supported by the verb concepts "fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema" and "concept is closed in conceptual schema" in clause 8.5. The resolution of issue 13138 moves clause 8.5 to clause 10, thus making these verb concepts no longer available in the normative specification or in the clause 15 supporting documents. The result is that the specification no longer supports the semantics mentioned in the quote given above. This issue requests that similar functionality be added to clause 11.

The original clause 8.5 verb concepts used designations that are not meaningful to business people. The resolution of this issue should adopt business-oriented terminology. Discussions have identified at least four possible approaches:

1. A verb concept "set is completely known", meaning that the semantic community knows all the elements of the set. This would be particularly useful when applied to a set as the extension of a concept.
2. A verb concept "concept has completely known extension". Similar to the above, but applying specifically to the extension of concepts.
3. A verb concept such as "semantic community completely knows concept".
4. Building on the concept "communication concept" in clause 11.2.2.3 to define closure with respect to an information record.

Example use cases for local closure include the following:

Example 1

This example is about a concept called order that includes a list of line items, where each line item has a quantity, a catalog id, etc. A minimal vocabulary is shown here, just enough to illustrate the example.

order
Definition: A customer request for one or more products and a promise to pay the total cost of the order.
line item
Definition: Details about an order for a particular product.
quantity
Definition: positive integer that is the number of units of the product that is desired by the customer
catalog id
Definition: text that identifies the product desired by the customer
line item has quantity
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one quantity.
line item has catalog id
Necessity: Each line item has exactly one catalog id.
order includes line item
Necessity: Each order includes at least one line item.
"order includes line item" is internally closed in the business xx conceptual schema

The "internally closed" fact says that the business knows all the line items that are included in each order: there are no other line items. Consider a rule such as "Each order must be shipped within 24 hours if the order does not include a line item that has quantity greater than 100." As described in clause 10.1.1.3, this rule makes no sense with the default SBVR "open world" semantics because under those semantics, the business cannot know that no "line item that has quantity greater than 100".

Example 2

Consider a business that has a vocabulary about employees. The business considers it knows all its employees; there are no employees that it does not know.

employee
Definition: person that works for the business

Under SBVR's default open world semantics, the glossary entry given above is insufficient because it does not capture the business sense that it knows all its employees. To accomplish that, the vocabulary needs the following:
"employee" is closed in the business xx conceptual schema

Example 3

Continuing example 2, suppose the business needs concepts relating to employee names and work phone numbers:

employee name
Definition: text that identifies an employee
work phone number
Definition: number used to phone an employee at work

The business requires that it knows the employee name of each employee because the government requires this information on tax and employment reports. So the employee name is authoritative.

The business knows that, in practice, it does not know the work phone number of each employee. These change too often to keep up with.

SBVR needs verb concepts to express the idea that the employee name is reliably know, but the work phone number is not reliably known.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Disposition:

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 Structured English keyword "another" is sometimes ambiguous. For an example, in the following rule, it is formally not clear whether "another <person3>" refers to <person1> and/or <person2>:

It is prohibited that a <person1> <is married to> <person2>, if that <person1> <is married to> another <person3>.

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.

'quantity' is defined informally. A formalization of the existing definition is proposed, along with changes in terminology and related entries that would be affected by the change.

The proposed changes unify some fundamental concepts in SBVR and application domains and significantly enhance the ability to reason about SBVR models.

Full details are provided in a paper I authored but am unable to attach to this message because of limitations of this OMG Web site, which does not accept attachments. Please contact me if you would like to review the paper, and I'll send it by email.

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.

As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points:

• a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1

• the table will contain:

o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1

o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs

• the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force

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 ‘involvement’ Issue is as follows (from my email sent on Saturday):

Issue Submitter’s Name: Donald Chapin

Issue Submitter’s Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair)

Issue Submitter’s Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com

Issue Name: The Notion of “Involvement” has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR

Document No: dtc/06/03/01

Document Revision Date: March 2006

Document Version No: —

Chapter/Section: 8.1.1

Page No(s): 16

Nature of Issue: Revision

Severity of Issue: Major

Issue Description:

The notion of Involvement has not totally been taken into account by the resolution of Issue 9948 as stated in that resolution.

