Issues for DateTime Vocabulary (DTV) 1.4 Revision Task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to [email protected]. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to [email protected].

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Jira Issues

Issue 16659: Date-Time issue: Specification Should Contain List of Date-Time (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The specification should contain a formal list of all the SBVR vocabularies defined by the specification. An example of such a list is given in SBVR clause 7.  The list is needed by software that converts the specification text to XMI.

Resolution: Add a �Vocabulary Registration Vocabulry� annex to formally name and register the contents of the vocabularies in the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV ) specification.
Revised Text: see pages 7 - 15 of dtc/2012-08-01
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16660: Date-Time Issue - Need Inventory of SBVR Terms (dtv-rtf)

The specification should contain a list of the SBVR terms and verb wordings that are referenced in the document, in order to make it clear where these terms come from.    Proposed text for clause 4 "Terms and Definitions":  __________________________________________________  SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary  General Concept:	vocabulary  Language:	English  ___________________________________________________  concept  concept1 specializes concept2  concept type  fact type  fact type has fact type role  fact type role  integer  instance  meaning  meaning corresponds to thing  meaning has representation  name  non-negative integer  noun concept  number  proposition  representation  representation uses expression  role  set  statement  statement expresses proposition  term  text  thing  thing has name  thing is in set  Synonymous Form:	set includes thing  Synonymous Form:	set has element  thing1 is thing2  verb concept  __________________________________________________  __________________________________________________    __________________________________________________  Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies  General Concept:	vocabulary  Language:	English  ___________________________________________________  categorization type  res  terminological dictionary  vocabulary  vocabulary namespace

Resolution: Add the list as recommended in the Issue statement as the content of Clause 4 Terms and Definitions
Revised Text: see pages 17 -19 of dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16661: Date-Time Vocabulary - terms for referenced vocabularies (dtv-rtf)

The start of clause 7 has a set of SBVR terms for referenced vocabularies.  The following are missing from this list:    IKL  Definition:	The proposal of the IKRIS Interoperability Group, entitled IKL Specification Document, available at http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html  Inter Gravissimas  Definition:	The papal bull issued by Pope Gregory XIII, 24 February 1582. Prepared in English, Latin, and French by R.T.Crowley for ISO TC154 on 27 December 2002.  ISO 18026  Definition:	The standard of the International Standards Organization (ISO), number 18026, Information technology � Spatial Reference Model (SRM), 2009  ISO 80000-3  Definition:	The standard of the International Standards Organization (ISO), number 80000-3, named: Quantities and units -- Part 3: Space and time, 2006  OCL  Definition:	The specification of the Object Management Group (OMG) named: Object Constraint Language, version 2.0, May 2006

Resolution: Merged into Issue 16659
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > �Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:� > �It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.� > �This rule is not entirely correct�.� I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: �A person must not be married to more than one person.� This section argues that the rule statement is �not entirely correct� because it doesn�t say �at the same time�. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as �A person must not be married to more than one person� is perfectly correct and it logically implies that �A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.� �occurrence� is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that�s what is intended. But �occurrence� is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval.

Resolution: Chose a different example from EU-Rent that illustrates the point. Add a new Rationale section that discusses in more detail different techniques for writing rules that refer to situations and time. Add new verb concepts 'occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2' and 'situation model1 overlaps situation model2' to simplify rules that talk about two situation models occurring at the same time.
Revised Text: see pages 22 - 27 pf dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16665: Date-Time Issue - granularity appears twice (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: Rule ML Initiative (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The term "granularity" has two glossary entries, one in clause 8.2, and another in D.4.  One should be renamed to avoid confusion, although they mean almost the same thing.  Proposed Resolution:  (The submission team adopted this resolution after the final submission. The change is recorded here as an Issue so that it can be considered by the FTF.)    Under "time scale has granularity" in clause 8.2, add a new Necessity:    Necessity:	The scale of the time scale is the granularity of the time scale if and only if the granularity of the time scale is a precise time unit.  In Annex E.3:    �	rename the glossary entry "granularity" to "scale granularity"  �	rename the glossary entry "scale has granularity" to "scale has scale granularity"  �	reword the Necessity under " scale has scale granularity" to read:    Necessity:	Each scale has at most one scale granularity.  �	Add 1 note and 2 examples:  Note:	Time scales are kinds of scales, but time scales of nominal time units (which are not true measurement units) do not have true scale granularities (which are always measurement units).  Example:	The Gregorian years scale has a granularity of 'year'. This granularity is the scale granularity of the scale.  Example:	The Gregorian months scale has a granularity of 'month'. This scale does not have a scale granularity because 'month' is a nominal time unit, not a precise time unit.

Resolution: (The submission team adopted this resolution after the final submission. The change is recorded here as an Issue so that it can be considered by the FTF.) Under "time scale has granularity" in clause 8.2, add a new Necessity: Necessity: The scale of the time scale is the granularity of the time scale if and only if the granularity of the time scale is a precise time unit. In Annex E.3: � rename the glossary entry "granularity" to "scale granularity" � rename the glossary entry "scale has granularity" to "scale has scale granularity" � reword the Necessity under " scale has scale granularity" to read: Necessity: Each scale has at most one scale granularity. � Add 1 note and 2 examples: Note: Time scales are kinds of scales, but time scales of nominal time units (which are not true measurement units) do not have true scale granularities (which are always measurement units). Example: The Gregorian years scale has a granularity of 'year'. This granularity is the scale granularity of the scale. Example: The Gregorian months scale has a granularity of 'month'. This scale does not have a scale granularity because 'month' is a nominal time unit, not a precise time unit.
Revised Text: see pages 29 - 32 of dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16666: Date-Time Issue - Definition of "Situation Model" (dtv-rtf)

The definition of "situation model" should be clarified to make it clear that it "may or may not occur".    Proposed Resolution:  (At it's conference call on September 9, the submission team agreed to the following change. Since this change was after the final submission, it is recorded here for consideration by the FTF.)    Change the Definition of "situation model" to read:    Definition:	res that is an abstract model or conceptualization of an event, activity, situation, or circumstance that may or may not occur in some possible worlds

Resolution: Clarify that a situation model may or may not occur
Revised Text: On page 56-57, in clause 8.3.1, change the Definition of "situation model" to read: Definition: res that is an abstract model or conceptualization of an event, activity, situation, or circumstance that may or may not occur in some possible worlds Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16667: Minor Errors in Duration Value Verb Concepts (dtv-rtf)

�	The fact type form �months centennial quotient of month value� is used in two different glossary entries in clause 10.6, �Duration Values�. The second entry should be �months quadricentennial quotient of month value�. Both the glossary entry and the definition should be updated.  �	The fact type form �years centennial quotient of year value� in clause 10.5 has the same error as above and needs the same fix.

Resolution: In clause 11.5 on page 135, there are two glossary entries named �years centennial quotient of year value�. Rename the second one to �years quadricentennial quotient of year value�. Correct the definition of this entry to read: Definition: the years quadricentennial quotient is the remainder produced by dividing the number of the year value by 400 In clause 11.6 on page 138, there are two glossary entries named �months centennial quotient of year value�. Rename the second one to �months quadricentennial quotient of year value�. Correct the definition of this entry to read: Definition: the months quadricentennial quotient is the remainder produced by dividing the number of the month value by 4 800
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16675: Date-Time Issue - Arithmetic Involving Years and Weeks (dtv-rtf)

The final submission document recorded this issue in clause 11.6 "Mixed-Base Arithmetic":  Need to add a paragraph discussing arithmetic involving weeks and years because these are incommensurable. This depends upon defining a concept that computes the number of weeks in any particular year.

Resolution: The current clause 10.10 (Mixed Base Time Arithmetic) does not address arithmetic on the weeks calendars. The revised text provides guidance. It also repairs minor typos in the text. The text below uses terms and concepts adopted by the resolution to Issue 19645 and Issue 19574
Revised Text: 1. In Clause 10.10, in the paragraph beginning ?Mixed-base arithmetic is performed by separately adding or subtracting?, REPLACE the text: 5 days 13 hours 27 minutes WITH: 6 days 13 hours 27 minutes 2. At the end of Clause 10.10 (Mixed Base Time Arithmetic), ADD: Arithmetic involving weeks and years presents a special problem � determine which concept of ?year? is intended. That is because the Gregorian year (clause 11) and the ISO week-based year (clause 12) are of different lengths and are only loosely aligned. When the time coordinates are Gregorian time coordinates, additions and subtractions involving years, months, weeks, and days is done in Gregorian terms, treating each week as 7 days. For example: 20 December 2008 plus 1 year and 8 weeks is 20 December 2009 + 56 days = 14 February 2010. When the time coordinates are ISO year week or ISO year week day coordinates, additions and subtractions involving years and weeks is done in terms of the ISO year of weeks. That is, each ?year? that is added or subtracted is taken to be exactly 52 weeks or exactly 53 weeks, according to the ?First Thursday Rule? (see 12.2). For example: ?2008 week 50 plus 1 year and 8 weeks? is 2009 week 50 plus 8 weeks = 2010 week 5. Following the logic above, week 50 + 8 weeks gives 58 weeks, which causes a carry into the ?year? position. But Gregorian year 2009 started on a Thursday, so the ISO week-based year 2009 has 53 weeks, and the residue is 5 weeks. By comparison, 2010 week 50 plus 8 weeks is 2011 week 6, because the ISO week-based year 2010 has only 52 weeks. The day of week is not affected by variation in the duration of ISO week-based years. Every ISO week has exactly 7 days. Carrying or borrowing out of the ?day? (of week) position modifies the ISO week of year value in the obvious way. Additions or subtractions to relative ISO week of year coordinates and ISO week-day coordinates that carry or borrow into the ?years? position is not well-defined. Some ISO week-based years have 52 weeks and some have 53. Explicit subtraction between Gregorian calendar time coordinates and ISO weeks calendar time coordinates is best accomplished by reducing both time coordinates to indices on the indefinite scale of Gregorian days. The difference is then an exact duration in days, which can be converted to any convenient compound duration value. Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 16676: Date-Time Issue - scale has scale point (dtv-rtf)

The final submission document recorded this issue regarding figure 80 "Scales" in clause Annex E.3:  The "black diamond" and {redefines...} on the "scale has scale point" association are wrong.

Resolution: The resolution of issue 16665 deleted this Annex. Therefore this issue is moot. Revised Text: Disposition: Merged: See issue 16665
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16677: Date-Time Issue - Formulating Tense and Aspect (dtv-rtf)

The final submission document recorded the following issue at the start of Annex F.5 "Formulating Tense and Aspect":    This section needs to be updated to reflect the term "situation model" as used in this specification, instead of "state of affairs".

Resolution: Replace 'state of affairs' with 'situation kind' in E.6 and E.7 The task force agrees. Note that the Tense and Aspect section is now E.6. The first paragraph of section E.6 apparently captured this issue in the submission or the FTF and was overlooked. The use of 'corresponds to' in clause E.6 is incorrect ? the SBVR verb is 'meaning corresponds to thing', not 'thing corresponds to meaning'; but here the DTV verb concept 'proposition describes situation kind' is clearer.
Revised Text: 1. In clause E.6 (Formulating Tense and Aspect), DELETE the first paragraph: "This sub clause needs to be updated to reflect the term 'situation kind' as used in this specification, instead of 'state of affairs'.? 2. In the bullet list following the second paragraph, REPLACE bullet 2: "2. Identify the state of affairs that corresponds to the base proposition." WITH: "2. Identify the situation kind that the base proposition describes." 3. In the subsection with the heading "Identify the state of affairs", REPLACE the paragraph: "The state of affairs of interest is the one that corresponds to the transformed sentence, the base form. This is an instance of the SBVR fact type meaning corresponds to thing, where the meaning is the base proposition and the thing is a state of affairs." WITH: "The situation kind of interest is the one that is described by the transformed sentence, the base proposition." 4. REPLACE all remaining occurrences of 'state of affairs' in E.6 with 'situation kind'. 5. In clause E.7 in Table E.2, in the last column of the first row, CHANGE "state of affairs" to "situation kind"
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF did not have time to address this issue.  The referenced subclause (which is now E.6 in the published specification) must be rewritten to coincide with the published model of situations and occurrences.  The Annex is informative, so deferring this issue has no significant impact.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 16680: Date-Time Issue - leap seconds (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

(This comment came from the Architecture Board's review of the final submission.)  This comment on page 16 [now Annex A.3 jarred somewhat:  "These variations are accounted for by incorporating intercalary leap days and leap seconds into some calendar and timekeeping schemes. This specification chooses to support leap days, but not leap seconds, because leap days are significant to business while leap seconds are insignificant."  It seems a bit arrogant to assert that "leap seconds are insignificant to  business". If (for instance) your company's Telephone PABX were to crash at  midnight on New Year's Eve because its software couldn't cope with  leap-seconds, I suggest that would be "significant to business".

Resolution: Currently, the Date-Time Vocabulary describes the Gregorian Calendar in terms of the UTC time scale. To support leap seconds, add definitions of the TAI time scale and leap seconds, and add text saying that leap seconds add discontinuities in the UTC time scale. These discontinuities affect use cases that are sensitive to leap seconds. Per ISO 80000-3, the definition of the 'day' time unit remains as a fixed 86 400 seconds.
Revised Text: see pages 36 - 42 of dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16681: Date-Time Issue: Gregorian calendar introduction (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

(This comment came from the Architecture Board's review of the final submission.) On p100 it is stated that "the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1582" and corrected calendar drift by "skipping over the dates between October 5-15, 1582". This is true, but it's worth noting that only Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and parts of Italy implemented the new calendar on Friday 15 October 1582 (following Julian Thursday 4 October 1582). Other countries stayed with the Julian calendar, so those "lost dates" (e.g. 10th October 1582) are valid in those countries. France adopted the Gregorian calendar on Monday 20 December 1582 (following Sunday 9 December 1582). Other countries followed over the centuries, with the UK and East-Coast American colonies not switching until 1752 (Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752). Russia didn't change until 1918. The last countries to change seems to have been Greece, where Thursday 1 March 1923 followed Wednesday 15 February 1923, and Turkey, which switched in 1926. (Yes, I got all those dates from Wikipedia :-). Hence I think this section would benefit from a comment saying that although the Gregorian Calendar begins in 1582, various countries switched on various later dates, so that to be completely unambiguous, dates after October 1582 should really state which calendar they use. (For instance, today, Sunday 11th September 2011 in the Gregorian Calendar is Monday 29th August 2011 in the Julian calendar). Similarly, at the top of page 121 it says that the Gregorian calendar was "introduced in 1582". It might be more accurate to say it was "first defined" in 1582 (or some similar wording), and "introduced" in different countries at different later dates.

Resolution: Remove the extraneous text under �nominal time unit� that discusses the history of the Gregorian Calendar. Add Notes to the definition of �Gregorian Calendar� explaining when this calendar was adopted in various countries, and cautioning that some historical dates may not use this calendar.
Revised Text: In clause 9.1.1, DELETE this sentence from the end of the Note under �nominal time unit�: �The Gregorian calendar, introduced in 1582, refined the Julian calendar, which had an accumulated drift of 10 days at that time (over a time interval of 1628 years), which was corrected by skipping over the dates between October 5-15, 1582 [Inter Gravissimas].� Change the reference from �leap years� to �leap days�. The Note should read: Note: Each nominal time unit can be traced to counting cycles of some natural phenomenon. Historically the phenomena have been astronomical: the orbital cycles of the Earth and the Moon and the diurnal cycle of the Earth. Unfortunately for time keeping, these cycles are incommensurable, requiring intercalary time periods to maintain synchronization. Leap days have been used since 46 BC with the introduction of the Julian calendar to keep the calendar aligned with seasons of the year. In clause 9.5.5, ADD two notes to the end of the glossary entry for �Gregorian Calendar�: Note: The Gregorian Calendar was defined in 1582 in [Inter Gravissimas], and was adopted at various times by various countries. It is now the international standard calendar. Note: The interpretation of any date depends upon the calendar used. Caution should be used with historical dates because the standard calendar varied by locality as well as time. The Gregorian Calendar was adopted in 1582 in Italy and a few other countries, and at various times as late as 1926 in in other countries.
Actions taken:
November 16, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16716: Date-Time Issue: OCL should be integrated into UML model (dtv-rtf)

Currently, OCL statements are created directly in the specification document, then "stripped out" of the document into a separate file via an XSLT transform.  In a further step, the OCL should be integrated into the UML model so that the model includes the OCL constraints.

Resolution: Merging OCL into the UML model should be automated The Task Force agrees that the OCL should be integrated into the UML model. However, in order to avoid duplication of effort and possible inconsistency between the formal files associated with the specification, all of the OCL text in the specification, the OCL file, and the OCL elements of the UML (XMI) file should be created from a common source by an appropriate software application. But the Task Force is unaware of any such tool for modifying the UML XMI file, and lacks the resources to create one.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 18, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 29, 2016: Deferred
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The OCL specification accepts OCL statements captured in a separate file from the UML model to which they apply. So the format currently used meets the requirements of the OCL specification.  The RTF agrees that the integration of the OCL into the formal UML model is desirable, but the RTF resources were used to resolve other problems.  Therefore, this issue is deferred.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 16869: UML packages don't match specification sections (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The UML packages in the supporting UML document (bmi/2011-08-01.mdzip) are not consistently aligned with the sections of the specification. In particular: Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the specification are both in the TimeInfrastructure package, but section 8.3 is not. Section 8.3 of the specification matches the Situations package, except that 8.3.7 Schedules is in a separate Schedules package. And the Situations package also contains the Tense concepts from 10.3. Sections 9.1 to 9.4 of the specification are all in the TimeScales package, but sections 9.5 and 9.6 are not. Section 9.5 of the specification matches the Calendars package, except that Gregorian calendar (9.5.5) is a separate UML package, and Internet Time (9.5.7) is a separate UML Package. Section 9.6 of the specification (Time Tables) is in the Schedules package, along with the Schedules concepts from 8.3.7. Section 10 of the specification matches the Indexicals package, except that Tense and Aspect (10.3) is in the UML Situations package. (The UML model treats tense as a relationship of situations to time, but the time concepts involved are indexical.) Section 11 of the specification matches the DurationValues package, except that month values (11.6) and year values (11.5) are in the UML Gregorian calendar package. Section 12 of the specification matches the UML TimeCoordinates Package, except that Section 12.4 is in the Gregorian calendar package. Annex D of the specification matches the UML Packages: Sequences (D.1), Quantities (D.2), Mereology (D.4), except that D.3 Scales is included in the UML Quantities package. In sum, some reorganization of the specification did not result in a consistent reorganization of the UML model. In general, the UML packaging should be made consistent with the text. But, if the Gregorian calendar package is intended to be separable, then Gregorian elements in other parts of the specification may need to be treated as exceptions. In addition, one can argue that the 'time table' and 'schedule' concepts are closely related and should be together in the specification. I do not recommend the use of nested UML Packages. It complicates the UML model and all references to the UML concepts defined in it.

Resolution: The FTF decided to reorganize the document itself, and then repackage the UML model to match the new document organization. The goals of this reorganization are: � To modularize the document, the vocabulary, and the UML model so that users do not need to accept the entire design in order to adopt parts. � To reconcile dependencies among the parts of the specification, so that each concept is introduced before any dependencies upon that concept. � To create an individual SBVR vocabulary and UML package matching the content of each top-level Clause of the specification. � To clearly show the dependencies among the Clauses, and correspondingly among the SBVR vocabularies and UML packages. � To separate the generic time and calendar concepts from the definitions of the Gregorian, week, time of day, and Internet calendars so that users can model other calendars using the generic concepts without dependencies on these calendars. See the new text for clause 6.3 (below) for a summary of the new organization. The definition of �nominal time unit� is updated to resolve a forward dependency from �nominal time unit� to �duration value sets�.
Revised Text: see pages 46 - 59 of dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
December 1, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16873: UML operations are not defined (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Many of the UML classes defined in Clause 8 have several UML operations.  While it may be easy to guess the relationship between the operations and the associations, there is no text that defines these operations, or even mentions their relationship to the associations.  In each case, these operations should be formally documented under the "glossary entry" for the class.  (The description in clause 5.2 is helpful, but it alone does not meet the documentation requirement.  It just says that each such operation is somehow related to some defined association.)

