Issue 10090: BMM: UML Associations
Issue 10113: Section: 7, 8, 9
Issue 10583: ection 9 page 64
Issue 10586: Section: 8.5 pages 48 - 50
Issue 10589: Section 8.5
Issue 11510: Restore Primary Reading to "Formulated Based On" Fact Type
Issue 10090: BMM: UML Associations (bmm-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: Business Rules Group (Mr. John Hall, john.hall@modelsys.com johnhallms@hotmail.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The BMM as published by the BRG has association names that represent the verb phrases in fact types (except that in a few cases "is" or "has" has been omitted). These have been preserved in the proposed interim specification with the concepts catalog in SBVR Structured English. In the UML class model developed for the RFC submission, the verb phrases were added to associations as "ends" (role names). There are two small problems: · In many cases they read well as verb-oriented role names but in some cases they do not. · They have been placed on the association connectors at the wrong ends - normally a role name is placed at the line end where the class that plays the role is connected. For example, in the fragment below: Vision is made operative by mission, and amplified by goal. The roles read intuitively with the "clockwise" convention, but reading a UML class model correctly should not depend on positioning. Proposal 1) Move the association phrases to the appropriate ends of association lines for them to be role names, e.g. 2) In the UML class model, replace verb-oriented role names with noun-oriented names, if the reading of the model would be improved. For example, replace "goal amplifies vision" with "goal [has the role] amplifier of vision" 3) Where there are necessities in the Concepts Catalog that constrain cardinality, show them explicitly on the UML class model. For example, "mission makes at most one vision operative", "goal amplifies at most one vision". 4) Create a mapping of the fact types in the Concepts Catalog to the associations in the UML class model. Resolution: To be discussed Revised Text: Not yet decided Disposition: Open
In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: • 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. • 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: 1 The enterprise does not have the right business rules. 2 The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized
deferred
Only identifier and description attributes are defined for BMM classes. "Objective" seems to be a special case. It is defined as "... a specific time-targeted, measurable, attainable target". I suggest that additional attributes "date", "unit" and "quantity" be added to "Objective".
The placeholder descriptions of "Organization Unit" and "Business Process" need to be updated to be consistent with the latest submissions for OSM and BPDM
An organization unit makes an assessment (of an influencer). There are four categories of assessments: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. So an organization unit "makes" an opportunity. The name of the association---makes---is awkward when the assessment is an opportunity, or a strength, weakness, or threat. "Appraises" is a much more natural term. Then an organizational unit appraises a strength and other organizational unit appraises an assessment.
Source: BRG Keri Anderson Healy, Ronald G. Ross Summary: The 07-08-06 version of BMM now reflects a 'forward' (primary) reading of a fact type that differs from business intent of this association, as expressed in both the BRG BMM and the prose for this assocation (see 8.2.6 Directive, first paragraph on p. 30 (PDF p. 40)). It is also possible for the Courses of Action to be formulated based on Directives. For example, the Tactics 'Comply with manufacturer's maintenance schedules' and 'Equalize use of cars across rentals so that mileage is similar for cars of the same car group and age' are both formulated based on the Business Policy 'Depreciation of cars must be minimized'. The Directive thereby serves as the source of the Course of Action. Given an understanding of how the BRG developed the prose reading of a model, it is clear which reading of this fact type is the intended primary reading. Here is the mechanistic process that was generally applied: · Express the fact type in a prose sentence that states the forward-reading's first concept as the subject, the primary reading phrase as the verb, and the forward-reading's second concept as the object of the sentence. · Give example(s). · Optionally, state the secondary reading. (Note: when the secondary reading is simply the passive form, omit.) From this, it is evident that the intended forward (primary) reading of this fact type is: course of action is formulated based on directive Indeed, this is the way the entry appeared in an early version of Clause 9 (e.g., dated Aug. 22, 2006). Changing the reading of this fact type to have 'directive' be the subject loses an important part of the business message of what is going on in this part of the model. There are two potential relationships between a course of action and a directive, each with a different 'subject', to yield a kind of back-and-forth synergy between the concepts. Depicting the same subject for both fact types loses this part of the message. Resolution: Restore the original designation of which reading is "primary" so that both the Concepts Catalog entry and the UML derivitaves are correct and consistent with the prose and the business intent of this fact type. Revised Text: In 9.1, p. 59 (PDF p. 69), change the entry that currently reads: directive is source of course of action Synonymous Form course of action is formulated based on directive to read: course of action is formulated based on directive Synonymous Form directive is source of course of action In 9.4, p. 67 (PDF, p. 77), change the line that currently reads: directive is source of course of action DirectiveIsSourceOfCourseOfAction to read: course of action is formulated based on directive CourseOfActionIsFormulatedBasedOnDirective In 9.5, p. 68 (PDF, p. 78), change the line that currently reads: directive is source of course of action baseDirective derivedCourseOfAction to read: course of action is formulated based on directive derivedCourseOfAction baseDirective