Several clarifications are needed regarding Involvement such as the nature of instance of roles (see the sum example in the initial 9948 statement).

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 Description:

1. Spin-off Issue for items not resolved In Issue 9959 because of lack of time:

a. Adding terms and definitions used in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 and remove terms in Clause 10.1.2 no longer needed

b. Remove tutorial material from Clause 10.1.1

c. Add ISO 24707 terms to 10.1.2 if permission is received from ISO

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 following SBVR metamodel formal logic-based errors and omissions need to be dealt with as we ran out of time to deal with them:

a. A reference scheme is needed for individual concept.

b. The entries in Clause 8.5 “Conceptual Schemas and Models” need to be corrected to agree with the first paragraphs of Clause 10.

c. In Clause 8.6 “Extensions” and other sections of Clauses 8-12 the definition of “corresponds to” in “meaning corresponds to thing” and all the relationship and necessities between all the subcategories of meaning and all the subcategories of thing, especially the meaning of “proposition corresponds to state of affairs” and “ individual concept corresponds to thing” need to be clarified or added. How the relationship between concept and thing is different between the “use” and the “mention” of the concept needs to be made clear.

d. Thee reference scheme for individual concept needs to be fixed to include the “mention” of object types, roles, fact types, propositions and subcategories of them.

e. Definitions that cover all the uses of “individual” in Clauses 8-12 need to be added.

f. The meaning of Henkin semantics needs to be specified as it applies to the SBVR metamodel.

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.

Specification: SBVR

Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)

Title: What is a 'terminological entry'

Summary:

SBVR clause 6.2 (How to read this specification) says:

"This specification describes a vocabulary, or actually a set of vocabularies, using terminological entries. Each entry

includes a definition, along with other specifications such as notes and examples."

But the term 'terminological entry' is not defined anywhere in the text of SBVR. In particular, it does not appear in Clause 19.3 in relationship to 'terminological dictionary'.

Clause 19.3 says a 'terminological dictionary' is a collection of representations, that it "includes representations" and "presents a vocabulary". But then a vocabulary is a "set of designations", and is apparently related to them by 'thing is in set', because there is no other stated verb concept to relate them. So the vocabulary is a subset of the "set of representations" that is included in a terminological dictionary that presents it? But a 'terminological entry' seems to be none of the above, and a 'terminological dictionary' does not include them? This set of circumlocutions completely fails to present a clear model for the exchange of a vocabulary or of a terminological dictionary. The central idea in a terminological entry, if SBVR is any indication, is a concept, and representations of it, and related commentary.

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 A.4.5 says: "The 'General Concept' caption can be used to indicate a concept that generalizes the entry concept."

In point of fact, the General Concept caption represents three entirely different verb concepts in different contexts:

• In the entry for a general noun concept or verb concept X, General Concept: Y means 'X specializes Y'.

• In the entry for an individual noun concept X, General Concept: Y means 'X is an instance of Y'.

• In the entry for a "role concept" X, Genera Concept: Y means 'X ranges over Y' (see also Issue 19519).

Further, it is possible for a role concept to specialize another role concept, as 'first member' (of a list) specializes 'member' (of a list). But the range of 'first member' is whatever the list is a list of. Similarly, 'captain (of ship)' specializes 'officer (of ship)' but both range over 'person'. So, overloading General Concept in the way SBVR does makes it less capable of conveying the semantics of roles.

[Note that UML and MOF distinguish between the range of an association end (role) -- the class (general concept) to which it is connected -- and any association end (role) that it subsets/redefines (specializes). SBVR apparently cannot.]

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.