Resolution: Clarify UML operations construction in 5.3 Clause 5.3 documents the derivation of the UML classes, associations, attributes, association end names, and operations from the SBVR glossary entries. The UML model is not otherwise explicitly documented at all in the text. Such documentation would be largely redundant with the glossary entry text. The RTF therefore sees no need to document the UML operations separately. There are some minor inaccuracies in the wording of clause 5.3, and they are corrected here.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 5.3, in the bullet beginning: "Binary verb concepts that do not map to properties, ...", REPLACE the text: "The operation takes one argument for each role and returns a Boolean result. The Boolean result indicates whether a given set of argument values, as participants in those roles, represents an actual instance of the association. The operation is named for the verb concept form, omitting the placeholder for the subject role (the class to which it is attached)." WITH: "In general, the operation is named for the primary verb concept wording, and is attached to the class that is the range of the subject role in that wording. The operation takes one argument for each other role in the verb concept wording and returns a Boolean result. The Boolean result indicates whether the subject instance ("self"), together with a given set of argument values as participants in the corresponding association roles, represents an actual instance of the association. In addition, in those cases where it is convenient for stating rules, a synonymous form of the verb concept is used to create an operation on the class that is the subject of that form. That operation is named for the synonymous form, and its arguments correspond to the remaining roles in the synonymous form. It returns Boolean with the same interpretation." 2. In clause 5.3, REPLACE the following bullet: Some verb concepts with more than two roles also map to UML operations that are assigned to one participating class (role), take arguments that represent the objects that play all but one of the other roles, and return the object that plays the remaining role. For example, 'duration3 = duration1 plus duration2' maps to an operation on class 'duration': plus(duration2: duration): duration, which returns the value of 'duration3'. WITH: Some verb concepts that have more than two roles also map to a UML operation that returns the unique object that plays one of the roles, as a function of the objects that play the other roles. The operation is on the class that is the range of the subject role in one of the verb concept wordings, and that is one of the inputs to the function. The operation has one argument for each of the other roles that serves as an input to the function, and it returns the unique object that plays the remaining ("result") role in the corresponding state of affairs. For example, the verb concept '<SBVR>duration3 = duration1 plus duration2</SBVR>' has the synonymous form '<SBVR>duration1 plus duration2 gives duration3</SBVR>'. This latter form is mapped to an operation on class 'duration' ? plus(duration2: duration): duration ? which returns the value of 'duration3'. [Note to Editor: the text marked <SBVR> above requires specialized SBVR markups not available in JIRA.] 3. In clause 5.3, REPLACE the following bullet: All operations defined for UML classes by this specification are formally specified by OCL definitions. WITH: All formal SBVR definitions and rules (Necessities) in Clauses 8 and 16 are also formally specified as OCL definitions and constraints. The "noun forms", if any, of the verb concepts in those sections are mapped to UML Properties or Operations, and those Properties and Operations have formal definitions in OCL.
Actions taken:
December 2, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The UML operations have names that are based on the verb symbols of the verb concepts that are defined in the text. So the relationship between the UML operations and the verb concepts is generally easy to recognize. Formally documenting the relationships, while desirable, is not needed to understand the specification correctly.  The RTF did not have time to address this issue, so it is deferred for future consideration.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 16921: ISO 80000 & Date/Time Foundation Vocabulary (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) document FTF beta 1 draft Mike sent on Dec. 8, 2011 shows a concept of 'time unit' specialized as:  - 'precise time unit', a specialization of 'measurement unit'  - 'nominal time unit'      It is understood that in DTV, a 'precise time unit' is a kind of ISO 80000 measurement unit (i.e., 3.8 in ISO-80000-1):      real scalar quantity, defined and adopted by convention, with which any other quantity of the same kind can  be compared to express the ratio of the second quantity to the first one as a number      The DTV names for 'time unit' and 'nominal time unit' are misleading because in the Dec. 2011 DTV FTF 1 beta document,  these terms are not defined as kinds of ISO 80000 measurement units.       From the DTV FTF perspective, the objection against defining 'time unit' and 'nominal time unit' as ISO 80000 measurement units is that 'month',   a kind of 'nominal time unit', varies between 28 and 31 days and therefore does not exactly fit the definition of measurement unit per ISO 80000.  In pure ISO 80000 terms, this would suggest that 'month' would be a measurement unit with a variable conversion factor from 'day', which is defined as a normative measurement unit in ISO 80000-3, item 3-7.d.      I believe that the DTV interpretation of ISO 80000 measurement unit is too restrictive and should be changed such that a DTV 'time unit' is in fact a kind of ISO 80000 'measurement unit'.      There is compelling evidence to support this change in ISO 80000 itself:      1) The definition of year as a non-SI measurement unit in ISO 80000-3, Annex C, item 3-7 shows an example where the conversion factor is variable:      a := 365d or 366d      One tropical year is the duration between two  successive passages of the Sun through the mean  vernal equinox.    This duration is related to the corresponding difference  in mean longitude of the Sun, which depends on time in  a not exactly linear form; i.e. the tropical year is not  constant but decreases at a rate of nearly per  century. The tropical year is approximately equal to   365,242 20 d ≈ 31 556 926 s.      2) The value of a quantity can be expressed in three ways according to ISO 80000-1, item 3.19:  - a product of a number and a measurement unit  - a number and a reference to a measurement procedure  - a number and a reference material      3) 'month' could be defined as an ISO 80000 'conventional reference scale', that is, a quantity-value scale defined by formal agreement.      This could facilitate defining that 'month' is a 'conventional reference scale' varying between 28 and 31 'days'.  Specializations of 'month' could be made for 28-days months, 29-days months, 30 days months, 31 days months where such specializations can be defined as ISO 80000 derived units of 'days' with a precise conversion factor.      4) 'amount of substance', one of the 7 base quantities in the International System of Quantities, ISQ, is intrinsically context-dependent:  See the remarks in ISO-80000-9, 9-1:      Amount of substance of a pure  sample is that quantity that can  often be determined by  measuring its mass and  dividing by the molar mass of  the sample.    Amount of substance is  defined to be proportional to  the number of specified  elementary entities in a  sample, the proportionality  constant being a universal  constant which is the same for  all samples.    The name “number of moles”  is often used for “amount of  substance”, but this is  deprecated because the name  of a quantity should be  distinguished from the name of  the unit.    In the name “amount of  substance”, the words “of  substance” could, for  simplicity, be replaced by  words to specify the substance  concerned in any particular  application, so that one may,  for example, talk of “amount of  hydrogen chloride, HCl”, or  “amount of benzene, C6H6”.  It is important to always give a  precise specification of the  entity involved (as emphasized  in the second sentence of the  definition of the mole); this  should preferably be done by  giving the molecular chemical  formula of the material  involved.      Just like 'amount of hydrogen chloride' is a specialization of 'amount of substance',  'January' is a specialization of 'month.  All are measurement units in the sense of ISO 80000.      The DTV specification should clearly indicate the correspondence between the DTV vocabulary and the corresponding ISO 80000 vocabulary.  These correspondences are important to clarify the relationship between the use of ISO 80000 vocabulary in DTV and SysML's QUDV.

Resolution: The FTF consulted with NIST authors of VIM and ISO 80000-3, who confirmed that 'month' and 'year' are not defined by SI and do not fit the VIM definition of 'measurement unit'. Therefore, the proposal made above is not adopted. Instead, a Rationale section is added to discuss the issue.
Revised Text: 7.14 Precise and Nominal Time Units This specification distinguishes precise time units from nominal time units, as defined in clause 9.1.1. Precise time units are measurement units (annex D.3.2) in the sense of VIM: quantities of quantity kind 'duration' that are defined by convention. All precise time units are defined (clause 9.1.2) in terms of the SI 'second': picosecond, nanosecond, millisecond, microsecond, minute, hour, day, week. Two other time units � 'month' and 'year' � are called 'nominal time units'. The duration of 'year' varies, depending upon whether a given calendar year includes a leap day. The duration of 'month' varies by definition. These time units are mentioned but not formally defined in [SI]. This specification formally defines these nominal time units (clause 9.1.2) in terms of sets of durations. For example, 'year' is defined as the set {365 days, 366 days}. Clauses 11.5 and 11.6 develop algorithms that specify the meaning of multiples of these nominal time units. For example, 2 years is {730 days, 731 days}, not {730 days, 732 days} because 2 calendar years contains just one leap day. This method enables well-defined results for comparisons such as "2 years ? 730 days" and arithmetic expressions such as "4 years � 3 months", which is {1369 days, 1370 days, 1371 days, 1372 days}. This permits logical reasoning systems to infer results that otherwise would be unreachable. Domain-specific vocabularies may define their own precise time units and nominal time units as required by particular business conventions.
Actions taken:
December 19, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16934: Need Informal Definitions or Descriptions (dtv-rtf)

Many Date Time Vocabulary concepts have very formal definitions that are hard for one of the target audiences � business users � to understand.  For example, the definition of the Allen Relationship 'time interval1 is properly before time interval2' reads:  Definition:	the time interval1 is before the time interval2 and the time interval1 is before a time interval3 and the time interval3 is before the time interval2    This formal definition provides a precise meaning for use by reasoning engines, but it takes even an expert human awhile to understand.  Business users have little chance of understanding it.      The solution proposed by this Issue is that this and every other Date Time Vocabulary concept should have an informal definition or description that explains the concept to the business user audience.  Note that SBVR permits a concept to have multiple definitions, so adding informal definitions need not displace any existing formal definitions.

Resolution: Improve wording for Allen relations There are multiple aspects to this issue. One is whether SBVR Structured English can be used to convey the needed precision in time concepts and still be intelligible to business persons. A second is about the choice of SBVR SE phrasing in the actual Definitions ? can they be made clearer to business readers? The third question is: Which of the concepts and definitions in DTV is even useful for business readers, as distinct from the ?ontology? audience that uses the CLIF and OWL versions? As stated, the issue is a recommendation for general editorial changes without guidance. The RTF agrees that the text of the definitions of the Allen relations can be improved, and the proposed text does that. But the text even says that the Allen relations are theoretical, and the more common business relationships are defined in the next section. Specific issues should be raised for sections that are important to business persons and hard to follow.
Revised Text: see attached file: Issue13-12-informaldescription.docx
Actions taken:
December 29, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF agrees that there is value to informal descriptions and has added them in a few places. This issue is being addressed on a case-by-case basis.  The primary effort to make the specification readable by persons with less technical background is part of the resolution of Issue 19336. Since additional descriptions are just informative, they are not critical to the specification. Consequently, this issue is deferred, until a subsequent RTF decides that the issue has been resolved.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 16935: Between (dtv-rtf)

The Date Time Vocabulary provides verb concepts that relate the time order of any two time intervals (e.g. 'time interval1 is before time interval2'), any two situation models ('situation model1 precedes situation model2'), and any two occurrences ('occurrence1 precedes occurrence2').  Another common ordering relationship is among three time intervals, situation models, or occurrences, as in 'time interval1 is between time interval2 and time interval3', 'situation model1 is between situation model2 and situation model3', and 'occurrence1 is between occurrence2 and occurrence3'.  These ternary verb concepts should be added to the Date Time Vocabulary.

Resolution: Add the suggested verb concepts to the vocabulary. Use "and" in the primary form of the verb concepts (even though it is also a keyword for conjunction), and provide an alternate synonymous form that does not use 'and'.
Revised Text: see pages 63 - 66 od dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
December 29, 2011: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 16943: Calendar day is misdefined (dtv-rtf)

In clause 9.5.3, 'calendar day' is defined as:  'time point that is defined by a given calendar and during which approximately one revolution of the earth occurs on its axis'. Clause 9.3 defines 'time point' as 'scale point that is in a time scale and that specializes the concept 'time interval'. Fortunately, 9.3 also says 'time point' is a concept type, so the idea of specialization makes sense.  That is, the definition in 9.3 means: a time point is a scale point on a time scale, and a time point is a concept that specializes 'time interval'.  A concept that specializes time interval is not a time interval during which the earth rotates -- its instances are.      Recommendation:      In clause 9.5.3, change the definition of calendar day to 'time point that is defined by a given calendar and that corresponds to time intervals during which approximately one revolution of the earth on its axis occurs'.  In clause 9.3 reword the definition of time point to 'concept that specializes the concept time interval and that is a scale point on a time scale.

Resolution: The recommendation is adopted as given. (The change to the definition of �time point� is accomplished by the resolution to issue 16665.)
Revised Text: In clause 9.5.3, replace the definition of �calendar day�, which reads: Definition: time point that is defined by a given calendar , and during which approximately one revolution of the Earth occurs on its axis with: Definition: time point that is defined by a given calendar , and that corresponds to time intervals during which approximately one revolution of the Earth occurs on its axis Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
January 5, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 16990: Mischaracterized description of 'properly overlaps' in text (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: EDM Council (Mr. Mike Bennett, mbennett(at)edmcouncil.org)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:

The description for "Properly overlaps" in this section is as follows:      "The �properly overlaps� relation distinguishes the case in which there is a part of each time interval that is not a part the other from all the cases in which one time interval is entirely a part of the other. The general �overlaps� relation subsumes all of them. �Properly overlaps� describes the first time interval as starting and ending earlier than the second, whereas �is properly overlapped by� describes the first time interval as starting and ending later."      Problem:      In the phrase "�Properly overlaps� describes the first time interval as starting and ending earlier than the second," the sense which is intended is in fact "�Properly overlaps� describes the first time interval as starting earlier than the second starts and ending earlier than the second ends"      That is, a word was left implied in this phrase, but no one word would, when inserted here, have carried the correct meaning. For example "starting and ending earlier than the second [starts]" would be incorrect, as would "starting and ending earlier than the second [ends]". So when the reader parses this surface-level syntax and inserts any implied words for a deeper level cognitive representation of the meaning, any such representation would be incorrect compared to the intended sense of this term.       Similarly in the phrase which follows:   "... whereas �is properly overlapped by� describes the first time interval as starting and ending later."       should then (presumably) be:  "... whereas �is properly overlapped by� describes the first time interval as starting later than the second starts, and ending later than the second ends."      Proposed Solution:  Rewrite the offending paragraph as follows:    "The �properly overlaps� relation distinguishes the case in which there is a part of each time interval that is not a part the other from all the cases in which one time interval is entirely a part of the other. The general �overlaps� relation subsumes all of them. �Properly overlaps� describes the first time interval as starting earlier than the second starts and ending earlier than the second ends, whereas �is properly overlapped by� describes the first time interval as starting later than the second starts, and ending later than the second ends."

Resolution: Replace text as described below.
Revised Text: In clause 8.1.3, replace the second paragraph above figure 8.4, which (with formatting) reads "The 'properly overlaps' relation distinguishes the case in which there is a part of each time interval that is not a part the other from all the cases in which one time interval is entirely a part of the other. The general 'overlaps' relation subsumes all of them. 'Properly overlaps' describes the first time interval as starting and ending earlier than the second, whereas 'is properly overlapped by' describes the first time interval as starting and ending later." With the following text (formatted as here): �The 'properly overlaps' relation distinguishes the case in which there is a part of each time interval that is not a part of the other from all the cases in which one time interval is entirely a part of the other. The general 'overlaps' relation subsumes all of them. 'Properly overlaps' describes the first time interval as starting earlier than the second starts and ending earlier than the second ends, whereas 'is properly overlapped by' describes the first time interval as starting later than the second starts, and ending later than the second ends.�
Actions taken:
January 11, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 17227: Description of time point conversion is confused (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 12.4 contains the following:    "The concept �time point converts to time period on time scale� enables conversion of a time point on some time scale1, to a time period on the given time scale. The target time scale always is finer, meaning that it has a granularity that is less than or equal to the granularity of time scale1. This means that time point is equivalent to a time period on time scale2.    "For example, the Gregorian month that is indicated by �January� (on the Gregorian year of months scale) is the time period from Gregorian day of year 1 through Gregorian day of year 31 on the Gregorian year of days scale."    In all of this text, the term 'time period' should probably be replaced by 'time point sequence'.    Clause 12.4 then contains this entry:    "time point converts to time period on time scale  "Definition:  time point converts to a time point sequence on the time scale and the time period  instantiates the time point sequence"    The verb concept 'time point converts to time point sequence' appears in diagram 12-12, but is not defined anywhere, and 'time point converts to time period on time scale' does not appear on the diagram.  So the obvious interpretation is that 'time period' should be replaced by 'time point sequence' in the verb concept entry.  But then the definition is circular.

Resolution: Replace the glossary entry for 'time point converts to time period on time scale' with 'time point converts to time point sequence on time scale'. Also for clarity, add 'time point converts to time set on time scale'. Include these verb concepts in figure 12-2. Add "General Concept" captions to each specialization of these verb concepts to relate the specializations to the general concepts
Revised Text: see pages 72 - 75 of dtc/2012-08-01 for details
Actions taken:
March 12, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: tranferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 17349: spec should provide a simple library of datatypes for use in UML and data modeling (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

This spec should provide a simple library of datatypes for use in UML and data modeling. This is present in many physical data standards (e.g. SQL/JDBC, XML Schema) but is lacking in OMG for platform independent modeling. That would include types such as:    -          Date    -          DateTime    -          TimeStamp    -          Duration

Resolution: Revise clause 18 to define datatypes The principal DTV concepts that will be represented in software are time interval, time coordinate, duration value, occurrence, and various properties and relationships among time intervals and occurrences. The latter two are Classes and any Class implementation will be a view that incorporates only the desired associations. Time coordinate and duration value will have datatype representations. The representations of these concepts are specified in Clause 18. The text of Clause 18 is modified to describe them as 'datatypes'. In addition, the text of Clause 18 is reorganized and enhanced to reflect the 'datatype' view of representation. In the discussion of this issue, it was noted that the Internet Time representations (described in Clause 14) are omitted from Clause 18. The corresponding text is added to clause 18 as an alternative form.
Revised Text: Replace the text of Clause 18 with the content of file: Issue13-11-Clause18.docx
Actions taken:
May 4, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF did not reach agreement on this issue.  The mentioned �datatype concepts� are described as �time coordinates� (10.8) and �duration values� (clause 9), and have corresponding UML models.  On the other hand, the text of clause 18 might be rewritten in part to address this issue directly. This issue is deferred, pending agreement on how to proceed.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 17431: "General Concept" for "Time Axis" should be "Definition" (dtv-rtf)

The glossary entry for Time Axis has a �General Concept:� entry that reads �mathematical representation of the succession in time of instantaneous events along a unique axis�.  The caption is wrong; it should be a �Definition:�.

Resolution: Correct the caption in the �Time Axis� glossary entry. Also, correct the wording of the definition to avoid the terms �representation� and �instantaneous� since the former could be confused with SBVR�s �representation�, and the latter is not true of the model we use.
Revised Text: to instead be a �Definition:� caption with the following text: Definition: mathematical model of the succession in time of events along a unique axis
Actions taken:
June 15, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 27, 2014: closed issue

Issue 17533: Year of Weeks and Year of Weekdays Scales are Misdefined (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Summary:   These two �year of weeks scale� and �year of weekdays scale� are defined using the �time scale subdivides time point� verb concept.  That verb concept assumes that the start of the time point coincides with the start of the scale, but this is not true for these two scales because calendar weeks are not coherent with calendar years.  A special verb concept needs to be used to relate weeks and weekdays to calendar years.

Resolution: The issue is correct: subdivides does not characterize the year of weeks or the year of weekdays scales. These time scales are finite sequences that map directly to the weeks calendar and year of days calendar respectively
Revised Text: see pages 17 - 21 of dtc/2014-06-09 for details
Actions taken:
July 30, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 18190: Time Point Converts to Time Point Sequence (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In the beta-2 document, clause 10.8 defines a verb concept 'time point converts to time point sequence on time scale'.  A typical use is 'Gregorian month converts to time point sequence on the Gregorian days scale', which is given as a specialization.  The 'time scale' role is redundant in the main verb concept, and the use of individual concepts in the derived verb concepts is poor practice.

Resolution: The RTF agrees that ?on time scale? is redundant in the two conversion verb concepts. It is removed, the text preceding the verb concept entry, and the other elements of the entry, are revised to match. There is a corresponding Necessity (which is not stated): Each time point converts to at most one time point sequence/time set on any given time scale. Text in this section that refers to specializations for the Gregorian calendar is revised to refer to clause 11. 'Gregorian month converts to time point sequence on the Gregorian days scale' is a binary verb concept whose definition should be a use of 'time point converts to time point sequence'. The Definition given is a means of stating a Necessity. And this is also the case with the other two uses of ?converts to? in 11.8 and 11.9. Most of the perceived problem is resolved by restating the binary verb concepts more simply, e.g., Gregorian month has Gregorian days sequence, using the ?converts to? verb concept in the Definition, and stating the computations as Necessities. The currently informal mechanism for relating month-of-year to day-of-year in 11.7 is formalized and used in converting a Gregorian month to Gregorian days. Tables 11.1 and 11.2 incorrectly identify the columns as properties of Gregorian month � they are properties of Gregorian month-of-year. The table headings are corrected. While the concepts in Section 11.8 and 11.9 are unchanged, the formulations are modified to use the simplified verbs and separate the Necessities.
Revised Text: see pages 21 - 28 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
October 19, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

The main verb concept here is introduced solely in order to define relationships among time scales.  The issue is primarily about the use of SBVR capabilities and the style of presentation.  It is deferred until there is clear guidance from the SBVR RTF.    Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 18240: Clause 8.3.2 dependency upon clause 10.2 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Title: Clause 8.3.2 dependency upon clause 10.2  Source: Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research, [email protected]  Summary:  The definitions of several standard time units that are defined in clause 8.3.2 are dependent upon "period" concepts that are defined in clause 10.2.  Specifically:    The Definition of day in 8.3.2 references calendar day, which is in 10.2  The Definition of year in 8.3.2 references calendar year, in 10.2  The Definition of month in 8.3.2 references calendar month, in 10.2  The Definition of week in 8.3.2 references calendar week, in 10.2    This violates the Vocabulary structure shown in figure 7.3

Resolution: It is not necessary for any of these units to make definitive references to the concepts in clause 10.2. Two of these units are taken to be precise multiples of �day�. The other two are nominal units that approximate the time intervals of astronomical events. Those same intervals are cited in the definitions in clause 10.2. They can be used in both places, so that (v1.0) clause 8.4.2 does not definitively reference clause 10.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.4.2, in the entry for �day�, DELETE the Definition: Definition: the precise time unit that is the duration of a calendar day 2. In clause 8.4.2, in the entry for �week�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the precise time unit that is the duration of a calendar week WITH: Definition: the precise time unit that is quantified by 7 days 3. In clause 8.4.2, in the entry for �year�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the nominal time unit that is the duration of some calendar year WITH: Definition: the nominal time unit that is the duration of a time interval required for one revolution of the Earth around the Sun, approximated to an integral number of days Source: ISO 8601 (2.2.13, �calendar year�) 4. In clause 8.4.2, in the entry for �year�, at the end of the first Note, ADD the sentence: Such schemes use the term �year� for different nominal units. and ADD the Note: Note: The business term �n years� commonly refers to the duration of a specific consecutive sequence of �year periods� (see 10.3) 5. In clause 8.4.2, in the entry for �month�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the nominal time unit that is the duration of some calendar month WITH: Definition: the nominal time unit that is the duration of a time interval required for one rotation of the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, approximated to a number of days. and after the second Definition ADD: Source: ISO 8601 (2.2.12, �month�) Note: The business term �n months� commonly refers to the duration of a specific consecutive sequence of �month periods� (see 10.3) Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 1, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18241: time interval1 precedes time interval2 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Source: Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research, [email protected]  Summary:  The verb concept 'time interval1 precedes time interval2', defined in clause 8.1.4, appears to have the same semantics as 'time interval1 is before time interval2' in clause 8.1.2.  Also, figure 8.5 fails to show 'time interval1 precedes time interval2'.

Resolution: �Time interval1 precedes time interval2� is redundant. It and its synonymous forms should be made synonymous forms for �time interval1 is before time interval2� in clause 8.2.2. The entry can be kept in 8.2.4 with a See reference to the entry in 8.2.2. The UML model (which only captures primary terms) need not be modified. Note: In 8.2.2, one of the synonymous forms for �is before� is incorrect. It is also corrected by the changes below.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.2.2, in the entry for �time interval1 is before time interval2�, REPLACE the third Synonymous Form: Synonymous Form: time interval2 = time interval1 WITH: Synonymous Form: time interval2 = time interval1 Synonymous Form: time interval1 precedes time interval2 Synonymous Form: time interval2 is preceded by time interval1 Synonymous Form: time interval2 follows time interval1 Synonymous Form: time interval1 is followed by time interval2 2. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for �time interval1 precedes time interval2�, DELETE the entire entry:� time interval1 precedes time interval2 Synonymous Form: time interval2 is preceded by time interval1 Synonymous Form: time interval2 follows time interval1 Synonymous Form: time interval1 is followed by time interval2 Definition: the time interval1 is properly before the time interval2 or the time interval1 meets the time interval2 CLIF Definition: (forall (t1 t2) (iff ("time interval1 precedes time interval2" t1 t2) (or ("time interval1 is properly before time interval2" t1 t2) ("time interval1 meets time interval2" t1 t2)) )) OCL Definition: context _'time interval' def: _'time interval1 precedes time interval2' (t1: _'time interval', t2: _'time interval') : Boolean = t1._'is properly before'(t2) or t1.meets(t2) Example: In any given calendar, 2009 precedes 2010 Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 1, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18253: Time intervals defined by duration (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In DTV Beta-2,Clause 8.2.3, there are two verb concepts:   time interval1 is duration before time interval2   time interval1 is duration after time interval2      From the alternative form: "duration before/after time interval2", it seems clear that the intent of these verb concepts is to allow a time interval to be defined by a reference time interval and a duration, e.g., the two weeks before the jump-off date, the day after the meeting (day).  Each of these denotes exactly one time interval.      But the Definitions mean that the verb concepts simply state the duration between two time intervals. This may be useful when the intent is to state the duration between two events, but it is not the meaning of 'duration before time interval', and it cannot be used to define a time interval.  Either these verb concepts should be defined to be the ones intended by the alternative forms, or the alternative forms should be separate verb concepts.

Resolution: The intent of these two verb concepts is to define time intervals, but there are two ways to define time intervals in terms of durations. �the two weeks before the meeting� refers to a time period of two weeks, ending with the meeting, as the issue describes. �two weeks before the meeting� refers to a time interval (a day) that is separated from the meeting by two weeks, which is the intent of the existing text. The concepts in the issue statement are additional concepts, not replacement concepts. They are added. The RTF also notes that the most common bases for duration before and after are used with events rather than time intervals. This simplifies the business usage by avoiding the circumlocution �the time interval when ...�. The corresponding verbs are added to clause 16. These are simplifications of concepts that use the verb concepts at issue. Clause 16.7 was already very large. The edit also formally creates two subsections at the obvious boundary.
Revised Text: see pages 27 - 38 of dtc/2014-06-09 for details
Actions taken:
November 8, 2012: received issue
April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18822: time interval meets time interval is incorrectly defined in SBVR SE (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 8.1.3, the definition of time interval1 meets time interval2:    �the time interval1 is before the time interval2 and the time interval1 is not before a time interval3 that is before the time interval2�    is inaccurate at best.  The CLIF and OCL definitions are correct.    As stated, the definition says that there is one time interval3 that is before time interval2 and that time interval1 is not before, but it does not say that there is no other time interval3 is before time interval2 and that time interval1 is not before.  The definition should read:    �time interval1 is before time interval2 and there is NO time interval3 that is after time interval1 that is before time interval2�    This revised statement matches the CLIF and OCL definitions.         There may be other such misstatements in 8.1.3.

Resolution: Correct the text as recommended
Revised Text: In clause 8.2.3, in the entry for �time interval1 meets time interval2�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval1 is before the time interval2 and the time interval1 is not before a time interval3 that is before the time interval2 WITH: Definition: time interval1 is before time interval2 and there exists no time interval3 that is after time interval1 and that is before time interval2
Actions taken:
July 17, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18827: DTV Issue: Error in 'time point1 to time point2 specifies time period' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In DTV clause 8.6, the Definition of �time point1 to time point2 specifies time period� reads:    Definition: time point1 is the first time point of a time point sequence and some time point3 is the    last time point of the time point sequence and time point2 is just before time point3 in    the time point sequence and time point1 through time point2 specifies the time period         The subscripts on time point2 and time point3 are reversed.  It should read:    Definition: time point1 is the first time point of a time point sequence and time point2 is the    last time point of the time point sequence and there is a time point3 that is just before time point2 in    the time point sequence and time point1 through time point3 specifies the time period

Resolution: Correct the text as recommended.
Revised Text: In clause 8.7, in the entry for �time point1 to time point2 specifies time period�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: time point1 is the first time point of a time point sequence and some time point3 is the last time point of the time point sequence and time point2 is just before time point3 in the time point sequence and time point1 through time point2 specifies the time period WITH: Definition: time point1 is the first time point of a time point sequence and time point2 is the last time point of the time point sequence and some time point3 is just before time point2 in the time point sequence and time point1 through time point3 specifies the time period
Actions taken:
July 18, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18828: DTV Typo: first member (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In annex D.2, Sequences, the entry for "first member" has "General Concept: role" and "Possibility: thing".  It should be "Concept Type: role" and "General Concept: thing".

Resolution: These errors were corrected in DTV v1.0. Disposition: Closed No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 19, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18875: Date-Time Vocabulary typo: index (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The Date-Time Vocabulary 1.0 entry for "index" reads "Definition: integer".  It should be "General Concept: integer".

Resolution: as stated
Revised Text: In Annex D.2.1, in the entry for �index�, REPLACE Definition: integer WITH: General Concept: integer
Actions taken:
August 18, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18950: DTV Issue: Included Vocabulary is wrong for Duration Values Vocabulary (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 9.0 of the Date-Time Vocabulary, the vocabulary entry for the "Duration Values Vocabulary" has "Included Vocabulary: Duration Values Vocabulary".  Per diagram 7.3, it should be "Included Vocabulary: Time Infrastructure Vocabulary".   An extension of the same issue:     In clause 10.0, the vocabulary entry for the "Calendars Vocabulary" has "Included Vocabulary: Calendars Vocabulary".  It should have "Included Vocabulary: Time Infrastructure Vocabulary".     In clause 11.0, the vocabulary entry for the "Gregorian Calendars Vocabulary" has "Included Vocabulary: Gregorian Calendars Vocabulary".  It should have "Included Vocabulary: Calendars Vocabulary".

Resolution: as described. These are editorial errors. The changes to clause 11.1 are incorporated in the resolution to Issue 18961, which changes the �included vocabularies�.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 9.1, in the entry for Duration Values Vocabulary, REPLACE the entry: Included Vocabulary: Duration Values Vocabulary WITH: Included Vocabulary: Time Infrastructure Vocabulary 2. In clause 10.1, in the entry for Calendars Vocabulary, REPLACE the entry: Included Vocabulary: Calendars Vocabulary WITH: Included Vocabulary: Time Infrastructure Vocabulary
Actions taken:
September 22, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18959: DTV Issue: Included Vocabulary is wrong for Duration Values Vocabulary (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 9.0 of the Date-Time Vocabulary, the vocabulary entry for the "Duration Values Vocabulary" has "Included Vocabulary: Duration Values Vocabulary".  Per diagram 7.3, it should be "Included Vocabulary: Time Infrastructure Vocabulary".

Resolution: sduplicate of issue # 18950
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 22, 2013: received issue
October 4, 2013: closed issue

Issue 18960: DTV Issue: figure 8.11 Duration Operations (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

   (See red circle in attached diagram).  Figure 8.11, Duration Operations, shows that each instance of the class 'duration' participates in exactly one instance of the class 'duration1 equals number times duration2' as role 'duration1'. Clearly this is false.  For example, the duration "4 hours" is the result of both "2 times 2 hours" and "4 times 1 hour".     Note that the UML diagrams show that instances of each role can participate in any number of instances of the reified classes.  For example, see "duration1 equals duration2 minus duration3".

Resolution: The erroneous multiplicity in the diagram is corrected to 0..*.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 30, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18961: DTV Issue: Clause 11 depends on clause 9 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 11, Gregorian Calendar, defines concepts 'year value', 'years duration value set', 'month value', and  'months duration value set' -- all of which are dependent upon concepts defined in clause 9, 'Duration Values'. But (1) the 'Gregorian Calendar Vocabulary' does not include the 'Duration Values Vocabulary', and (2) figure 7.3 fails to show the dependency.  Both of these should be fixed.

Resolution: As described. The included calendar references in the Gregorian Calendar Vocabulary are corrected. Introductory text is also added to the beginning of Clause 11.
Revised Text: see pages 45 - 46 of dtc/2014-06-09 for details
Actions taken:
September 30, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18962: DTV Issue: 'second' should be a base unit (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The individual concept 'second' is defined in clause 8.4.2 as a 'precise time unit', which is a kind of 'measurement unit'.  'Second' should also be defined as a kind of 'base measurement unit' (annex D.3.2) because 'second' is one in the SI system.

Resolution: Since all the other precise time units are derived from �second�, it is important to say that this is the base measurement unit. Add a second Definition.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.4.2, in the entry for �second�, after the Definition INSERT a second Definition: Definition: the base unit that is defined for the base quantity �time� by the International System of Units (SI) 2. In Annex D.3.2, in the entry for �system of units defines measurement unit for quantity kind�, before the Definition INSERT: Synonymous Form: measurement unit is defined for quantity kind by system of units 3. In Annex D.3.2, in the entry for �base unit�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: measurement unit that is defined by a system of units to be the reference measurement unit for a base quantity WITH: Definition: measurement unit that is defined for a base quantity by a system of units 4. At the end of D.3.2, immediately before D.3.3, INSERT a new entry: International System of Units Synonym: SI Definition: The system of units that is defined for the International System of Quantities by the International Standard ISO 80000. Source: VIM 1.16.
Actions taken:
September 30, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18963: DTV Typo: 'd 71' in the index (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The DTV index has an entry 'd 71' that appears nowhere in the text. It should be removed.

Resolution: as stated
Revised Text: In the Index of Business Designations, DELETE the entry �d 71�
Actions taken:
September 30, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 18964: DTV Issue: Add Necessity statements to indicate "result" of 3-way verbs (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

DTV has many verb concepts with three roles, where one particular role is the "result" of the verb concept.  Examples are 'time interval1 plus time interval2 is time interval3', 'time interval1 to time interval2 specifies time interval3' (clause 8.2.5), 'time interval1 starts time interval2 complementing time interval3' (clause 8.2.6), 'duration3 equals duration1 plus duration2' and 'duration1 equals number times duration2' (8.3.2), etc.     Proposal: add to these verb concepts a new Necessity that identifies which role contains the "result".  For example, "Necessity: Each number times each duration2 is exactly one duration1."     Motivations: (1) Add semantic knowledge that is currently not provided by the Date-Time Vocabulary; (2) When mapping DTV to OWL, this would provide the information needed to identify which role is the functional result of the verb concept.  Specifically, the object property for the "result" role could be marked as an "functional object property" of the reified class that represents the 3-role verb concept.   -----------------------------

Resolution: Add missing necessities for unique results The verbs in question are about verbs that specify unique time intervals and durations in various ways. It is important for the UML and CLIF functions that the uniqueness is stated. The uniqueness is stated for all of the basic operations on time intervals. Stating the uniqueness for time interval1 to/through time interval2 is resolved by another issue. The remaining verbs in clause 8 and 9 are addressed here. Other minor errors in the text of clause 9.5 are corrected.
Revised Text: see attached file Issue13-9-uniqueresult.docx
Actions taken:
September 30, 2013: received issue
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF agrees that it is worthwhile to capture this additional intent formally.  The RTF, however, ran out of time to perform the search and the numerous minor changes to address this issue.  The issue is deferred until that can be done.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 18989: DTV Issue: Inconsistency between designs of "Duration Value" an (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The concepts 'time coordinate' and 'duration value' serve similar purposes: one defines how time points are represented in terms of calendars, and the other addresses how durations are represented in terms of measurement units. 'Time Coordinate' is defined as a "representation of a time point" in clause 10.6.1, which is fine.  In contrast, 'duration value' is defined in clause 9.2 as being either an 'atomic' or 'compound' duration value, with the former having a number and a unit.  So 'duration value' is NOT a representation.     I believe the final design of 'time coordinate' was decided late in the FTF phase after considerable discussion -- and the FTF overlooked converting 'duration value' to a similar design.  This should be fixed.   -----------------------------

Resolution: This issue is identical in text to Issue 18991. See the resolution to Issue 18991.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 6, 2013: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Duplicate or Merged
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

This issue duplicates Issue 18991, which is Deferred  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 18990: DTV Issue: Inadequate guidance for application vocabularies (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The Date-Time Vocabulary has multiple concepts about amounts of time (duration, duration value), and locations in time (time interval, time point, time point set, time period, time coordinate), but very little guidance as to which of these concepts should be the basis for application business vocabularies. DTV should add a rationale section or additional commentary in Annex C to explain which concepts should be used for what purposes in business vocabularies.     Table C.1 has a reference to a concept 'date' that does not exist.

Resolution: Issue does not reflect revision of Annex C This issue was substantially addressed in v1.2 with the rewrite of Annex C as the Guidelines for Business Use. Further work on that Annex may be appropriate, but only if issues that cite specific weaknesses are raised.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 6, 2013: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Deferred
July 8, 2015: closed issue
March 29, 2016: Closed; No Change

Discussion:

This issue is closely related to Issue 19336, and the RTF will address them together.  That work is well advanced, but has not completed in time for inclusion in this RTF Report.  This issue, along with Issue 19336, is deferred to the next RTF.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 18991: DTV Issue: Inconsistency between designs of "Duration Value" and "Time Coordinate (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The concepts 'time coordinate' and 'duration value' serve similar purposes: one defines how time points are represented in terms of calendars, and the other addresses how durations are represented in terms of measurement units. 'Time Coordinate' is defined as a "representation of a time point" in clause 10.6.1, which is fine.  In contrast, 'duration value' is defined in clause 9.2 as being either an 'atomic' or 'compound' duration value, with the former having a number and a unit.  So 'duration value' is NOT a representation.     I believe the final design of 'time coordinate' was decided late in the FTF phase after considerable discussion -- and the FTF overlooked converting 'duration value' to a similar design.  This should be fixed

Resolution: The RTF agrees that neither a duration value nor a time coordinate is a ?representation? in the SBVR sense. Each can have more than one ?expression?. Rather, the instances of both are ?conceptual structures of meaning?. A duration value is the instantiation of a reference scheme for duration. It is a structure of meaning that is interpreted as a definite description of a duration. A time coordinate is a structure of meaning that ?indicates? (is interpreted as) a concept that is a category of time interval. The text and the UML model are revised to state these characterizations. A reference scheme for the concept ?time point? that is actually used in Gregorian calendar time coordinates is (time point kind, index), and this is added to the reference schemes for time point. Issue 19547 identifies additional problems with the same sections of clause 10.6. It modifies many of the same diagrams and entries. Therefore the revised text of this issue resolution is merged with that of Issue 19547.
Revised Text: See Issue 19547
Actions taken:
October 6, 2013: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF agrees that these models are not parallel, but the issue needs careful study: a duration value is a measurement; a time coordinate is a name.  The RTF did not come to an agreement on a resolution.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 18995: DTV Issue: representation has expression (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

DTV clause 4 has a list of concepts that are extracted from the SBVR specification.  This clause includes "representation uses expression", which does not in fact appear in SBVR.  The correct concept is "representation has expression".     Also, DTV clause 4 includes "meaning has representation", which is a Synonymous Form, not a primary term, of "representation represents meaning" in the SBVR specification.  Both the primary term and the two Synonymous Forms should be copied from the SBVR specification.

Resolution: The references to the SBVR vocabulary entries will be corrected.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 4, DELETE the entry for �meaning has representation�. 2. In clause 4, for �representation uses expression�:CHANGE �uses� TO �has�, so that the entry reads: representation has expression 3. In clause 4, immediately before the entry for �res�, INSERT: representation represents meaning Synonymous Form: representation has meaning Synonymous Form: meaning has representation Definition: {adopted term}
Actions taken:
October 9, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19016: DTV Issue: Concept terms should not use algebraic symbols (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Algebraic symbols (<, <=, =) are incorporated in the terms of various concepts, such as "duration1 < duration2".  This causes problems when these concepts are mapped to UML, CLIF, or OWL because these languages restrict the character set of names to alphanumeric characters.  You can see this in figure 8.10, where this concept is mapped to the "is less than" method name -- probably because OCL does not support the "<" character.     Suggestion: use primary terms that are only alphanumeric, and restrict algebraic symbols to Synonymous Forms.  For example, as is already done for "time interval1 is before time interval2".

Resolution: The RTF agrees that the mathematical symbols should not be the primary terms, in order to simplify mappings to implementation languages that restrict the characters permitted in terms. In each case, the mathematical symbol will be retained as a synonymous form for the verb concept. In addition, the specification of the �noun forms� for the arithmetic verbs is inconsistent; both the sign form and the word form will be specified for both plus and minus. The revised text also corrects a paragraph labeling error (Issue 19032), and removes a redundant copy of the axioms for the duration ordering.
Revised Text: see pages 51 - 56 of dtc/2014-06-09 for details
Actions taken:
October 12, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19032: DTV Typo in clause 9.5 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

In clause 9.5, the first caption under "duration value set2 = duration � duration value set1", should be a Synonymous Form, not a Definition.  And the second caption should be a Definition rather than a Synonymous Form.     Also (following on a previous request), the primary term for several glossary entries in this section should use English words rather than algebraic symbols, as in "duration value set2 equals duration minus duration value set1".

Resolution: The second paragraph above is not about a typo. It requires correcting the primary verb terms for three of the entries in 9.5, which is the subject of Issue 19016. Disposition: See issue 19016 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 26, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19033: DTV Typo: weeks scale (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

In clause 12.3 of the Date-Time Vocabulary, in the Definition of 'weeks scale', the term 'indefinite time scale' should be styled as a term, rather than as an individual concept.  Also, the definition should probably start "the indefinite time scale that ...."

Resolution: as stated
Revised Text: In clause 12.3, in the entry for �weeks scale�, CHANGE indefinite time scale TO �the indefinite time scale�
Actions taken:
October 27, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19034: DTV Typo: weekday definitions (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

The weekday definitions in clause 12.4 have incorrect definitions. They say that "Monday", etc., are kinds of "day of week 1", etc.  But there is no object type called "day of week 1" -- the styling is wrong.  "Day of week" should be styled "term", and "1" should be styled "name".  The intended meaning is "day of week" number 1.