Specification: SBVR

Version: 1.3 (from RTF Report)

Title: Annex A is a mistitled grab bag

Annex A is titled "SBVR Structured English", and every paragraph of A.1 is about that topic, except for the last, which indicates that every subsection after A.2 is about other topics. In particular, A.3 and A.4 are about the structure of the SBVR specification as a terminological dictionary, and A.5 and A.6 are guidance for creating 'rule set' structures.

It is imperative that A.3 and A.4 be packaged as a section, either in section 6.2 (How to read this specification), or in an Annex that 6.2 points to. Those two sections are "how to read the SBVR specification" and interpret the terminological entries in it. This issue arose from trying to find that guidance.

Guidance for creating rule sets (A.5 and A.6) is not a characterization of either SBVR SE or the structure of the SBVR specification. It is a separate topic, associated with clauses 16 thru 18.

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.

SBVR is not clear about how markup should or should not be embedded within
Representation Expressions.

The specification needs to be clear about exactly what is included in basic
Representation Expressions, especially Fact Type Forms, which contain no
embedded markup. It also needs to be clear about the kinds of markup that
can be embedded in Representation Expressions and how to communicate which
markup specification is being used.

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.

1. An SBVR metamodel noun concept (named something like “role playing of thing in occurrence”) that is very similar to ‘object type’, ‘fact type’, ‘individual concept’, ‘situational role’ (role type), or ‘fact type role’ in that it defines a kind of vocabulary entry that can be entered in an SBVR model is needed in SBVR. It’s omission represents a critical gap in SBVR.

2. Preferably this noun concept (“role playing of thing in occurrence”) would be a category (subtype) of object type; but it is much better to have the concept in the SBVR metamodel than to require it to be an object type, if that is too difficult (e.g. fact type role is not (a category/subtype of) an object type).

3. The meaning of this kind of SBVR model vocabulary entry would be that it talks about "the ‘thing’ with respect to (in the context of) its/his playing some role in a fact of a fact type, and so on for each thing that plays that role in a fact of that fact type.

a. E.g. "the person with respect to (in the context of) his renting a given car on a given date", and so on for each person who rents a car on a date.

4. The extension of each vocabulary entry concept that is this kind of SBVR metamodel concept (“role playing of thing in occurrence”) must be in one to one correspondence with the actualities that are instances (and the facts [that correspond to the actualities]) that are of a given fact type which is identified in the definition of this kind of vocabulary entry. In the reference scheme below:

a. The first part (a name of an individual concept that corresponds to the thing that fills the given fact type role) is the thing we’re talking about

i. Example: Joe Smith (the person)

b. The second part (the fact type form of the fact type and a name of an individual concept that corresponds to the thing that fills each of the other fact type roles of the fact type) of the context of the role playing

i. Example: with respect to (in the context of) Joe’s renting of car 1234 on July 30, 2007 (with respect to (in the context of) his renting a given car on a given date)

5. The instances in the extension of each vocabulary entry concept that is this kind of SBVR metamodel concept (“role playing of thing in occurrence”) must be the ‘playings’ of a given ‘role’ by a ‘thing’ in the ‘facts’ that are for the ‘fact type’ identified in the vocabulary entry concept definition.

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 definition currently reads "scheme for partitioning things ..."
Should read "scheme for classifying things ..."

'Partitioning' is a segmentation, which is a categorization scheme that is complete and disjoint. The problem here is that the general concept, "categorization scheme" is defined to be a specialization of itself, "partitioning". Categorization schemes are not, in general, segmentations. Categorization schemes are, in general, neither complete nor disjoint. The word "classifying" captures the more general concept and should be substituted for "partitioning" in the definition. The Example is a segmentation. It could be revised to show a categorization scheme that is neither total nor disjoint, e.g.

. The Example under "categorization scheme" could be moved to be an example under "segmentation."

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.