Resolution: In resolving Issue 18991, the RTF decided that notations of the form <time point kind><index>, such as ?day of week 1?, are abbreviations of definite descriptions of the form ?<time point kind> that has index <index>?, such as ?day of week that has index 1?. These abbreviations are complex expressions used as designations for the time points defined by the definite descriptions. The notation is used in many places in the specification, and is explained in the revised text for Issue 18991. Accordingly, the styling recommended in the issue is correct. The day of week definitions are modified by the resolution to Issue 19574, which also corrects the formatting of the notation.
Revised Text: none. See Issues 18991 and 19574
Actions taken:
October 27, 2013: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Whether there is any valid SBVR syntax for the proposed naming scheme is an issue in SBVR v1.3 RTF.  The form . �day of week that has index 1� is valid in SBVR SE, but not what some RTF members wanted.  So, the RTF cannot resolve this issue until there is a resolution to the SBVR issue.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 19060: DTV Issue: definition of 'time point kind' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause xx, the definition of 'time point kind' is "concept that is a specialization of the concept 'time point'", where 'specialization' is styled as a term.  However, 'specialization' is not defined anywhere in either DTV or SBVR.     The definition should read "concept that  specializesthe concept 'time point'"   -----------------------------

Resolution: as described
Revised Text: In clause 10.4, in the entry for �time point kind�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: concept that is a specialization of the concept 'time point' WITH: Definition: concept that specializes the concept 'time point'
Actions taken:
November 1, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19063: DTV Typo: definition of "Gregorian date" (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 11.7, in the Definition of 'Gregorian date', the reference to "Gregorian year month date coordinate" should be spelled "Gregorian year month day coordinate".  The reference to "year weekday coordinate" should be spelled "year week day coordinate".  Also, the concept 'year week day coordinate' is defined in the Week Calendar Vocabulary, which (according to figure 7.3) is not included by the Gregorian Calendar Vocabulary -- and cannot be included without creating a circular inclusion problem.

Resolution: The erroneous term �Gregorian year month date coordinate� occurs in the entry for Gregorian year month day coordinate as well as in the entry for Gregorian day. The reference to year week day coordinate in clause 11.7 is a consequence of the definition of Gregorian day. It is properly a �calendar date that refers to a Gregorian day�. The definitions of the other three concepts should refer to �Gregorian date� as the more general type.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year month day coordinate�, in the Definition paragraph, CHANGE �absolute compound time coordinate� TO �Gregorian date� 2. In clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year month day coordinate�, in the Necessity paragraph, CHANGE �Gregorian year month date coordinate� TO �Gregorian year month day coordinate� 3. In clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year day coordinate�, in the Definition paragraph, CHANGE �absolute compound time coordinate� TO �Gregorian date� 4. In clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian date�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: calendar date that is a Gregorian year month date coordinate or Gregorian year day coordinate or year weekday coordinate WITH: Definition: calendar date that indicates a Gregorian day 5. In clause 12.5, in the entry for �year week day coordinate�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: absolute compound time coordinate that combines a Gregorian year coordinate and that combines a week of year coordinate and that combines a day of week coordinate, and that indicates a Gregorian day of the Gregorian year indicated by the year week WITH: Definition: Gregorian date that combines a Gregorian year coordinate and that combines a week of year coordinate and that combines a day of week coordinate
Actions taken:
November 3, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19076: regular time table is strangely constrained (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In DTV Clause 17.1, in the entry for �regular time table�, the following Necessity appears: If the index of some table entry2 of the time table is 1 greater than the index of some table entry1 of the time table, then the duration from table entry1 to table entry2 is the repeat interval of the time table. This goes well beyond the definition, which says only that the time table has an �intensional definition�, i.e., a rule that determines the entries. This Necessity states one kind of scheduling rule, but it prevents the use of a rule that specifies table entries by events, or by event plus or minus duration. (Consider military time tables, which state schedules for preparatory actions relative to a planned event whose occurrence interval is not fixed. These time tables have clear intensional definitions, but they don�t have �repeat intervals�.) If the Description (�A regular time table has time table entries that repeat...�) is what is intended, then the Definition is not even close to conveying that. That concept is a regular sequence of not necessarily contiguous time intervals, which are determined by a starting point and a repeat interval. If this is what is intended, this is what the Definition should say. If the intent is as general as the definition leads one to believe, this Necessity should be deleted, or used in a Note as a pattern for a kind of intensional definition that is based on a fixed repeat interval. The above Necessity also assumes that the time table has exactly one repeat interval, which is not itself stated as a Necessity. It should be a requirement that a regular time table has at most 1 repeat interval. If the Description is what is meant, it must have exactly one. Note also that the second �Definition� under �repeat interval� should be �Possibility�. If the definition is what is intended, there should also be a requirement that the time table has exactly 1 �intensional definition�, since the term is marked as an SBVR concept.

Resolution: The Definition in the v1.0 specification says that the table entries �repeat according to the repeat interval�. That is the intent. A regular time table is a repeating sequence of time intervals with a fixed repeat interval. The Necessity that the issue refers to is correct. The Definition will be reworded to clarify this by eliminating �intensional definition�. The term �repeat interval� is confusing, because it refers to a duration, not a time interval. It will be replaced.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 4, DELETE the entry for �intensional definition�. 2. In clause 17.2, in the entry for �regular time table�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: time table that is a sequence that has an intensional definition with time table entries that repeat according to the repeat interval WITH: Definition: time table that has a repeat duration and that is a regular sequence of time table entries in which the duration of the time interval that separates consecutive time table entries is the repeat duration. 3. In clause 17.2, in the entry for �regular time table�, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: If the index of some table entry2 of the time table is 1 greater than the index of some table entry1 of the time table, then the duration from table entry1 to table entry2 is the repeat interval of the time table. WITH: Necessity: If a table entry1 of a regular time table is just before some table entry2 of the regular time table , then table entry1 starts a time interval that meets table entry2 and that has a duration that is the repeat duration of the time table. 4. In clause 17.2, in the entry for �regular time table�, DELETE the Note: Note: The term �intensional definition� is defined in [SBVR] sub clause 11.1.3. 5. In clause 17.2, in the entry for �regular time table�, in the last Note, CHANGE �each month period.� TO �one month.� 6. In clause 17, CHANGE all occurrences of �repeat interval� TO �repeat duration�
Actions taken:
November 8, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19169: drop "Gregorian day of week" (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 11.2, "Gregorian Time Points", the definition of "Gregorian calendar day" is "Gregorian day or Gregorian day of year or Gregorian day of month or Gregorian day of week".  The problem with this definition is that there is no term "Gregorian day of week" anywhere in DTV -- probably because the week calendar and the Gregorian calendar are unrelated.     Recommended solution: drop "Gregorian day of week" from this definition

Resolution: As described
Revised Text: In clause 11.3, in the entry for �Gregorian calendar day�, in the Definition, DELETE the text �or Gregorian day of week�
Actions taken:
December 27, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19171: DTV Issue: use of "first element" in scale definitions (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 11.2, the glossary entries for "Gregorian year of months scale", "Gregorian year of days scale", and "Gregorian month of days scale" each include Necessities of the form "The first element of the ...", where "first" is unstyled.  This is a problem because Necessities should never have unstyled text.  More importantly, these Necessities could instead by written as "The first member of the ...."  If not, the second Note under "index origin member" in Annex D.2.3 is wrong.   -----------------------------

Resolution: The issue is correct and the recommended approach solves the problem.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 11.2, in the entry for �Gregorian year of months scale�, in the third Necessity, CHANGE �first element� TO �first member�, so that the Necessity begins: Necessity: The first member of the Gregorian year of months scale is � 2. In clause 11.2, in the entry for �Gregorian year of days scale�, in the third Necessity, CHANGE �first element� TO �first member�, so that the Necessity begins: Necessity: The first member of the Gregorian year of days scale is � 3. In clause 11.2, in the entry for �Gregorian month of days scale�, in the third Necessity, CHANGE �first element� TO �first member�, so that the Necessity begins: Necessity: The first member of the Gregorian month of days scale is �
Actions taken:
December 30, 2013: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19172: Missing "exactly" in scale definitions (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Many scale definitions in DTV include a Necessity that some time point "has <number> of <class>" some other time point.  The issue here is that correct use of SBVR Structured English would employ the keyword "exactly", as in "has exactly <number> <class>".  Examples of this problem occur in the glossary entries are listed below.     Also, most of these examples quote the <class>, using keyword-style quotes.  But the entry for "Gregorian year of months scale" does not quote the <class>.  If the documented SBVR-SE style is used, such quotes should not be used.   Gregorian year of months scale     common year     leap year     January (and all the month definitions, except the one for February)     week of days scale     day of hours scale     day of minutes scale     day of seconds scale     hour of minutes scale     minute of seconds scale

Resolution: Replace 'time point has number of time point kind' with 'time point subdivides into time point' The Necessities described in the issue use the verb concept ?time point has number of time point kind?, which is defined in clause 10.4. In that usage, the <number> value plays a verb concept role, and is defined to be the cardinality of a time point sequence. The <number> is not a quantification (which would use ?exactly?). The RTF agrees that the verb concept ?time point has number of time point kind? is unusual syntax for a quantifiable relationship between time points, and that the markup of the usages is incorrect. The verb concept is really a description of the structure of a subdivision, as the existing Note for the verb concept says. This revision improves the text by replacing the strange support verb concept with a simpler one, and by correcting all the previous uses.
Revised Text: see attached file Issue13-25-subdivision.docx
Actions taken:
December 30, 2013: received issue
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF did not come to an agreement on a resolution.  The cited instances use the verb concept �time point has number of time point kind�, and in that usage, the number value plays a verb concept role.  It is not a quantification (which would use �exactly�).  But the verb concept itself appears to be a quantifiable relationship that has unexpected syntax.  So the issue is deferred.   The missing quotation marks are repaired as a typographical error in Issue 19175.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 19173: DTV Issue: time point sequence includes time point (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The second Necessity in the glossary entry for "time point sequence" in clause 8.7 reads "Each time point sequence includes at least one time point.".  The Necessity depends upon a verb concept "time point sequence includestime point" that does not exist.     Suggested solution: add a glossary entry for "time point sequence includestime point".

Resolution: The verb �includes� should be a reference to �sequence has member�. No new entry is needed. The wording will be corrected.
Revised Text: In clause 8.7, in the entry for �time point sequence�, REPLACE the Necessity that reads: Necessity: Each time point sequence includes at least one time point. WITH: Necessity: Each time point sequence has at least one member.
Actions taken:
January 3, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19175: DTV typos (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Here's some more typos:     9. In clause 9.5, in the entry for "duration value set equals duration", the third synonymous form has the same wording as the primary form of the verb concept.   10. In clause 16.4, in the primary verb form for "occurrence1 is between occurrence2  and occurrence3", the word "and" should use verb style, rather than keyword style.  In the first synonymous form, the word "and" should use verb style, rather than keyword style.  The second and third synonymous forms are identical; one should be removed.   11. In Annex D.2.3, in the entry for "sequence has index origin position", the first Necessity should read "Each sequence has at most one index origin position.", rather than "Each sequence has at most one index origin value.".   -----------------------------  Mark H. Linehan  STSM, IBM Research   ----- Forwarded by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM on 01/02/2014 04:04 PM -----     From:        Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM   To:        [email protected],   Date:        12/30/2013 05:06 PM   Subject:        Fw: DTV typos     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------      Here's another typo:     8. In clause 16.4, in the entry for "individual situation kind has occurrence interval", the Necessity "The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence" should be "Each individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence interval".   -----------------------------  Mark H. Linehan  STSM, IBM Research   ----- Forwarded by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM on 12/30/2013 05:00 PM -----     From:        Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS   To:        [email protected], [email protected],   Date:        12/30/2013 11:29 AM   Subject:        DTV typos     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------        I've noticed several more typos in the DTV spec (formal-13-08-01.pdf):     1. In clause 11.2, in the entry for "Gregorian year of days scale", the first Necessity should be a Note.   2. In clause 11.2, in the entry for "Gregorian month of days scale", the first Necessity should be a Note.   3. In clause 16.7, in the entry for "time interval1 to occurrence specifies time interval2", "occurrence to time interval1 specifies time interval2", "occurrence1 to occurrence2 specifies time interval", "time interval1through individual situation kind specifies time interval2",  the word "The" in the Necessity caption should have keyword style.   4. In clause 17.1, in the entry for "time table", the use of the keyword "must " in the first Necessity is not consistent with SBVR-SE style because modal keywords are not used in Necessities and Possibilities.  The Necessity should read "Each time table has at least one table entry.".   5. In clause 17.2, in the entry for "schedule is for general situation kind", the first Necessity should read "Each schedule is for..." instead of "A schedule is for...".   6. In Annex D.2.1, the modal keyword "may" is used in the Possibilities for "sequence has first position" and "sequence has last position".  In SBVR-SE style, modal keywords are implicit, not explicit in Possibility and Necessity statements.   7. In Annex D.2.3, the Necessity for "sequence has index origin position" should read "Each sequence has at most one index origin position." instead of "Each sequence has at most one index origin value.".   -----------------------------  Mark H. Linehan  STSM, IBM Research

Resolution: All identified typographical errors will be corrected. Errors in SBVR entry subtitles will also be corrected. This issue resolution incorporates other changes that only repair typographical errors.
Revised Text: [Each change below is marked with the Issue that identified the error.] 1. [Issue 19175: 9] In clause 9.5, in the entry for "duration value set equals duration", REPLACE the paragraph: Synonymous Form: duration value set equals duration WITH Synonymous Form: duration value set = duration 2. [Issue 19175: 1] In clause 11.2, in the entry for "Gregorian year of days scale", in the paragraph beginning: �Necessity: Each leap year is�� CHANGE �Necessity� TO �Note�. 3. [Issue 19172] In clause 11.2, in the entry for "Gregorian year of months scale", REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: Each Gregorian year has 12 of Gregorian month of year. WITH (enclosing Gregorian month of year in quotation marks): Necessity: Each Gregorian year has 12 of 'Gregorian month of year'. 4. [Issue 19175: 2] In clause 11.2, in the entry for "Gregorian month of days scale", in the paragraph beginning: �Necessity: Each Gregorian month of year is�� CHANGE �Necessity� TO �Note�. 5. [Issue 19175: 8] In clause 16.4, in the entry for "occurrence1 is between occurrence2 and occurrence3", a. in the entry, CHANGE the keyword "and" TO the verb word �and�, b. in the first Synonymous Form, CHANGE the keyword "and" TO the verb word �and�, c. REPLACE the second synonymous form: Synonymous Form: occurrence1 between occurrence2 to occurrence3 WITH: Synonymous Form: occurrence1 occurs between occurrence2 and occurrence3 6. [Issue 19175] In clause 16.5, in the entry for "individual situation kind has occurrence interval", REPLACE: Necessity: The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence. WITH Necessity: Each individual situation kind has at most one occurrence interval. 7. [Issue 19175: 3] In clause 16.7, in the following entries: - "time interval1 to occurrence specifies time interval2", - "occurrence to time interval1 specifies time interval2", - "occurrence1 to occurrence2 specifies time interval", - "time interval1through individual situation kind specifies time interval2", CHANGE the word "The" in the Necessity paragraph to the keyword �The�. 8. [Issue 19175: 4] [Note: modifies the same sentence as Issue 19277] In clause 17.2, in the entry for "time table", in the Necessity paragraph, CHANGE �must have� to �has�. 9. [Issue 19175: 5] In clause 17.3, in the entry for "schedule is for general situation kind", in the Necessity paragraph, CHANGE "A schedule is for..." TO "Each schedule is for...". 10. [Issue 19175: 6] In Annex D.2.1, in the entry for "sequence has first position": a. In the Necessity paragraph, CHANGE �A sequence has �� TO �Each sequence has ��. b. In the Possibility paragraph, CHANGE �may have� to �has�. 11. [Issue 19175: 6] In Annex D.2.1, in the entry for "sequence has last position": a. In the Necessity paragraph, CHANGE �A sequence has �� TO �Each sequence has ��. b. In the Possibility paragraph, CHANGE �may have� to �has�. 12. [Issue 19175: 7] In Annex D.2.3, in the entry for "sequence has index origin position", in the Necessity paragraph, CHANGE �index origin value" TO �index origin position�
Actions taken:
January 6, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19197: incorrect formula for length of successive Gregorian years (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:

The formula given for the possible lengths    for an integral number of successive    Gregorian years is incorrect. It implies    an average length of the year of 365.235 d    while the correct value is 365.2425 d.    For instance it is well known that any    successive 400 Gregorian years comprise    exactly 146 097 d, while the formula    gives 146 094 d.    For the record, with a little algebra,    the number of days between Gregorian    calendar(Y', Jan, 01) and Gregorian    calendar(Y, Jan, 01) is easily seen    to be       floor( &#916;�365.25 )       + floor(-3/4�floor(&#916;/100))       + |&#916; mod 4   > (Y - 1)mod 4|       - |&#916; mod 100 > (Y - 1)mod 100|       + |&#916; mod 400 > (Y - 1)mod 400|    where &#916; = Y - Y'.

Resolution: The reference is to the formula in the entry for �year value specifies duration value set�. The formula includes two erroneous factors of 2, and does not account for year values greater than 400 properly. The formula and the supporting concepts will be corrected.
Revised Text: see pages 70 - 72 of dtc/2014-06-09 for details
Actions taken:
January 28, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19277: DTV Issue: Necessity for "time table" in clause 17.2 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

There are two problems with the Necessity in the entry for "time table" in clause 17.2:     1) The Necessity assumes a verb concept "time table has table entry" that does not exist.   2) The Necessity is misspelled as "Each time table must have at least one table entry."  It should be "Each time table has at least one table entry. "     Note: the definition of "time table has table entry" should make clear the relationship of this concept to the "table entries" mentioned in the definition of "time table" as a "set of table entries".

Resolution: The UML diagram (Figure 17.1) disagrees with the definition of time table, and introduces the missing verb concept (time table has table entry) as a specialization of �set has element� (from SBVR). The UML model reflects the intent. The text will be revised to support the model.
Revised Text: 1. [Note: This change and Issue 19175 modify the same Necessity.] In Clause 17.2, in the entry for �time table�, REPLACE the Definition and the Necessity: Definition: set of table entries Necessity: Each time table must have at least one table entry. WITH: Definition: set of time periods Necessity: Each time table must have at least one element. Note: The Necessity uses �set has element� from SBVR. 2. In Clause 17.2, in the entry for �table entry, after the General Concept paragraph, INSERT: Definition: time period that is in a time table 3. In Clause 17.2, immediately before the entry for �time table period�, INSERT: time table has table entry General Concept: set has element Definition: the table entry is in the time table
Actions taken:
March 2, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19280: inconsistent statements on day index (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:

REFERENCES:     section 11.2, last Note on p 126:          [a] "The calendar reform instituted by          Pope Gregory XIII [Inter Gravissimas]          deleted 10 days from the          Gregorian calendar, starting on          5 October 1582."         [b] "The previous calendar day had          index 577 739 on the Julian calendar,          computed as 1581 years of 365 days          plus 395 leap days + 279 days          from 1 January 1852 to          5 October 1582."         [c] "The following day was          15 October 1582."         [d] "From that date to the Convention du          M�tre on 20 May 1875, there were          106 870 calendar days including          leap days."         section 11.7, in a Note on p 141:         [e] "685 263 is the index of          1 January 1601,          computed as 684 609 (index of          15 October 1582) plus 6654 days from          15 October 1582 through          1 January 1601."         section 11.7, in the 2nd Example on p 141:         [f] "The first calendar day of 2010          is Gregorian day 830 991"      PROBLEMS:     The assertion in [a] is misunderstandable:     no days were deleted from the Gregorian     calendar by any pope. In fact, the     proleptic Gregorian calendar without     any "deletions" is     used by ISO 8601:2004, by computer     software and by some historians.     What really is meant is:        'The calendar reform instituted by         Pope Gregory XIII and promulgated in         the bull [Inter Gravissimas] started         the use of the Gregorian calendar with         the date 15 October 1582, which is the         same as 05 October 1582 in the Julian         calendar.'         As for [b]: The "previous calendar day"     would  be 1582 Oct 04 in the Julian     calendar, not 1582 Oct 05 as suggested in     [b]. Whichever of the two is meant, the     following computation in [b] is     incorrect: the number of days from     1582 Jan 01 until 1582 Oct 05 is 277 and     not 279, as can be read directly from     [table 11.3, p 146].         As for [c]: It appears as if the     "following day" means the day     after J1582-10-05. This     following day is     J1582-10-06 = G1582-10-16,     not G1582-10-15 as asserted.     (We use prefixes     J and G to distinguish Julian and     Gregorian calendars.)         The computation in [d] is incorrect: the     number of days from G1582-10-15 to     G1875-05-20 is 106 868, not 106 870     as asserted,     because G1582-10-15 = JD 2299 160.5     and G1875-05-20 = JD 2406 028.5.         Assertion [e] is clearly     self-contradictory since     685 263 - 684 609 is not 6654.         Inconsistencies between [b, e, f]: If     1 January 1601 is the day number 685 263     as asserted in [e] then        day 0 is JD 1620 550.5 = G-0276-10-25,     and if day 684 609 is G1582-10-15 as     also asserted in [e] then        day 0 is JD 1614 551.5 = G-0292-05-23.     Still another zero point follows from [f]:        day 0 is JD 1624 206.5 = G-0266-10-29     and finally, if [b] is meant to refer to     G1582-10-14 as day number 577 739, then        day 0 is JD 1721 420.5 = G0000-12-27.     That last date might indicate that day 0     was actually meant to be still another     date, viz J0001-01-01 = G0000-12-30,     but this is just a wild guess of mine.      ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES:     The inconsistencies may come from     several sources:     �  from typos (though I am not able to        figure out which);     �  from the error in the formula for        the duration of successive Gregorian        years (eg in [d]);     �  from the use of intervals on the        "time axis" instead of points on it.         The time axis is an affine space whose     translation space, formed by the     differences T - T' for points T, T' on     the time axis, is the vector space of     "duration values". Intervals of     lengths > 0 s, however, do not form an     affine space. So one has to take the     lower or the upper bounds of the involved     intervals consistently to arrive at valid     date arithmetic (eg, satisfying the rule     T - T" = (T - T') + (T'- T")).         An error in numerical examples for     non-trivial specifications is particularly     unfortunate because such examples are     often taken as the very first test cases     for an implementation. It is therefore     appropriate to check all the examples     before publishing. Many calendrical     calculators are available online for that     purpose; the one at [http://emr.cs.iit.edu     /home/reingold     /calendar-book/Calendrica.html]     is particularly useful.