Doc: SBVR, dtc/06-08-05
Date: September 2006
Version: FTF Interim Specification
Chapter: 11.1.3
Related issues: none

Title: owned definition and adopted definition are roles

Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov

Description:

In clause 11.1.3, the terms 'owned definition' and 'adopted definition' are defined without reference to any category. They are both roles of the concept 'definition'. 'owned definition' is a role in the fact-type 'speech community owns owned definition' and ''adopted definition' is a role in the fact-type 'speech community adopts adopted definition from source vocabulary'.

Recommendation:

1. In the entry for 'owned definition', immediately behind the Definition paragraph, ADD:
"Concept type: role
General concept: definition"

2. In the entry for 'adopted definition', immediately behind the Definition paragraph, ADD:
"Concept type: role
General concept: definition

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 8.1.3, 'question' is defined as "meaning of an interrogatory".
Assuming that "interrogatory" means "interrogatory sentence", this defines the meaning in terms of the form of expression. Because the same interrogatory sentence may have more than one meaning, depending on the context of its utterance, this definition means: the meaning of an interrogatory sentence in context. But the same meaning extends across (some) contexts, while the answer may be different in each such context. That is, some part of the context of utterance affects the interpretation of the utterance; other parts of the context of utterance only affect its result. So this is a poor definition.

A question is really an "operation" on a concept or proposition that creates a new form of meaning. One can describe a 'question' as a function applied to a concept or proposition whose result is its extension. There are 3 kinds of questions:

• a concept question (What), which asks for the extension of a concept,
• a proposition question (Whether), which asks for the truth-value (technically the extension) of a proposition.
• a propositional relationship question (Why), which asks for the extension of a 2nd-order proposition about propositions (or objectified 'states of affairs' identified by propositions) – the set of all propositions P such that 'P causes Q' or 'P entails Q'.

Since clause 9 apparently supports 'question' meanings in exactly this way, SBVR should define 'question' to be a meaning that explicitly refers to the extension of a concept. That is, the question means its answer. It should not mean the action of asking.

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 TITLE: 'Thing' Is Incorrectly Equated with ISO 1087 'Object' ISSUE DESCRIPTION: In ISO TC 37, and in ISO 1087 in particular, 'object' and 'concept' are mutually exclusive. ISO 1087 'object' is equivalent to SBVR 'res', (thing that is not a meaning). SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: 1. Move the adoption of ISO 1087 'object' from SBVR 'thing' to SBVR 'res'. 2. Make 'res' and 'meaning' a segmentation of 'thing'. 3. Change definition of 'thing' back to the original one supplied by BRG before the adoption of ISO 1087 'object'; i.e.: "whatsoever; literally anything: - that exists external to the mind ; - which can talked about regardless of: a. what it is b. how it is perceived" NOTE: This resolves Sridhar's concern that the definition of 'thing' began with 'anything'.

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 TITLE: Relationships Between Definition Concepts and Semantic Formulation Concpets Seem to be Wrong or Missing ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The relationships between 'definition' (both intensional and extensional) and 'semantic formulation' (both 'necessity' and 'closed projection') and the 'intension' and 'extension' of a concept in some cases seem to be wrong and other cases missing. - The connections between 'intensional definition', 'necessity' logical formulation (structural rule), 'essential characteristic set' and 'concept' are missing (as discussed above). - The connection between 'definition', 'closed projection' and 'concept' seems ambiguous, and maybe incorrect, as 'closed projection' is usually associated with 'extension' and not directly with 'concept'. Also associating 'closed projection' with 'definition' in general (vs. intensional or extensional definition) seems strange. - The connection between 'extensional definition', some kind of semantic formulation, and extension seemns to be missing.

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.

Vocabulary Adoption vs. Inclusion The vocabulary of section 12 is directly built on, and depends on, some (but not all of) of the vocabulary of section 10. Questions have arisen in that regard, including (but not limited to) the following: * Is the latter vocabulary being included or adopted into the former? * Is there a difference between “inclusion” and “adoption”, and if so, what is it? * Can you adopt and/or include concepts and/or definitions without terms? * What exactly is included or adopted when “inclusion” and/or “adoption” occurs? * How exactly does SBVR intend “adoption” and/or “inclusion” to work? SBVR needs to be more specific about the notions of “adoption” and/or “inclusion”, since SBVR itself requires these notions, and since leaving the specifics to practice or interpretation is likely to produce divergent and perhaps undesirable results.

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: "SBVR 'Thing' <-> 'Expression' Architecture" Needs Fixing 1. Form for Representation needs to be added between 'meaning' and 'representation' to include 'semantic formulations; forms of concept meaning (intensional, extensional,etc.); types of forms of expression. 2. 'Representation' should to tie to 'form of representaiton' instead to directly to meaning and add should only Speech Community considerations (language, Speech Community-specific terms, notations) to 'form of representation'. 3. 'Expression is in Language' needs to be added 4. Representations, at least designations, should be in canonical form 5. The relationship between 'representation' and 'expression' should allow for basic linguistic analysis e.g. multiple spellings, plurals, etc.

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: Bring the Specification of SBVR Which is in Terms of Itself to the the Full SBVR Metamodel Standard The current specification of SBVR in terms of itself (SBVR Structured Englich) is not completed or up to full integrity in that: 1. not all SBVR metamodel constructs are specific for each SBVR entry in Clauses 8, 9, 1, and 12 2. some entries are lower quality than they should be, e.g. some definiitions are not fully structured; some necessities are missing; etc. 3. Definitions and Necessities have not been fully tested by software to see that all supporting entries in 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.

ISSUE: Use URI to Uniquely Identify and Assert the Existence of Every 'Thing' Represented in an SBVR Model to Support Multi-Classification of 'Things' Need to develop a URI pattern for all kinds of representations that can assert the existence of any 'thing' in an SBVR Model. These patterns need to take Speech Community and Symbol Context / Subejct Area into account. The appraoch chosen needs to support composite identifiers and identifiers with a narrow context scope. Topic Maps has an excellent approach for this and has done extensive work with the W3C to identifying the issues with URIs and the best ways to deal with them. For Topic Map / W3C References see: ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-ftf/Issue%20Attachments/Subject%20Identifiers.doc Another benefit of this is that is laying the necessary foundation for mapping to RDF/ORL as well as the Rules Interchange Format

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: Major Categories of 'Thing' Need to be Related and Made Clear Important in any case, but especially so with the inclusion of 'objects' as vocabulary entires, the major concepts that are subcategories of 'thing' such as 'state of affairs', 'actuality', 'expression', 'res', 'object', (as defined by the terminology community), etc. need to be related and clarified to such the major divisions of 'thing' that are significant in SBVR of SBVR. This will make the real world cornerstone of SVCR much clearer for new audiences.

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.

Context for understanding representations

A definition given for a fact type commonly refers to the roles of the fact type using placeholders from a form of expression of the fact type. But the SBVR vocabulary provides no relationship between a definition and the form of expression for which the definition makes sense (the one having the placeholders used in the definition). A new fact type must be added to SBVR in order to capture this relationship. Otherwise there is insufficient context to interpret the definition. The problem occurs because there can be many forms of expression for a fact type, and these can uses different designations for placeholders.

A similar problem occurs where a note or example for a concept only makes sense in relation to a particular designation or form of expression, such as when the example or note refers to the designation or a placeholder of the form of expression. Similarly, the expression of a reference supporting a concept often does not include the designation used in a source document because the reference is given in relation to that particular designation for the concept. But if there are many designations for the concept, the reference cannot be adequately interpreted with respect to the source document.

Also, a note about a rule might make sense only in the context of a particular statement of the rule because the note refers to specific words used in the rule. But the same rule can be represented by many different statements.

Recommendation: Add a new fact type to the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary after ‘representation represents meaning’:

representation relates to representation

And explain that the first representation is understood in the context of the second representation.

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.