Resolution: The suggested text clarification is accepted. The erroneous numbers will be corrected. Because the changes made necessary by this resolution overlap those made in the resolution of Issue 19281, this issue is merged with Issue 19281. Disposition: See issue 19281 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 7, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19281: incorrect formula for Gregorian year length (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:

REFERENCXE:  section 11.7, 1st Definition on p 141:     " In mathematical form, the definition       above is:       sd = 685 263 + (365 * y)            + (y/4) - ((y/100)*2)            + ((y/400) * 2)       where:       sd is the index of the starting day       y is the index of a Gregorian            year � 1601       y >= zero       / is integer division "      PROBLEM:     The formula is incorrect. For instance,     for years 1700 and 1701 the formula gives        sd(1700) = 685 263 + (365*99)                   + (99/4) - ((99/100)*2)                   + ((99/400)*2)                 = 685 263 + 365*99 + 24                 = 721 422        sd(1701) = 685 263 + (365�100)                   + (100/4) - ((100/100)�2)                   + ((100/400)�2)                 = 685 263 + 365*100 + 25 - 2                 = 721 786     implying that the year 1700 had only     364 d, which is obviously incorrect.     The formula gives the wrong year     length of 364 d for all Gregorian     years Y wher Y mod 400 is one     of 100, 200, 300.      PROPOSED CORRECTION:     Omit the incorrect factor 2 twice, and     correct the corresponding note trying     to justify that factor. Many sources     give the correct formula, valid for all     integral year numbers 1601 + y:         sd(1601 + y)           = sd(1601) + (365 * y)           + floor(y/4) - floor(y/100)           + floor(y/400)     where:     y is the index of the Gregorian year          with number (1601 + y)     sd(1601 + y) is the index of the          first day of the Gregorian          year (1601 + y)      floor(x) is the largest integer          that is <= x

Resolution: The formula was incorrectly represented. It will be corrected as suggested. The changes below incorporate several changes from Issue 19280 that correct errors resulting from faulty calculation of year lengths and incorrect base values. Two Examples of coordinate computations are revised to use the corrected formula. The formula for the index origin of the Gregorian months scale is also incorrectly written.
Revised Text: 1. [Issue 19281] In clause 11.2, in the entry for the �Gregorian months scale�, REPLACE the first Note paragraph: Note: 22 493 is (12 * 1875 - 1) + 5 (for the month of May) -1 (adjusting for index origin 1) WITH: Note: 22 493 is 12 * (1875 - 1) + 5 (for the month of May) 2. [Issue 19281] In clause 11.2, in the entry for the �Gregorian days scale�, in the Necessity, CHANGE �684609� to �684606�: 3. [Issue 19280] In clause 11.2, in the entry for the �Gregorian days scale�, REPLACE the Note: Note: The calendar reform instituted by Pope Gregory XIII [Inter Gravissimas] deleted 10 days from the Gregorian calendar, starting on 5 October 1582. The previous calendar day had index 577 739 on the Julian calendar, computed as 1581 years of 365 days plus 395 leap days + 279 days from 1 January 1852 to 5 October 1582. The following day was 15 October 1582. From that date to the Convention du M�tre on 20 May 1875, there were 106 870 calendar days including leap days. Therefore, the Convention happened on calendar day 684 609 of the Gregorian days scale. WITH: Note: The calendar reform instituted by Pope Gregory XIII and promulgated in the bull [Inter Gravissimas] started the use of the Gregorian calendar with the date 15 October 1582, which is the same as 05 October 1582 in the Julian calendar. That calendar day had index 577 738 on the Julian calendar, computed as 1581 years of 365 days plus 395 leap days from 1 January of year 1 (calendar day 1) to 1 January 1582 + 277 days from 1 January 1582 to 5 October 1582. From 15 October 1582 to the Convention du M�tre on 20 May 1875, there were 106 868 calendar days (including leap days). Therefore, the Convention happened on calendar day 684 606 of the Gregorian days scale. 4. [Issue 19280, 19281] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year has starting day�, REPLACE the Definition paragraph: Definition: the index of starting day equals 685 263 plus 365 times (index of Gregorian year minus 1601) plus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 4) minus (((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 100) multiplied by 2) plus (((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 400) multiplied by 2) WITH: Definition: the index of starting day equals 584 391 plus 365 times (index of Gregorian year minus 1601) plus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 4) minus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 100) plus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 400) 5. [Issue 19280, 19281] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year has starting day�, in the first Note, REPLACE the formula: sd = 685 263 + (365 * y) + (y/4) - ((y/100)*2) + ((y/400) * 2) WITH: sd = 584 391 + (365 * y) + (y/4) - (y/100) + (y/400) 6. [Issue 19280] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year has starting day�,REPLACE the second Note: Note: 685 263 is the index of 1 January 1601, computed as 684 609 (index of 15 October 1582) plus 6 654 days from 15 October 1582 through 1 January 1601. WITH: Note: 584 391 is the index of 1 January 1601, computed as 577 738 (index of 15 October 1582) plus 6653 days from 15 October 1582 through 1 January 1601. 7. [Issue 19281] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year has starting day�, REPLACE the Note that reads: Note: The definition compensates for leap days by adding 1 for each 4th year, subtracting 2 for each 100th year (because 1 is already added for every 4th), and adding 2 for each 400th year (because 2 is already subtracted for every 100th), per [Inter Gravissimas]. WITH: Note: The definition compensates for leap days by adding 1 for each 4th year, subtracting 1 for each 100th year (because most centurial years are not leap years), and adding 1 for each 400th year (because quadricentennial years are leap years), per [Inter Gravissimas]. 8. [Issue 19280, Issue 19281] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year has starting day�, in the Example, CHANGE �830991� TO �733775�. 9. [Issue 19280, Issue 19281] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year month day coordinate�, REPLACE the Example: Example: �2010 month 3 day 15� combines the set of {2010, month 3, day 15}, and indicates the Gregorian day that has index 683 768 plus 49 275 (number of calendar days from the start of 1875 to the start of 2010 ignoring leap days) plus 33 leap days minus 2 leap days in centennial years plus 1 leap day in quadricentennial years plus 59 (from the table) plus 15 to give index 733 149. WITH: Example: �2010 month 3 day 15� combines the set of {2010, month 3, day 15}, and indicates the Gregorian day that has index 733 848. The index is 149 457 calendar days after January 1, 1601, which has index 584 391 (the reference point for the formula). The 149457 days is calculated as: 365*(2010 � 1601) + (2010 � 1601)/4 � (2010-1601)/100 + (2010 � 1601)/ 400 (number of calendar days from Jan 1, 1601 to Jan 1, 2010) plus 59 (to day 1 of month 3, from the table) plus 14 (from day 1 to day 15). 10. [Issue 19280, Issue 19281] In Clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year day coordinate�, REPLACE the Example: Example: �2010 day 45� combines the set of {2010, day 45}, and indicates the Gregorian day that has index 683 768 plus 49 275 (number of calendar days from the start of 1875 to the start of 2010 ignoring leap days) plus 33 leap days minus 2 leap days in centennial years plus 1 leap day in quadricentennial years plus 45 plus 15 to give index 733 120. WITH: Example: �2010 day 45� combines the set of {2010, day 45}, and indicates the Gregorian day that has index 733 819. The index is 149 428 calendar days after January 1, 1601, which has index 584 391 (the reference point for the formula). The 149428 days is calculated as: 365*(2010 � 1601) + (2010 � 1601)/4 � (2010-1601)/100 + (2010 � 1601)/ 400 (number of calendar days from Jan 1, 1601 to Jan 1, 2010) plus 44 (from day 1 to day 45).
Actions taken:
March 7, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19287: Synonymous Forms Captioned as Synonyms (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In Annex D.3.3, in the entry for "quantity value quantifies quantity", the three synonymous forms are captioned "Synonym:" instead of "Synonymous Form:".

Resolution: The caption �Synonymous Form� was erroneously rendered as �Synonym� in a number of places in the specification. All of them are corrected.
Revised Text: 1. In Clause 9.4, in the entry for �nominal duration value1 is equivalent to nominal duration value2�, CHANGE both occurrences of �Synonym� TO �Synonymous Form�. 2. In Clause 9.4, in the entry for �precise duration value is equivalent to nominal duration value�, CHANGE all (5) occurrences of �Synonym� TO �Synonymous Form�. 3. In Clause 17.3, in the entry for �schedule has time table�, CHANGE �Synonym� TO �Synonymous Form�. 4. In Annex D.3.3, in the entry for �quantity value quantifies quantity�, CHANGE all (3) occurrences of �Synonym� TO �Synonymous Form�.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19309: DTV Typo: 'atomic time coordinate of coordinate time coordinate' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 10.6.3, in the entry for 'compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate', the Synonymous Form that reads 'atomic time coordinate of coordinate time coordinate' should be 'atomic time coordinate of compound time coordinate'.  There is no general concept that is termed 'coordinate time coordinate'.

Resolution: a stated
Revised Text: In clause 10.6.3, in the entry for 'compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate', REPLACE the paragraph: Synonymous Form: atomic time coordinate of coordinate time coordinate WITH: Synonymous Form: atomic time coordinate of compound time coordinate
Actions taken:
March 26, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19319: DTV Issue: Relationship among time points, time scales, and time indices (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In DTV clause 8.5, the second Necessity of 'time scale has time point' reads 'Each time point is of exactly one time scale.'   This is clearly wrong.  Several of the time points defined in clause 10.2 are on multiple time scales.  For example, 'time of day' is defined as a 'time point that is on a time scale that has a granularity that is less than 1 day'.  Examples include 'second of day' and 'second of hour'.     Also in clause 8.5, the verb concept 'time point has index' makes no sense.  A time point has different indices, depending upon what scale is used.  This should be a ternary verb concept: 'time point has index on time scale'.     Numerous Definitions and Necessities depend upon a verb concept 'time point is on time scale' that is not defined anywhere but could be a Synonymous Form of 'time scale has time point'.  Examples include:     * clause 10.2, definition of 'time of day' (see above)   * clause 11.2, most definitions   * clause 13.2, most definitions

Resolution: There are no time points in 10.2 (or any other clause) that are on multiple time scales. �time of day� is not a time point; it is a �time point kind� � a general category of time points. Each �second of day� time point is only on the day of seconds time scale, and each �second of hour� is only on the �hour of seconds time scale�. The referenced Necessity in 8.5 is valid, and is important. As a consequence of it, the concept �index of time point� is well-defined. The form �time point is on time scale� is used as described, and it should be a synonymous form for �time scale has time point�.
Revised Text: In clause 8.6, in the entry for �time scale has time point�, immediately after the item heading, INSERT Synonymous Form: time point is on time scale
Actions taken:
March 30, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19327: DTV Issue: Reference Scheme problems (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

I've noticed a number of problems with reference schemes in DTV: 1) In clause 8.3, the reference scheme for 'duration' has a forward reference to the verb concept 'precise atomic duration value quantifies duration', which is in clause 9.2.2. 2) In clause 8.5, the first reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'an occurrence at the time point', has a forward reference to the synonymous form 'occurrence at time interval', which is in clause 16.2. 3) In clause 8.5, the second reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'a time coordinate that indicates the time point', has a forward reference to the verb concept 'time coordinate indicates time point', which is in clause 10.5.1. 4) In clause 8.5, the third reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'the time scale of the time point and the index of the time point', makes no sense, since a time point can belong to multiple time scales (e.g. 'time of day'). Suggested form: a time scale that has the time point and the 5) In clause 8.5, the fourth reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'a time point kind and an index', has a forward reference to the general concept 'time point kinds', which is in clause 10.3. Moreover, the reference scheme is not defined properly; it should read "a time point kind and an index of the time point'. 6) In clause 8.5, the fifth reference scheme for 'time point', which reads 'the name of the time point', refers to a verb concept 'time point has name' that does not exist. Perhaps it is intended as 'a representation of the time point', but considering that a 'time coordinate' is a representation of a time point, it appears that this fifth reference scheme duplicates the second reference scheme, which read 'a time coordinate that indicates the time point'. 7) In clause 10.1, the reference scheme for 'calendar', which reads 'the time scales that are defined by a calendar', refers to a missing synonymous form of 'calendar defines time scale'. Proposed solution: define this synonymous form. 8) In clause 10.4, the reference scheme for 'local calendar', which reads "a time offset by which the local calendar's day of hours-scale difference from the day-of-hours scale of UTC", has multiple problems: (a) the words 'by which' should be verb-styled; (b) apparently this is trying to use a synonymous form of 'calendar1 differs from calendar2 by offset' but the reference scheme talks about scales of calendar, whereas the verb concept is about calendars; (c) there is no such synonymous form. Proposed solution: define synonymous form 'time offset of calendar1 from calendar2' of existing verb concept 'calendar1 differs from calendar2 by time offset', and reword the reference scheme as "the time offset of the local calendar from UTC". 9) In Annex D.3, the reference scheme for 'particular quantity', which reads 'A definite description of the particular quantity', depends upon a noun concept 'definite description' that is not listed in Clause 4. Proposed solution: Change the reference scheme to 'a definite description that represents the particular quantity'. Add 'definite description' to clause 4, per SBVR, as a kind of 'intensional definition', which should be updated to define it as a kind of 'definition'. And 'definition' should be added as a kind of 'representation'. Also, make sure that clause 4 defines 'concept' as a kind of 'meaning' and 'meaning' as a kind of 'thing'.

Resolution: Entries 1, 2, 3: Forward references are made necessary because there is only one glossary entry for the concept. There are similar examples in SBVR itself. 4. Clause 8.6, in the entry for �time scale has time point�, makes a time point a part of exactly one time scale.; �time of day� and �calendar day� are time point kinds, not time points. 5. The cited reference scheme is invalid � a time point kind does not necessarily identify a scale, and thus the index is ambiguous. Consider �calendar day� and 1. 6. The redundant reference scheme will be deleted. (It is a vestige of a draft in which time coordinates did not include terms for time points.) 7. The missing synonymous form will be defined. 8. The suggested synonymous (noun) form will be defined. 9. It is sufficient to adopt �definite description� and �concept has definition� from SBVR. (Note: intensional definition is already present)
Revised Text: 1. In clause 4, immediately before the entry for �concept specializes concept�, INSERT: concept has definition Definition: {adopted concept} 2. In clause 4, immediately before the entry for �element�, INSERT: definite description General Concept: intensional definition Definition: {adopted concept} definition Definition: {adopted concept} 3. [NOTE: this overrides a previously adopted directive to Delete �intensional definition�] In clause 4, in the entry for �intensional definition�, after the item heading, INSERT: General Concept: definition 4. In clause 8.5, in the entry for �time point�, DELETE the two reference schemes: Reference Scheme: a time point kind and an index Reference Scheme: the name of the time point 5. In clause 10.1, in the entry for �calendar defines time scale�, immediately after the item heading, INSERT: Synonymous Form: time scale is defined by calendar 6. In clause 10.5, in the entry for �calendar1 differs from calendar2 by time offset�, immediately before the Definition, INSERT: Synonymous Form: time offset of calendar1 from calendar2 7. In clause 10.4, in the entry for �local calendar�, REPLACE the reference scheme: Reference Scheme: a time offset by which the local calendar�s day-of-hours scale differs from the day-of-hours scale of UTC WITH: Reference Scheme: the time offset of the local calendar from UTC
Actions taken:
April 2, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19336: distinguishing business from "internal" concepts (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

I am concerned that the sheer size of the Date-Time Vocabulary � the number of concepts � may be a barrier to its use. So I propose that we introduce a distinction between concepts that are intended for business use, and concepts that are defined solely to support other concepts. Examples of these �internal� concepts are the various time scales (e.g. weeks scale), concepts that support calendar computations (e.g. months remainder of month value), supporting concepts (e.g. time set, time point sequence), and the Annex D fundamental concepts of sequences, quantities, and mereology. For someone coming new to the Vocabulary, I think the significant number of these internal concepts detracts from goals such as picking the right concept to use for a particular purpose, or understanding the overall design. Specifically, I propose a new caption called �Intended Use:�, with two possible values �business� and �internal�. By default, concepts would be �business use�, so we need only add this new caption to concepts that we decide are �internal use�. This choice of default fits with the SBVR philosophy that business vocabularies should define business concepts. When I brought up this idea during last Thursday�s phone call, Donald suggested using Notes. This is certainly possible, but I think there�s value in making this a little more formal. I think tools could use this to simplify things for business users by optionally limiting what is shown to them. Introducing an explicit caption and restricting the possible values used with the caption will work better for that purpose than free-form text in the existing Note caption. The downside of introducing a new caption is an implied need to extend the SBVR XMI format.

Resolution: This resolution incorporates the resolution for issue 18990 (business users need better guidance for applying DTV concepts). The resolution adopts these measures to address these issues: 1. Adds new convenience concepts with the intent of better supporting "calendar expressions". These convenience concepts build on existing DTV infrastructure. 2. Replaces informative Annex C ("EU-Rent Date-Time Example") with a new version that: a. Adds a discussion of how to formulate complex calendar expressions, such as "the third Tuesday of each month". b. Provides a table of DTV concepts recommended for business use. 3. Separates Annex C into a stand-alone document intended to enable business users to apply DTV without referencing the main normative document. Rather than identifying the intended use of business concepts within the normative text, the new table in Annex C provides a comprehensive list of business-oriented DTV concepts.
Revised Text: see pages 31 - 36 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
April 15, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19339: DTV Issue: Figure 8.12 is the wrong diagram (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

OMG Specification:  Date Time Vocabulary    Version: 1.0         Summary:          In clause 8.3.3, Figure 8.12 has no relationship to the terms and concepts in the clause.  (It is a duplicate of Figure 8.8)    Replace it with a proper diagram of the concepts in the clause.

Resolution: Replace the Figure with the correct UML diagram. Issue 18253 modifies the text of this section and modifies the diagram accordingly. This issue is merged with Issue 18253. Disposition: See issue 18253 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 16, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19340: DTV Issue: The definitions of 'starts before' and 'finishes after' are too complex (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

OMG Specification:  Date Time Vocabulary    Version: 1.0    Title:  The definitions of 'starts before' and 'finishes after' are too complex    Summary:          In clause 8.2.4, the definition of �time interval1 starts before time interval2� enumerates several possible Allen relations, but what is intended can be stated more simply:  There is a time interval3 that is part of time interval1 and precedes time interval2.    Similarly �time interval1 ends after time interval2� is: There is a time interval3 that is part of time interval1 and follows time interval2.         Time interval1 begins time interval2 seems to be misdefined.  The example says 2009 begins 2010 and that is false.  The intent of this verb concept should be clarified.  Similarly, in Time interval1 ends time interval2, the example that is mislabeled Definition is the only example that a business person would recognize as T1 ends T2 and that is an instance of the Allen relation: T1 finishes T2.

Resolution: The Definitions of �time interval1 starts before time interval2� and �time interval1 finishes after time interval2� are incorrect. The definition of �starts before� omits the case where time interval2 finishes time interval1, and similarly �finishes before� omits the case where time interval2 starts time interval1. The definitions will be corrected as suggested. The example �2009 begins 2010� is not valid and will be removed.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for �time interval1 begins time interval2�, DELETE the Example that reads: Example: 2009 begins 2010. 2. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for �time interval1 ends time interval2�, DELETE the Example that reads: Example: 2010 ends 2009. 3. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for �time interval1 ends time interval2�, REPLACE the paragraph that reads: Definition: December 2010 ends 2010. WITH: Example: December 2010 ends 2010. 4. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for �time interval1 starts before time interval2�, REPLACE the Definition and the CL Definition: Definition: the time interval1 is before the time interval2 or the time interval1 meets time interval2 or the time interval1 properly overlaps time interval2 or the time interval2 is properly during the time interval1 CLIF Definition: (forall (t1 t2) (iff ("time interval1 starts before time interval2" t1 t2) (or ("time interval1 is before time interval2" t1 t2) ("time interval1 meets time interval2" t1 t2) ("time interval1 properly overlaps time interval2" t1 t2) ("time interval1 is properly during time interval2" t2 t1)) )) WITH: Definition: some time interval3 is part of time interval1 and is before time interval2 CLIF Definition: (forall (t1 t2) (iff ("time interval1 starts before time interval2" t1 t2) (exists (t3) (and ("time interval1 is before time interval2" t3 t2) ("time interval1 is part of time interval2" t3 t1) )))) OCL Definition: context _'time interval' def: _'starts before'(t2: _'time interval'): Boolean = 'time interval'.allInstances--> exists(t3 | t3._'is part of'(self) and t3._'is before'(t2)) 5. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for �time interval1 finishes after time interval2�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval2 is before the time interval1 or the time interval2 meets time interval1 or the time interval2 properly overlaps time interval1 or the time interval1 is properly during the time interval2 CLIF Definition: (forall (t1 t2) (iff ("time interval1 starts before time interval2" t1 t2) (or ("time interval1 is before time interval2" t2 t1) ("time interval1 meets time interval2" t2 t1) ("time interval1 properly overlaps time interval2" t2 t1) ("time interval1 is properly during time interval2" t1 t2)) )) WITH: Definition: some time interval3 is part of time interval1 and is after time interval2 CLIF Definition: (forall (t1 t2) (iff ("time interval1 finishes after time interval2" t1 t2) (exists (t3) (and ("time interval1 is before time interval2" t2 t3) ("time interval1 is part of time interval2" t3 t1) )))) OCL Definition: context _'time interval' def: _'finishes after'(t2: _'time interval'): Boolean = 'time interval'.allInstances--> exists(t3 | t3._'is part of'(self) and t2._'is before'(t3))
Actions taken:
April 16, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19341: DTV Issue: Errors in the axioms for �time interval1 is before time interval2� (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

OMG Specification:  Date Time Vocabulary    Version: 1.0    Title:  Errors in the axioms for �time interval1 is before time interval2�    Summary:          In clause 8.2.2, the axioms for �time interval1 is before time interval2� have several problems.         1.  In the first axiom, the second Corollary does not follow from the Axiom.  if t1 overlaps t2, it is not before or after t2.  So:  if t1 is before or after t2, it does not overlap t2.  But the so-called Corollary (the Axiom of totality) states the converse:  if t1 does not overlap t2, then t1 is before or after t2.         2.  The SBVR SE statement of irreflexivity demonstrates a disconnect between Structured English and English.  Surely the Axiom can be more clearly stated:  No time interval is before itself.  If the bizarre formulation is required for SBVR, the English expression should be given first.         3.  The current �totality� corollary to the Axiom of assymetry is actually just a partition that follows from the assymetry Axiom and the mislabeled axiom above.

Resolution: Make the second Corollary to the first axiom an axiom in its own right. Add the English version of the irreflexivity axiom as the text of the Axiom proper. There is no problem with the �totality� corollary.
Revised Text: 1. In Clause 8.2.2, in the entry for �time interval1 is before time interval2�, in the second Corollary (beginning �If at time interval does not overlap ...�), REPLACE the line : Corollary: WITH: Axiom: For any two time intervals that do not overlap, one is before the other. 2. In Clause 8.2.2, in the entry for �time interval1 is before time interval2�, in the Corollary (irreflexivity), ADD �No time interval is before itself� to the Corollary title line, so that it reads: Corollary (irreflexivity): No time interval is before itself.
Actions taken:
April 16, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19343: DTV Issue 19172: Missing "exactly" in scale definitions (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

This issue started with a complaint about the way that misuse of Structured English in various Necessity statements that are of the form �<time point> has <number> of <class�. Then (on 1 Jan 2014) I noticed an additional problem: typically, the �<time point> of <class>� verb concept is missing, so I proposed adding a verb concept �time period has time point�. It turns out that this solution is insufficient. It treats a Necessity such as �April has 30 of �Gregorian day of month�� as though it meant �April has 30 of �time point�� � which loses the semantic that the 30 time points that make up April are specifically �Gregorian day of month� time points. (Note: the fact that this is not valid Structured English is the main point of issue 19172). To fix this, we need instead to add the following verb concepts: � Gregorian year has Gregorian day of year � Gregorian year has Gregorian month of year � Gregorian month of year has Gregorian day of month We also need to change the definitions of the Gregorian months to make clear that they are such. For example, for January, instead of the definition �time interval that has duration 31 days and that starts an instance of a Gregorian year�, we should use �Gregorian month of year that has duration 31 days and that starts an instance of a Gregorian year�. With this change, �January� is still a �time interval� since a �Gregorian month of year� is ultimately a �time interval�.

Resolution: Part of the Issue is resolved by Issue 13-25; the rest is incorrect. By substituting the actual ?bindable targets? given in the Necessity for the corresponding placeholder terms in the Definition of ?time point has number of time point kind?, the Necessity ?April has 30 of Gregorian day of month? is defined by clause 10.4 to mean: the time point kind ?Gregorian day of month? has a finite time scale (Gregorian month of days) and there is a time point sequence that is on the finite time scale and that corresponds to each instance of April, and the first time point of the time point sequence is the index origin member of the finite time scale (Gregorian day of month 1), and 30 is the cardinality of the time point sequence. In the above, the parenthetical expressions can be inferred from other necessities for the Gregorian month of days time scale. Thus, interpretation defined by clause 10.4 is not ?April has 30 of time point?, as the issue avers. It is rather a description of the subdivision of April into Gregorian day of month time points. This text has been revised and clarified by the resolution to Issue 19172 (now 13-25), and the proposed additions are unnecessary. The last recommendation in the issue is a consequence of a well-known problem with the SBVR-style definitions of concepts that are instances of concept types. The SBVR definition of a concept describes the properties of each of its instances, that is, the Definition of ?January? describes each January. The instances of the concept January are time intervals, not Gregorian months of year (as the issue proposes). So the existing definition is consistent with SBVR practice; the proposed definition is not. The concept ?January? is itself an instance of Gregorian month of year, and that relationship is described by the Necessity that follows the Definition. Thus, no technical change is appropriate. It is not clear to the RTF what editorial notes could be added to avoid creating the misconceptions in the issue. Therefore, no change is proposed.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 17, 2014: received issue
March 29, 2016: Closed; No Change
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

The RTF did not come to an agreement on a resolution.  It may be appropriate to merge this with Issue 19172, but there is no agreement that this issue is valid. This issue is deferred.    Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 19344: DTV Issue: Unusual use of 'that' in definitions (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

OMG Specification:  Date Time Vocabulary    Version: 1.0    Title:  Unusual use of 'that' in definitions    Summary:          In clause 8.5, the Definition of �time scale� reads:    �regular sequence that each member of the regular sequence is a time point�         I see nothing in SBVR Annex C that suggests a meaning for this.  I would expect:      <more general concept> that <verb> <other roles>    where the �that� is the subject  (role 1) of the verb concept wording;    or      <more general concept> that <subject> <verb>    where the �that� is the direct object (role 2) of the verb concept wording.    But in the given definition, the verb is �is�, the subject is �each member of the regular sequence� and the direct object is �a time point�.  What role does the �that� play?  How does this delimit �regular sequence�?         The intention is:  �regular sequence such that each member of the regular sequence is a time point�    or: �regular sequence of which each member is a time point�    or:  �regular sequence (all of) whose members are time points�         The first is a style that is conventional in mathematics, but perhaps not in business usage.  It is not mentioned in SBVR Annex C, but neither of the others is, either.  Is this an SBVR SE problem?         Note: there are several definitions in DTV with �that� playing no clear role in the delimiting verb.  This is just one example of the usage.

Resolution: Defer for resolution of SBVR issue The underlying issue is the apparent limitations on the expressiveness of SBVR Structured English. All of the "misuses" of 'that' could be replaced by 'such that', if it were permissible in SBVR SE. Many could be rephrased for business users by permitting qualifier clauses that begin "of which" or "the <noun form> of which" or "whose <noun form>". A corresponding issue has been raised to the SBVR RTF. This issue is Deferred until that issue is resolved.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 17, 2014: received issue
March 29, 2016: Deferred
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Discussion:

This issue is deferred pending guidance from the SBVR RTF.  Disposition:	Deferred

Issue 19347: DTV Issue: "unitary concept" missing from clause 4 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 15.3 has numerous entries that are �Concept Type: unitary concept�, but �unitary concept� is not defined.  This concept should be added to clause 4.

Resolution: Agreed. The adopted SBVR concept will be added to clause 4.
Revised Text: In clause 4, immediately before the entry for �verb concept�, INSERT a new entry: unitary concept Definition: {adopted concept}
Actions taken:
April 18, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19361: SBVR Convention issues in DTV (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

SBVR experts: In the Date Time Vocabulary v1.0 specification, clause 16.5 contains the following terminological entry: individual situation kind has occurrence interval Definition: the occurrence interval is the time span of the individual situation kind Necessity: The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence Note: The time span of an individual situation kind is exactly the occurrence interval of its only occurrence. Example: The occurrence interval of the Great Fire of London was 2 September 1666 through 5 September 1666 (English old style calendar). The technical aspects of this are not at issue. An �individual situation kind� (state of affairs) can have at most one occurrence. An occurrence (actuality) has exactly one �occurrence interval� � the time interval during which it is occurring. And any situation kind can have a �time span� � the smallest time interval that includes all occurrences of the situation kind. (If it never occurs, it may have No time span.) There are two SBVR �style� problems here. First, the Definition of the verb concept is (appropriately) a sentence involving the placeholders, but the first character of the sentence is not capitalized. By convention in SBVR, the first character of a Definition is not capitalized, and this is also true of example sentences in SBVR v1.2, e.g., in clause 8.2.2. The question is: Which convention � English or SBVR � is appropriate here? Or do we even care? Second, and more importantly, the intent of the above Necessity is: If an individual situation kind has an occurrence interval, the individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence. But the text above omits the antecedent. Instead, it assumes that �the individual situation kind� refers to whatever plays the �individual situation kind� role in an instance of the verb concept (wording). Is it the intent of SBVR that such an omission is valid in this context (the terminological entry)? Or is the antecedent required (to establish the context of an instance of the verb concept)? The considered opinion of the SBVR RTF will dictate the nature of any related changes to this entry in the DTV.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 24, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

This issue requests guidance from the SBVR RTF.  It is an SBVR issue!  Disposition:	Transferred to SBVR v1.3 RTF

Issue 19363: Diagrams in clause 10 refer to concepts in clause 12 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Figure 10.2 includes �calendar week�, which is not defined in clause 10.  Similarly, Figure 10.3 includes �week period� and �hour period� , which are not defined in Clause 10.  None of these elements is in the Calendars package or in any package it imports.  They are defined in clauses 12 and 13.  These concepts should not appear in Clause 10, or at least not without a Note to the Figures.

Resolution: These diagram elements were erroneously retained in the Figures when the DTV elements were re-packaged. They will be removed.
Revised Text: see pages 93 - 94 of dtc/2014-06-09 for details
Actions taken:
April 25, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19410: DTV issue: No such verb as 'time scale of granularity' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 11.2, the definition of the Gregorian year scale is:    �the indefinite time scale of granularity �year� and of �Gregorian year� time points�    The definitions of the Gregorian months scale and the Gregorian days scale use the same pattern.    This pattern relies on two verb concepts:   �time scale of granularity� (aka �granularity has time scale�) and �time scale of time point� (aka �time point has time scale�).  Neither of these verb concepts exists in Clause 8.  The intended concepts are �time scale has granularity� and �time scale has time point�.         The Definitions should be reworded:    �the indefinite time scale that has granularity �year� and that has �Gregorian year� time points�    and similarly for the others.

Resolution: Agreed. The intended verb concept wordings will be used.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 11.2, in the entry for �Gregorian years scale�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the indefinite time scale of granularity �year� and of �Gregorian year� time points WITH: Definition: the indefinite time scale that has granularity year and that has time points that are Gregorian years 2. In clause 11.2, in the entry for �Gregorian months scale�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the indefinite time scale of granularity �month� and of �Gregorian month� time points WITH: Definition: the indefinite time scale that has granularity month and that has time points that are Gregorian months 3. In clause 11.2, in the entry for �Gregorian days scale�, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the indefinite time scale of granularity �day� and of �Gregorian day� time points WITH: Definition: the indefinite time scale that has granularity day and that has time points that are Gregorian days
Actions taken:
May 12, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19417: Relationship between "equals" and "is" (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In DTV Clause 8.2.3, in the entry for 'time interval1 equals time interval2', the second Note says:     "SBVR uses the verb is for this relationship, but the equals relationship here is a specialization of 'thing is thing' for time intervals. Two time intervals are equal if they share particular properties of time interval, and the definition of equal does not involve properties that are suitable for a reference scheme."      This relationship is important to business usage of the vocabulary.  The SBVR formal mechanism for stating the first sentence is:    General concept: 'thing1 is thing2'  which makes the specialization clear.  If two time intervals are equal, they are identical.  One could also state it as a Necessity (with translations to CLIF and OCL):      A time interval1 equals a time interval2 if and only if time interval1 is time interval2.  which is actually a stronger (and correct) statement.  It adds:  if two time intervals are identical, they are necessarily equal.      The second sentence of the Note is at best confusing, since reference schemes have nothing to do with equality.  It should be deleted.

Resolution: Resolution: This issue was discovered in an RTF discussion of another issue. The meeting agreed to the General concept and Necessity.
Revised Text: 1. In Clause 8.2.3 in the entry for �time interval1 equals time interval2�, immediately after the entry heading, INSERT: General Concept: thing1 is thing2 2. In Clause 8.2.3 in the entry for �time interval1 equals time interval2�, in the second Note, DELETE the sentence: �Two time intervals are equal if they share particular properties of time interval, and the definition of equal does not involve properties that are suitable for a reference scheme.� and after the Note, INSERT: Necessity: A time interval1 equals a time interval2 if and only if time interval1 is time interval2 CLIF Axiom: (forall (ti1 ti2) (if (and ("time interval" ti1) ("time interval" ti2)) (iff ("time interval equals time interval" ti1 ti2) ("thing1 is thing2" ti1 ti2) ))) OCL Constraint: context _'time interval' inv: _'time interval'.allInstances--> forAll(t2 | self.equals(t2) implies self.is(t2) and (self.is(t2) implies self.equals(t2) )
Actions taken:
May 15, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19418: DTV Issue: incorrect reference schemes for time point sequence (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.0  Title: incorrect reference schemes for time point sequence      Summary:  In clause 8.7, the last two reference schemes for a time point sequence are incomplete, because they are misworded.  They read:  Reference Scheme: The first time point of the time point sequence, if the time point sequence has no last time point.  Reference Scheme: The last time point of the time point sequence, if the time point sequence has no first time point.      The problem is that the first time point of the time point sequence ALONE is not sufficient, whether the time point sequence has a last time point or not.  When it has no last point, the fact that it has no last point must be a characteristic that is included in the reference scheme.  The Reference Scheme should be worded:      The first time point of the time point sequence and the characteristic ' the time point sequence has no last time point'.  and similarly for the sequence that has no first time point.

Resolution: The reference schemes will be reworded as suggested.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 4, immediately before the entry for �concept�, INSERT: characteristic Definition: {adopted concept} 2. In clause 8.7, in the entry for �time point sequence�, REPLACE the last two Reference Schemes: Reference Scheme: The first time point of the time point sequence, if the time point sequence has no last time point. Reference Scheme: The last time point of the time point sequence, if the time point sequence has no first time point. WITH: Reference Scheme: The first time point of the time point sequence and the characteristic �the time point sequence has no last time point�. Reference Scheme: The last time point of the time point sequence and the characteristic �the time point sequence has no first time point�.
Actions taken:
May 15, 2014: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19423: DTV issue: occurrence/situation kind precedes/ends before occurrence/situation kind (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 16.4 has two verb concepts that appear to mean the same thing: �occurrence1 precedes occurrence2� and �occurrence1 ends before occurrence2�.         Clause 16.6 has two verb concepts that appear to mean the same thing: �situation kind1 precedes situation kind2� and �situation kind1 ends before situation kind2�.         Suggest making one of each pair a synonymous form of the other.

Resolution: [NOTE: This replaces the resolution of this issue in Ballot 8] This is a misunderstanding. An occurrence A precedes an occurrence B if A ends before B starts. But A could start before or after B starts and end before B ends. The verb concept only compares the two ending times. The existing example reflects this, The text is clarified.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 16.4, in the entry for ?occurrence1 ends before occurrence2?, at the end of the Note, ADD ?without regard to their start times?. 2. In clause 16.6, in the entry for ?situation kind1 ends before situation kind2?, at the end of the first sentence, ADD ?without regard to their start times?
Actions taken:
May 21, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19424: DTV issue: situation kind has first/last occurrence (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 16.4 has a pair of verb concepts: �situation kind has first/last occurrence.  Distinguishing between uses of these verb concepts is impossible, since they have the same verb symbol and role types.  For example, does a rule that refers to �the time interval of the launching of the SpaceX Dragon� mean the first occurrence of the launching or the last occurrence?         Suggestion: make the keywords �first� and �last� part of the verb symbols rather than the role names.

Resolution: The example ?the time interval of the launching of the SpaceX Dragon? does not use the verb concept wording ?situation kind has first/last occurrence? at all. The normal use will be in the noun form: ?the first/last occurrence of launching the SpaceX Dragon?, and there is no ambiguity. Technically, the words ?first occurrence? and ?last occurrence? are part of the verb symbols. In the SBVR notation, the role ?first occurrence? is shown as a noun concept, but it is not a placeholder � the role term will appear verbatim in every use of the verb concept wording (in either form). The SBVR notation is confusing, but there is no ambiguity in the usage, just as there is no ambiguity between ?set has cardinality? and ?set has element?. This is an SBVR notation issue, not a DTV issue. Revised Text: none Disposition: Closed, No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 20, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Closed; No Change
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19425: DTV issue: missing caption for table in clause 16.9 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The table at the end of clause 16.9 should have a caption.

Resolution: The caption is supplied and the reference is corrected.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 21, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Closed; No Change
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19431: DTV Issue: time interval begins/ends time interval (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

     Clause 8.2.4 contains two verb concepts that make no sense, and the descriptions added by issue 18253 do not match their definitions.  These verb concepts should be removed, since there are others that address the requirements:         �        time interval1 begins time interval2    �        time interval1 ends time interval2

Resolution: The RTF agrees that these verb concepts were left from a misunderstanding of business requirements. Other issues involve additions and modifications to verb concepts that eliminate any value of these. They will be deleted.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.2.4, In Figure 8.5 DELETE the associations and methods for ?time interval1 begins time interval2? and ?time interval1 ends time interval2?. NOTE: The Figure is replaced by Issue 19521. 2. In clause 8.2.4, DELETE the entries for ?time interval1 begins time interval2? and ?time interval1 ends time interval2? in their entirety.
Actions taken:
May 22, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19432: DTV issue: time point kind (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The concept �time of day� in clause 10.3 is supposed to be a �time point kind� per the resolution of issue 19319.  If that�s correct, �time of day� is missing �Concept Type: concept type�.  But �time point kind� has a Necessity �Each time point kind has at most one time scale� � and �time of day� has multiple time scales.         It is not at all obvious, from their definitions, that clause 10.3 �calendar year� and its siblings, are �time point kinds�.  Either the definitions should make that clear, or Notes should be added to clarify these concepts.

Resolution: DTV v1.1 says that ?time point kind? is a categorization type and thus a concept type. The intent of ?time point kind? is ?category of time point that characterizes exactly the time points on some time scale. ?time of day? has no time scale �not all of its instances are on any given time scale. But it also has no granularity, which violates the second Necessity in the section. All of the uses of ?time point kind? intend that it is associated with exactly one time scale. The definition and the verb concept should be modified to convey that intent. With this narrower definition, ?calendar day? and its siblings are not ?time point kinds?.
Revised Text: see pages 40 - 42 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
May 22, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19445: DTV 1.1 Issue: Errors in Clause 4 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

DTV 1.1 clause 4 has several errors: 1. �set includes thing�, �set has element� and �thing is in set� are listed as separate concepts. In SBVR, the first two are synonymous forms of the third. 2. �intensional definition� is misspelled �intentional definition�. 3. Many of the glossary entries have leading underscores � a minor typo. 4. The only definition given for each concept is �{adopted concept}�, which is not described anywhere. At least the generalization relationships among the clause 4 concepts should be captured since these relationships affect the meaning of the DTV terms that use them. Furthermore, the lack of these generalization relationships impacts the translation of DTV to OWL. Recommend adding �General Concept:� captions to the following: Concept General Concept ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- categorization type concept type characteristic verb concept concept type general concept definite description intensional definition definition representation extensional definition definition general concept noun concept intensional definition definition meaning thing noun concept concept role noun concept unitary concept noun concept verb concept concept verb concept role role

Resolution: Issue 19463 rewrites Clause 4 to change the form to an ISO style, as opposed to an SBVR vocabulary. The list of additional terms above is incorporated in that revision.
Revised Text: none. See Issue 19463.
Actions taken:
June 4, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19459: DTV Issue: Error in CLIF definition of consecutive sequence (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Spec:  DTV    Version:  1.0 and 1.1    Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST         Summary:         In Annex D.2.4 of DTV, the CLIF Definition of �consecutive sequence� is:  (forall (s) (iff ("consecutive sequence" s)      (and        (sequence s)        (forall (sp1)          (if            (and              ("sequence has sequence position" s sp1)              (exists (sp2)                ("next sequence position succeeds sequence position" sp2 sp1)) )            (forall (x1 x2)              (if                (and                  ("sequence position has index" sp1 x1)                  ("sequence position has index" sp2 x2))              (= x2 (+ x1 1)) ))    )) )))         This is clearly incorrect.  The scope of the quantification �exists (sp2)� ends with the right paren before �(forall (x1 x2))�.  So the last occurrence of sp2 is not associated with the quantified variable.         The correct formulation is:    (forall (s) (iff ("consecutive sequence" s)      (and        (sequence s)        (forall (sp1 sp2 x1 x2)          (if            (and              ("sequence has sequence position" s sp1)              ("next sequence position succeeds sequence position" sp2 sp1)              ("sequence position has index" sp1 x1)              ("sequence position has index" sp2 x2))            (= x2 (+ x1 1)) ))    )))         The English definitions might also be improved by adding a Description:      A consecutive sequence is a sequence in which consecutive sequence positions have consecutive indices.

Resolution: Accept the text correction
Revised Text: In Annex D.2.4, in the entry for ?consecutive sequence? REPLACE the CLIF Definition: CLIF Definition: (forall (s) (iff ("consecutive sequence" s) (and (sequence s) (forall (sp1) (if (and ("sequence has sequence position" s sp1) (exists (sp2) ("next sequence position succeeds sequence position" sp2 sp1)) ) (forall (x1 x2) (if (and ("sequence position has index" sp1 x1) ("sequence position has index" sp2 x2)) (= x2 (+ x1 1)) )) )) ))) WITH: Description: A consecutive sequence is a sequence in which consecutive sequence positions have consecutive indices. CLIF Definition: (forall (s) (iff ("consecutive sequence" s) (and (sequence s) (forall (sp1 sp2 x1 x2) (if (and ("sequence has sequence position" s sp1) ("next sequence position succeeds sequence position" sp2 sp1) ("sequence position has index" sp1 x1) ("sequence position has index" sp2 x2)) (= x2 (+ x1 1)) )) )))
Actions taken:
June 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19462: DTV Issue: OCL and CLIF Corrections (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Please register a DTV issue for this.  All of these errors show up in dtc/2014-06-02, the June 10 version of the RTF 1.1 convenience document:         1.      In clause 8.2.4, under �time interval1 begins before time interval2� and �time interval1 ends after�, the OCL after the Necessity should be labelled �OCL Constraint� rather than �OCL Definition�.    2.      In clause 8.2.5, under �time interval1 plus time interval2 is time interval3�, the fourth CLIF definition does not match the fourth SBVR definition.    3.      In clause 8.3.3, under �time interval has particular duration�, the OCL for the first and second Corollaries of Axiom D.4 both have �OCL Definition� sections that are complete rubbish and should be removed.  The �OCL Constraint� paragraphs for each of these are correct, but are missing �inv:�.    4.      In clause 16.6, the OCL Definitions for �situation kind1 starts before situation kind2� and �situation kind1 ends before situation kind2� have the correct content, but are for �situation kind1 precedes situation kind2�.  The first line of each definition should be reworded.    5.      There are numerous places that have CLIF Definitions or Constraints without corresponding OCL Definitions or Constraints.  The whole document should be reviewed to ensure consistency between the CLIF and OCL.

Resolution: These entries in 8.2.4 are modified by Issue 19431. 2. Section 8.2.5 is modified by Issue 19628 3. The OCL under ?time interval has particular duration? is corrected below. 4. The OCL in clause 16.6 is corrected by Issue 19714. 5. Some missing OCL is not supplied by this resolution. A separate issue is raised to address specific instances.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.3.3, under the entry for ?time interval has particular duration?, a. in the first Corollary to Axiom D.4 (If t1, t2, and t3 are time intervals such that t1 starts t2...), DELETE the OCL Definition: OCL Definition: context "time interval1 starts time interval2 complementing time interval3" inv: self."time interval1".duration = self."time interval2".duration - self."time interval3".duration b. in the second Corollary to Axiom D.4 (If t1, t2, and t3 are time intervals such that t1 finishes t2...), DELETE the OCL Definition: OCL Definition: context _'time interval1 finishes time interval2 complementing time interval3' inv: self._'time interval1'.duration = self._'time interval2'.duration - self._'time interval3'.duration 2. In clause 8.3.3, under the entry for ?time interval has particular duration?, a. in the OCL Constraint under Axiom D.1, before ?self? insert ?inv:? b. in the 2nd Corollary under Axiom D.2, CHANGE ?OCL Definition? to ?OCL Constraint? c. in the OCL Constraint under Axiom D.3, before ?time interval.allInstances? insert ?inv:? d. in the OCL Constraint under Axiom D.4, before ?time interval.allInstances? insert ?inv:? e. in the OCL Constraint in the 1st corollary under Axiom D.4, before ?time interval.allInstances? insert ?inv:? f. in the OCL Constraint in the 2nd corollary under Axiom D.4, before ?time interval.allInstances? insert ?inv:? 3. In Annex D.4, under ?part is part of whole?, CHANGE the ?CLIF Definition? to ?CLIF Axiom?
Actions taken:
June 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19463: new DTV issue: Clause 4 has no semantics (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

None of the concepts listed in Clause 4 have any semantics other than �{adopted concept}�, yet other aspects of DTV depend upon the �missing� semantics.  For example, the Necessity �Each absolute time point corresponds to exactly one time interval.� appears in clause 8.5.  This depends upon �meaning corresponds to thing� via the fact that �absolute time point� is a concept because �time point� is a concept type.  But clause 4 does not show that �concept� is a category of �meaning�, so the relationship among these is missing in DTV.   This particularly matters when translating DTV to OWL, since �{adopted concept}� has no semantics.  Note that the symbol �{adopted concept}� is not defined either in SBVR-SE or DTV clause 5.         Recommendation � adopt one of these two solutions:    1.      Formally specify the meaning of �{adopted concept}�.    2.      Duplicate the entire glossary entries of the adopted concepts from SBVR.    3.      Add �General Concept� captions to these adopted concepts to capture the primary SBVR type hierarchy.

Resolution: The RTF agrees that the form of Clause 4 is unsatisfactory. SBVR does not specify what the form of an excerpt from another vocabulary, including selective adoption of terms should be. Further, the SBVR RTF does not agree that the form of Clause 4 is an appropriate form for a vocabulary. Therefore, the RTF determined that the form of Clause 4 should be consistent with ISO practice, which is to identify the source standard and cite the terms adopted from it. This requires the reader to be familiar with the source standard (SBVR), and that is not an unreasonable requirement for a reader of DTV. Clause 4 is rewritten in ISO style, and not as an SBVR vocabulary. Issue 19445 identifies a number of missing concepts in Clause 4, and those are incorporated in the revised text below. The RTF also notes that the term ?business designation? is not an SBVR term. The title of the DTV Index should be Index of Date Time Designations.
Revised Text: 1. Replace the content of Clause 4 in its entirety with: Because the Date Time Vocabulary is intended to be a formal vocabulary, the content of this specification is primarily terms, definitions, and examples. Where terms are drawn from other sources, this is noted in the vocabulary entry by a Source caption. The following terms are taken directly from SBVR and used only with the SBVR meaning, regardless of markup: � designation � individual concept � noun concept � ranges over, as ?role ranges over concept? � verb concept � verb concept role Note: The unmarked term ?role? used in this specification means ?verb concept role?. The marked up term role refers to a property of something, which SBVR calls a ?situational role?. The following additional terms are taken from SBVR and have the definitions and other descriptions given therein, when they are marked as SBVR terms. Note: The list below is ordered by the symbol being defined, while SBVR practice is to define verb symbols in the context of the subject term. � cardinality of set and set has cardinality � categorization type � characteristic � concept � concept type � meaning corresponds to thing � definite description � definition � element of set and set has element statement expresses proposition � expression � extensional definition � general concept � set includes thing (= set has element) � instance of concept and thing is instance of concept � intensional definition � thing1 is thing2 � thing is in set (= set includes thing) � name of thing and thing has name � proposition � representation � representation has expression � representation of meaning and meaning has representation � representation represents meaning (= meaning has representation) � res � roleset � concept1 specializes concept2 � statement � terminological dictionary � thing � unitary concept � vocabulary The following concepts have their usual mathematical meaning but are formally marked as the SBVR terms: � integer � nonnegative integer � number 2. In clause 5.1, after the second paragraph, INSERT: The following captions are used as specified by SBVR in formulating vocabularies and terminological entries. In some cases, the corresponding SBVR term is used (with markup, see clause 4) directly in DTV definitions and rules, � Concept type � General concept � Definition � Dictionary basis � Example � Included Vocabulary � Language � Namespace URI � Necessity � Note � Possibility � Source � Synonym � Synonymous Form � Vocabulary 3. CHANGE the title of the document index from ?Index of Business Designations? TO: ?Index of Date Time Designations?.
Actions taken:
June 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19466: Strange CLIF axiom for system of units (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Annex D.3.2 contains the following axiom for 'system of units is for system of quantities':    Necessity: Each system of units is for exactly one system of quantities.    CLIF Axiom:        (forall (("system of units" "system of units"))        (= (count  ("system of units is for system of quantities" "system of units")) 1))         I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.  The conventional form would be:    (forall ((sou "system of units"))      (exists ((soq "system of quantities"))        (and          ("system of units is for system of quantities" sou soq)            (forall (soq2)              (if ("system of units is for system of quantities" sou soq2)                  (= soq2 soq) ))    )))         Note also that there is no OCL form of this axiom.

Resolution: Replace the text as suggested. Add the OCL form.
Revised Text: In annex D.3.2, in the entry for 'system of units is for system of quantities?, REPLACE the CLIF Axiom: CLIF Axiom: (forall (("system of units" "system of units")) (= (count ("system of units is for system of quantities" "system of units")) 1)) WITH: CLIF Axiom: (forall ((sou "system of units")) (exists ((soq "system of quantities")) (and ("system of units is for system of quantities" sou soq) (forall (soq2) (if ("system of units is for system of quantities" sou soq2) (= soq2 soq) )) ))) OCL Constraint: context _'system of units' self._'system of quantities'-->size() = 1
Actions taken:
June 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19467: incorrect CLIF definition of time interval plus time interval (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 8.2.5, the verb concept 'time interval1 plus time interval2 is time interval3'    has 4 CLIF Definitions.  Actually, each of these is an Axiom and together they make up a definition of sorts.    Further , each of them uses 'iff' incorrectly.  The first has the form:         (forall (t1 t2 t3)      (if        (or          ("time interval1 is before time interval2" t1 t2)          ("time interval1 properly overlaps time interval2" t1 t2))        (iff          ("time interval1 plus time interval2 is time interval3" t1 t2 t3)          (and            ("time interval1 starts time interval2" t1 t3)            ("time interval1 finishes time interval2" t2 t3))    )))         It should be:    (forall (t1 t2 t3)      (if        (and          ("time interval1 plus time interval2 is time interval3" t1 t2 t3)          (or            ("time interval1 is before time interval2" t1 t2)            ("time interval1 properly overlaps time interval2" t1 t2)))        (and            ("time interval1 starts time interval2" t1 t3)            ("time interval1 finishes time interval2" t2 t3))    ))         and similarly for the others.

Resolution: The suggested text is no improvement; the Definition remains fragmented, and it loses the conditional equivalences. The OCL Definition is a definition. The others aren?t. As the issue says, the 4 ?CLIF Definitions? are axioms. They should be identified as such.
Revised Text: In clause 8.2.5, in the entry for ?time interval1 plus time interval2 is time interval3?, CHANGE all 4 ?CLIF Definition? paragraph headings to ?CLIF Axiom?
Actions taken:
June 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19483: DTV Issue: DTV SBVR Profile is not formally applied (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.1    Title: DTV SBVR Profile is not formally applied    Source:  Pete Rivett, Adaptive (for the AB)         Summary:    In order for the SBVR Profile elements to be applied to model elements in the UML model, the containing package must Apply the Profile.  The DTV UML model (DTV/v1.1/dtv-uml.xml) does not include any Profile Application for the SBVR Profile

Resolution: Correct the UML model. Replace Figure 7.3 to show the profile application. Add text to 7.17 to describe it. Clause 7.17 is moved into Clause 6 by the resolution to Issue 19573. Accordingly, the revised diagram and text for this issue is merged into the text moved to clause 6.
Revised Text: none (see Issue 19573).
Actions taken:
June 20, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19484: DTV Issue: Unspecified Relationship of OWL files to DTV (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification: DTV v1.1    Title: Unspecified Relationship of OWL files to DTV    Source:  Sridhar Iyengar, IBM (for the AB)         Summary:    The DTV v1.1 inventory formally includes a ZIP file that contains OWL ontologies for the DTV vocabularies, but no text in the specification refers to this file, or to these ontologies.  Also, the text of the CLIF and OCL elements associated with vocabulary elements is contained directly in the specification, but the relationship between the OWL elements and the vocabulary elements is nowhere described.  Some text should describe what the OWL ontologies are, and how the OWL model elements are derived from the vocabulary elements.

Resolution: A brief description of the relationship of the OWL files to the specification is added to Clause 5.
Revised Text: At the very end of Clause 5, ADD: 5.5 OWL Formulation In addition to the normative SBVR, UML/OCL and CLIF specifications of the Date Time concepts, an informative model of the same concepts expressed in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) is provided. The OWL model � a set of OWL ?ontologies? � was developed by a rote transformation from the Date Time vocabulary entries. The transformation converts the primary SBVR terms to OWL classes, properties, and individuals, and it converts each other element of an SBVR terminological entry to a specialized OWL annotation. Each SBVR vocabulary presented in Clauses 8 through 17, and each supporting vocabulary presented in Annex D, was transformed to a separate OWL ontology in this way. The OWL ontologies are not presented in the specification per se. They are provided as an informative attachment to this specification in the standard OWL/RDF exchange form.
Actions taken:
June 20, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19490: DTV Issue: 'date time' associations (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.0    Title: 'date time' associations    Source:  Ed Barkmeyer (for the RTF), NIST, edbark@nist gov         Figure 10.17 has the wrong association names on 'date time' has 'date' and 'date time' has 'time'.    Should be: 'date time combines calendar date' and 'date time combines time of day coordinate'.    And 'time' should be 'time of day coordinate'.           The business term 'date' should be a synonym for 'calendar date'.         We already have "of" as a synonymous form for 'combines' in 10.6.3. But the SynonymousForm  'compound time coordinate *of* atomic time coordinate'  should be 'compound time coordinate *has* atomic time coordinate'.

Resolution: The two associations in Figure 10.17 are not present in the text. They specify distinguished properties/components of a date time coordinate that are based on �combines� (following the resolution of Issue 19547, which changes the �combines� relationship to time coordinates in general). The RTF agrees to rename the association ends to match the ranges of the roles. In addition, the definition of the date time coordinate assumes the existence of indefinite time scales of seconds, minutes, and hours, which are not part of the specification. The definition and related text is changed to match the rewording of such compound time coordinates in the resolution of Issue 19547. The UML diagram and the text are corrected. The business usage of the term �date� may refer to the time coordinate, or to a specified time point (a calendar day), or to the time interval to which it corresponds. But all time coordinates have this multiple usage. The RTF agrees that the term �date� should be defined as a synonym for �calendar date�
Revised Text: see pages 57 - 58 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
June 26, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved

Issue 19516: Necessities should be independent of placement (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV    Version: 1.1    Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark(at)nist.gov         Summary:         In the Date Time Vocabulary v1.0 specification, clause 16.5 contains the following terminological entry:         individual situation kind has occurrence interval     Definition:       the occurrence interval is the time span of the individual situation kind     Necessity:        The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence     ...         In the Necessity, "the individual situation kind" is intended to refer to whatever plays the 'individual situation kind' role in an instance of the verb concept (wording).  But that interpretation can only be made when the Necessity appears in the verb concept entry.  SBVR practice is to make the meaning of the Necessity independent of where it is stated.  To be consistent with SBVR practice, the above Necessity should read:      Each individual situation kind that has an occurrence interval has exactly one occurrence.    There are several  Necessities in DTV that use this dubious form of reference.  Each of them should be reformulated in the SBVR location-independent style.

Resolution: After consultation with SBVR experts (see SBVR Issue 19361), the RTF agrees. There is a standard pattern to the revised Necessity statements. The pattern is: Each <subject> that <rest of verb concept wording> <rest of Necessity>. For the example given, the result is: Each individual situation kind that has an occurrence interval has exactly one occurrence. This pattern is applied to binary verbs, but it does not work well for ternary verbs, and other approaches were used to phrase those Necessities correctly. Some of the Necessities about occurrence intervals were redundant, because they were implied by the corresponding Necessities for time intervals. Several occurrences of the problem were omitted from this resolution because another issue corrects the same text.
Revised Text: [NOTE: The following does not include similar repairs to Necessities for � duration value2 equals number times duration value1 [19531] � compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate [19529] � time point converts to time point sequence [18190] � time point converts to time set [18190] � Gregorian year has starting day [19525] � starting week day of Gregorian year [19526] all of which are the subject of other issues] 1. In clause 8.3.3, in the entry for ?time interval is duration before time interval?: a. after the 3rd Synonymous Form, INSERT: Synonymous Form: duration is between time interval1 and time interval2 b. REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: Duration = D0 WITH: Necessity: Each duration that is between a time interval1 and a time interval2 is greater than or equal to D0. 2. In clause 8.7, in the entry for ?time point sequence2 is time point sequence1 plus integer?, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: Time point sequence1 and time point sequence2 are on an infinite time scale. WITH: Necessity: If a time point sequence1 is a time point sequence2 plus an integer, then time point sequence1 is on an indefinite time scale and time point sequence2 is on the indefinite time scale. 3. In clause 10.7, in the entry for ?time set?, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: the time scale1 of each time point sequence1 of the time set is the time scale2 of each time point sequence2 of the time set WITH: Necessity: Some time scale1 is the time scale of each time point sequence that is in a given time set 4. In clause 16.5, in the entry for ?situation kind occurs for time interval?, REPLACE the Necessity and Possibility: Necessity: If the situation kind is an individual situation kind then the individual situation kind occurs for at most one time interval. Possibility: If the situation kind is a general situation kind then the general situation kind occurs for more than one time interval. WITH: Necessity: Each individual situation kind occurs for at most one time interval. Possibility: A general situation kind occurs for more than one time interval. 5. In clause 16.5, in the entry for ?individual situation kind has occurrence interval?, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: the individual situation kind has at most one occurrence. WITH Necessity: Each individual situation kind has at most one occurrence interval. 6. In clause 16.7.1, in the entry for ?time interval1 to occurrence specifies time interval2?, DELETE the Necessity: Necessity: The time interval1 is properly before the occurrence interval of the occurrence. 7. In clause 16.7.1, in the entry for ?occurrence to time interval1 specifies time interval2?, DELETE the Necessity: Necessity: The occurrence interval of the occurrence is properly before time interval1. 8. In clause 16.7.1, in the entry for ?occurrence1 to occurrence2 specifies time interval?, DELETE the Necessity: Necessity: The occurrence interval of the occurrence1 is properly before the occurrence interval of the occurrence2. 9. In clause 16.7.2, in the entry for ?time interval1 through individual situation kind specifies time interval2?, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval2 is the time interval1 through the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind WITH: Definition: the individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence and the time interval2 is the time interval1 through the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind AND DELETE the Necessity: Necessity: The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence. 10. In clause 16.7.2, in the entry for ?individual situation kind1 through individual situation kind2 specifies time interval?, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval2 is the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind1 through the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind2 WITH: Definition: the individual situation kind1 has exactly one occurrence and the individual situation kind2 has exactly one occurrence and the time interval is the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind1 through the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind2 AND DELETE the Necessities: Necessity: The individual situation kind1 has exactly one occurrence. Necessity: The individual situation kind2 has exactly one occurrence. 11. In clause 16.7.2, in the entry for ?time interval1 to individual situation kind specifies time interval2?, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval2 is the time interval1 to the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind WITH: Definition: the individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence and the time interval2 is the time interval1 to the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind AND DELETE the Necessities: Necessity: The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence. Necessity: The time interval1 is properly before the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind. 12. In clause 16.7.2, in the entry for ?individual situation kind to time interval1 specifies time interval2?, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval2 is the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind to the time interval1 WITH: Definition: the individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence and the time interval2 is the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind to the time interval1 AND DELETE the Necessities: Necessity: The individual situation kind has exactly one occurrence. Necessity: The occurrence interval of the individual situation kind is properly before the time interval1. 13. In clause 16.7.2, in the entry for ?individual situation kind1 to individual situation kind2 specifies time interval?, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the time interval2 is the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind1 to the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind2 WITH: Definition: the individual situation kind1 has exactly one occurrence and the individual situation kind2 has exactly one occurrence and the time interval2 is the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind1 to the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind2 AND DELETE the Necessities: Necessity: The individual situation kind1 has exactly one occurrence. Necessity: The individual situation kind2 has exactly one occurrence. Necessity: The occurrence interval of the individual situation kind1 is properly before the occurrence interval of the individual situation kind2.
Actions taken:
July 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19517: Different 'time period' concept in Annex C (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification: DTV Version: 1.1 Title: Different 'time period' concept in Annex C Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark(at)nist.gov Summary: In the Date Time Vocabulary v1.1 specification, Annex C contains the following terminological entries: fixed period Definition: time period that cannot be changed ... variable period Definition: time period that can be rescheduled In DTV clause 8.7, a time period is defined to be: time interval that instantiates some time point sequence No time interval can ever "be changed" , at least not in the sense of "modified". And similarly, time intervals are unlikely to be "rescheduled". One cannot alter the time interval designated July 25 into some other time interval, nor can one meaningfully reschedule it. The intent here seems to be that some kind of schedule entry can be changed or an event can be rescheduled, so that the entry refers to a different time interval. Therefore, the term 'time period', as used in Annex C.3, does not have the meaning given in 8.7. SBVR Annex A.2.6 discusses verbs of change and the idea of intensional roles. But in DTV Annex C, fixed period and variable period are apparently being defined as general noun concepts. (On the other hand, 'scheduled start time' is a role that is apparently declared to be a general concept.) It may be that the business use of 'time period' IS often a role of time interval, or a schedule entry that refers to a time interval, and that the DTV use of the term is not business-friendly.

Resolution: In response to Issues 18990 and 19336, the RTF decided to replace the current EU Rent example in Annex C with some examples drawn from actual business experience. So this issue is moot. Formally, it can be said to be resolved via Issue 19336
Revised Text: No Data Available
Actions taken:
July 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19521: add 'time interval starts during time interval' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV    Version: 1.1    Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark(at)nist.gov         Summary:         Examination of some business usages of time concepts has led to the observation that several regulations use the concept:    time interval1 starts during time interval2    or    occurrence starts during time interval         These verb concepts can easily be phrased in terms of existing DTV concepts, but the phrasing is cumbersome.  It would be useful to add these to the DTV business vocabulary.

Resolution: The RTF agreed to add these, in order to simplify business usage.
Revised Text: see pages 64 - 68 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
July 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19524: Issue: misplaced Synonymous Forms on 'time set' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification: DTV v1.1    Title: misplaced Synonymous Forms on 'time set'         Summary:    In DTV v1.1, clause 10.7, the two synonymous forms under �time set�      Synonymous Form: time set1 equals time set2      Synonymous Form: time set1 = time set2    should be under �time set1 is equivalent to time set2�

Resolution: Agree. Editorial repair
Revised Text: In clause 10.7, in the entry for ?time set?, DELETE the paragraphs: Synonymous Form: time set1 equals time set2 Synonymous Form: time set1 = time set2 AND MOVE them to immediately follow the item heading for ?time set1 is equivalent to time set2?
Actions taken:
July 16, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19525: Gregorian years before 1600 have no starting day (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.1    Title: Gregorian years before 1600 have no starting day         Summary:         In clause 11.7, in the entry for �Gregorian year has starting day�, the Definition is a formula for calculating the index of the �starting day�, as distinct from a definition of the verb concept (which is actually carried in the definition of the role �starting day�).  The Definition is followed by the Necessity:    Necessity: The index of Gregorian year is greater than 1600.         We must conclude that either there are no Gregorian years before 1600, or the ones before 1600 have no starting day.  The real intent is probably that the formula given in the Definition is not correct for Gregorian years before 1600.         The correct definition is:  The starting day is the Gregorian day that is the first calendar day of the Gregorian year.    Necessity:  Each Gregorian year has exactly one calendar day.      Necessity:  The starting day of Gregorian year 1875 is Gregorian day 684606.    This relates the concept to the index origin for the Gregorian days scale.  The rest are determined by the rules for the length of Gregorian years.    How to compute the index of the starting day from 1601 on should be a Note.  One would expect the rule to be how to calculate from the index origin, and there may be other such algorithms.  The concept is not the computation algorithm.

Resolution: The RTF agrees that the definition should be corrected, and the first Necessity should be added. The Gregorian calendar algorithm is, however, a Necessity not a Note, and the starting day of 1601 is important to it. The second proposed Necessity is irrelevant � the index origin of the Gregorian days calendar is not the starting day of any Gregorian year, and is not useful to the calendar algorithm. Note also that there are no Gregorian years before 1582. That Necessity is corrected
Revised Text: In clause 11.7, in the entry for ?Gregorian year has starting day, REPLACE the Definition and the following Necessity: Definition: the index of starting day equals 584 391 plus 365 times (index of Gregorian year minus 1601) plus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 4) minus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 100) plus ((index of Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 400) Necessity: The index of Gregorian year is greater than 1600. WITH: Definition: the starting day is the Gregorian day that corresponds to the time interval that is part of the Gregorian year and that is an instance of day-of-year 1 Necessity: Each Gregorian year has exactly one starting day. Necessity: The index of the starting day of each Gregorian year that follows Gregorian year 1600 equals 584 391 plus 365 times (index of the Gregorian year minus 1601) plus ((index of the Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 4) minus ((index of the Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 100) plus ((index of the Gregorian year minus 1601) divided by 400). Necessity: The index of each Gregorian year is greater than 1581. Note: The Gregorian calendar was adopted in different places at different times between 1582 and 1918. The formula is only valid for Gregorian dates.
Actions taken:
July 17, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19526: Starting week day is a number (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.1    Title:  Starting week day is a number         In clause 12.4, the entry for starting week day has the Definition:    the index of the Gregorian day of year that is 3 days before the first Thursday of some Gregorian year         It is at least unexpected that any category of �day� would be a integer.  The definition appears to be that of �starting Monday index�, or something the like.  The expected concept would be �Gregorian day that is three days before the Gregorian day that corresponds to the first Thursday of the Gregorian year.�  In either case, one would have to define:  Gregorian year has first Thursday.  This suggests that the useful concept is in fact, Gregorian year has starting Thursday (or starting Monday).         The verb concept is �starting week day of Gregorian year� rather than �Gregorian year has starting week day�, and there is a Necessity that only Gregorian years after 1600 have starting week days, which is clearly wrong.         This whole concept appears to be an artifice for determining which week of the �weeks calendar� is the �first week� of a Gregorian year.  So there is no intended business use of these terms, but the entries should be corrected.

Resolution: The last paragraph of the Issue Summary correctly indicates that the function of ?starting week day? is to support interpretation of ?week of year? and ?year week coordinates?. The resolution of Issue 19574 restructures that interpretation by creating a fixed relationship between the Gregorian calendar and the weeks calendar. That restructuring eliminates the use of ?starting week day? per se, although it makes a similar concept ?first Thursday? necessary. The resolution of this issue is therefore merged with that of 19574. Revised Text: none. See Issue 19574
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 17, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Duplicate or Merged
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19527: Occurrence does not specialize Situation Kind (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification: DTV v1.1    Title: Occurrence does not specialize Situation Kind         Summary:         In clause 16.3, in the entry for �occurrence occurs for occurrence interval�, the verb concept is said to have    General Concept: situation kind occurs for time interval         This would require that �occurrence� specializes �situation kind�, which is not the case.  This General Concept declaration should be deleted.

Resolution: Agreed. Delete the General Concept declaration.
Revised Text: In clause 16.3, in the entry for occurrence occurs for occurrence interval, DELETE the paragraph: General Concept: situation kind occurs for time interval
Actions taken:
July 17, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19529: definition of compound time coordinate is circular (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 10.6.3, the definition of 'compound time coordinate' is:    Definition: time coordinate that combines more than one time coordinate    and the definition of 'compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate' is:    Definition: the atomic time coordinates jointly specify the compound time coordinate         That makes them both circular.  Prefer something like:    compound time coordinate    Definition: time coordinate that is a set of atomic time coordinates that jointly indicate a time point    compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate    Definition: the atomic time coordinate is an element of the compound time coordinate (set)         These definitions match the first Necessity under the verb concept.    The 'set' makes the second Necessity redundant.    The third Necessity is misstated: it compares a time coordinate to a time scale.

Resolution: The circular definitions are resolved more or less as suggested, and the related Necessities are revised. Because of other changes to the descriptions of compound time coordinates that affect the same definitions, and related changes to the UML diagrams, the revised text for this issue is merged with Issue 19547. Revised Text: See Issue 19547.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 18, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Duplicate or Merged
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19530: time point sequences specify time periods (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 8.7 includes two verb concepts:    time point1 through time point2 specifies time period    time point1 to time point2 specifies time period         The definitions of these concepts describe the construction of a time point sequence followed by the correspondence to time period.  Several of the Necessities in these entries restate Necessities for time point sequences.  At least one Necessity for time point sequences in general is stated here but not in the entry for time point sequences:      If the time scale of time point1 is an indefinite time scale then time point1 through time point2 specifies exactly one time period.    That is, each time point sequence that is on an indefinite time scale corresponds to exactly one time period.         By creating companion verb concepts:    time point1 through time point2 defines time point sequence    time point1 to time point2 defines time point sequence    the redundancies can be eliminated and the Definitions and Necessities for the two verb concepts specifying time periods can be greatly simplified.         E.g. for     time point1 through time point2 specifies time period    Definition: time point1 is the first time point of a time point sequence and time point2 is the last time point of the time point sequence and the time point sequence corresponds to the time period         the Definition is replaced by:    Definition: the time point sequence that is defined by time point1 through time point2 corresponds to the time period

Resolution: The RTF agrees that Necessities about time point sequences in general should be moved to the entry for time point sequence or the related verb concepts. The RTF notes that the UML diagram in Figure 8.25 is inconsistent with the existing text, and includes the two proposed intermediate verb concepts. The proposed verb concepts are added, the definitions and necessities for the cited concepts are revised accordingly, and the UML model is re-aligned with the text. Text is added to explain that ?time point sequence? is overall an artificial construct used to describe references to time periods.
Revised Text: see pages 74 - 79 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
July 18, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19531: Why not fractional months? (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 9.3, in the entry for 'duration value equals number times duration value', we find the Necessity: Necessity: If duration value1 is a nominal duration value and the number is fractional then the time unit of each atomic duration value of the duration value is not �month� and the fractional part of the number is �, �, 2/4, or �. This Necessity, the four Necessities that follow, and the Note that follows them, are constraints on the number part of a nominal duration value. They are not necessities about scalar multiplication. At best all of this should be moved to 9.2.3. This necessity, however, is unnecessarily restrictive, and appears to be utterly inappropriate. 1/3 year is 4 months, 1/6 year is 2 months, and 1/12 year is 1 month, and their multiples are multiples of months, but they are apparently "not common in business usage". Moreover, in estimating a contract, why couldn�t one multiply a standard duration estimate stated in months by 1.2 to allow for some delaying factor? And similarly, if we average seven durations stated in years, the multiplier is 1/7. Business analytics will generate fractional multiples of months and years. Why should DTV disallow them? The Note provides the underlying motivation: Note: This specification defines only the fractional nominal duration values � year, � year, 2/4 year, and � year because these are in common business use and they equal an integral number of months. This specification does not support any fractional 'month' duration values because such fractions are not in common use [which is false] *and because they are not equal to an integral number of years or days* [which is the real reason]. Integral number of months or years are not equal to an integral number of days, either. But, per 9.2.3, they correspond to time sets (in days), while a fractional number of either does not. How important is this?

Resolution: The RTF agrees that the cited Necessity is an unnecessary constraint. It is deleted, and the subsequent Note is revised.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 9.3, in the entry for 'duration value equals number times duration value', DELETE the Necessity: Necessity: If duration value1 is a nominal duration value and the number is fractional then the time unit of each atomic duration value of the duration value is not ?month? and the fractional part of the number is �, �, 2/4, or �. 2. In clause 9.3, in the Note that follows the four Necessities for fractional years, DELETE the sentence: ?This specification does not support any fractional ?month? duration values because such fractions are not in common use and because they are not equal to an integral number of years or days.?
Actions taken:
July 18, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19546: No indefinite time point sequences (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 8.7, the definition of time point sequence corresponds to time interval assumes that each time point sequence has a first time point and a last time point.  Further, v1.1 introduced the �time points� primordial and perpetuity to provide the means for specifying indefinite time periods.  That creates time points to be the first and last time points of the time point sequences that correspond to indefinite time periods.         We must either redefine the correspondence concept or remove the possibility that there is no first/last time point.  The latter simplifies the model.  (Note also that most indefinite time periods DO have a last time point, we just don�t know what it is.)

Resolution: The RTF agrees that indefinite time point sequences are problematic. The text should recommend the use of ?primordial? and ?perpetuity? when those are explicitly intended. But when the first or last time point of a time point sequence is simply ?unknown?, that is not clearly appropriate. In any case, however, every time point sequence has a first time point and a last time point, and the text is revised to eliminate features and wording that suggest otherwise.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.7, in the entry for ?time point sequence?: a. DELETE the two Reference Schemes: Reference Scheme: The first time point of the time point sequence and the characteristic ?the time point sequence has no last time point?. Reference Scheme: The last time point of the time point sequence and the characteristic ?the time point sequence has no first time point?. b. REPLACE the two Necessities and the Note: Necessity: Each time point sequence has at most one first time point. Necessity: Each time point sequence has at most one last time point. Note: A time point sequence may be ?open? at either or both ends; i.e. have no first time point or no last time point, or neither. WITH: Necessity: Each time point sequence has exactly one first time point. Necessity: Each time point sequence has exactly one last time point. Note: It is not possible to specify an indefinite time point sequence; i.e. one that has no first time point or no last time point. A time point sequence is a specific section of a calendar. It is possible to specify a time point sequence by specifying the first time point or last time point to be the date or time of an event, including primordiality and perpetuity, if appropriate. . It is also possible to specify a time interval by means other than a time point sequence (see clause 16.7). 2. In clause 8.7, in the entry for ?time point sequence has first time point?, REPLACE the Definition and the Note: Definition: the first time point of the time point sequence is the first member of the time point sequence Note: ?... before July 1? refers to a time point sequence with no first time point. WITH: Definition: the first time point is the first member of the time point sequence 3. In clause 8.7, in the entry for ?time point sequence has last time point?, REPLACE the Definition and the Note: Definition: the last time point of the time point sequence is the last member of the time point sequence Note: ?... after July 1? refers to a time point sequence with no last time point. WITH: Definition: the last time point is the last member of the time point sequence
Actions taken:
July 25, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19547: Missing and incorrect text in clause 10.6 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.1    Title: Missing and incorrect text in clause 10.6         Summary:         In clause 10.6 (Time Coordinates), the introduction suggests that a time coordinate can represent more than one time point.  This is false. A time coordinate represents exactly one time point (which is nowhere stated). It can only combine time point identifiers to refer to a different time point.         The verb concept 'time coordinate has time scale' appears in the UML diagram and in one of the definitions, but nowhere in the text.         In the entry for 'time coordinate', the two dichotomies are stated as possibilities in the Notes.  They should be stated as Necessities.         The definitions of absolute and relative time coordinates refer to their "corresponding to" time intervals.  The time points correspond, but the coordinates only "refer to" them.

Resolution: Upon examination, the RTF determined that an atomic time coordinate indicates exactly one time point. A compound time coordinate, and therefore time coordinates in general, indicates at most one time point, and may not indicate any (documented) time point. For example, March 3 does not indicate any documented time point. This necessitates a number of minor changes to the model, and to the wording of many definitions in 10.6. With this understanding, only an atomic time coordinate has a time scale, and that concept is added. The dichotomies are restated as Necessities, and shown in the UML diagrams. The definitions of absolute and relative time coordinates are modified as recommended, and other inconsistencies are also repaired. There is a significant overlap of the changes associated with this issue and the changes associated with Issues 18989, 18991, 19529, and 19635. Issue 18989 and 18991 (duplicates) were resolved to determine that a time coordinate is a conceptual structure of meaning rather than a representation of a time point. This affects the UML diagrams in 10.6, the wording of the introductory text, and the wording of many of the definitions being altered by Issue 19547. In particular this results in elaborating the model of atomic time coordinate. Issue 18991 also makes parallel changes to the wording of Clause 9.1 and 9.2. Issue 19529 points out that the definitions of ?compound time coordinate? and ?compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate? are circular. The resolution of that issue is to define a compound time coordinate to be a set of atomic time coordinates, but to ?combine? time coordinates in general. The revised definitions must also take into account the fact that compound time coordinates do not necessarily indicate time points. Those changes are therefore merged into the Revised Text below. Issue 19635 requires an editorial change to move a misplaced paragraph in 10.6.3. In addition, the revised entry for ?compound time coordinate includes atomic time coordinate? is moved to follow the entry for ?compound time coordinate?.
Revised Text: see pages 85 - 98 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
July 28, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19550: member has index in sequence has no result (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In Annex D.2.2, the entry for �member has index in sequence� has a main sentential form and two Synonymous noun Forms that are followed by definitions of CLIF functions and OCL operations.  The first Note reads:      The primary verb concept and the synonymous form given above are �sentential forms� that yield a Boolean result.         A verb concept is not a sentential form and it does not �yield a boolean result�.  What is meant is that the verb concept wording is a sentential form, and the corresponding CLIF predicate and the OCL operation yield a boolean result.  This pattern must be true of many other verb concepts in the vocabulary.  It is strange that it first appears in an Annex.         The Definition can be simplified to:  Some sequence position of the sequence has an index that is equal to the index and has a member that is the member.         In addition, one of the synonymous forms has inconsistent type setting.

Resolution: Reword the Note to say that the CLIF predicate and the UML/OCL operation derived from the primary wording yield a Boolean result, while those derived from the noun forms return the index value or the member. The CLIF and OCL relations for index of member in sequence, however, have no corresponding function. The only things that have indices in a sequence are those that are members of exactly one sequence position in the sequence. So the would-be ?function? is not defined on ?thing?. This ?noun form? is therefore deleted. The only use of it is in the definition of ?time point has index?. That definition is corrected. All the rest of the uses in the text are as ?index of time point?. The wording of an introductory paragraph to Section D.2 (Sequences) is somewhat misleading about the relationship of time points and time intervals to indices. It is revised.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.6, in the entry for ?time point has index?, REPLACE the Definition: Definition: the index is the index of the time point in the sequence that is the time scale of the time point WITH: Definition: the index is the index of the sequence position that is in the time scale of the time point and that has a member that is the time point 2. In Annex D.2, in the introductory text, in the last paragraph, REPLACE the two sentences: Time scales, such as clocks and calendars, define the sequence positions of sequences. The application of time scales to the Time Axis, causes the assignment of time intervals as members of the time scales. WITH: Time scales, such as clocks and calendars, are defined to be sequences whose members are time points, such as ?hour of day?. The sequence positions of each time scale (sequence) have indices that are used to number the time points that are their members. The application of time scales to the Time Axis, causes the assignment of time intervals as instances of the time points. Thus, one time interval in each day is an instance of the ?hour of day? with index 12, i.e., 12 o?clock. 3. In Annex D.2.2, in the entry for ?member has index in sequence?, DELETE the first Note: Note: The primary verb concept and the synonymous form given above are ?sentential forms? that yield a Boolean result. 4. In Annex D.2.2, in the entry for ?member has index in sequence?, after the first OCL Definition, INSERT: Note: This verb concept states that in a given sequence the position that is given by the index is occupied by the member. A given thing can have zero, one, or more than one indices in a given sequence. Possibility: A thing has more than one index in the same sequence. Note: The primary verb concept wording and the synonymous form given above are ?sentential forms?. Following the conventions described in clause 6, the corresponding CLIF predicate and OCL operation yield a Boolean result. In addition, this verb concept has a ?noun form? (member with index in sequence), for which the corresponding CLIF and OCL functions return the thing that plays the member role in the relationship. 5. In Annex D.2.2, in the entry for ?member has index in sequence?, DELETE the following elements (for the noun form ?index of member in sequence?): Synonymous Form: index of member in sequence Note: The Synonymous Form given above is an SBVR ?noun form? that yields an index given a member in a sequence. CLIF Definition: (forall (member index s) (iff (= index ("index of member in sequence" member s)) ("member has index in sequence" member index s) )) OCL Definition: context sequence def: _'index of member in sequence' (member: thing, s sequence) : integer = self._'sequence position'-->select(sp | sp.member = member).index 6. In Annex D.2.4, in the entry for ?unique sequence?, REPLACE the Definition and the CLIF Definition: Definition: sequence that each member of the sequence is the member of at most one sequence position of the sequence CLIF Definition: (forall (s) (iff ("unique sequence" s) (forall (member x1 x2) (if (and ("member has index in sequence" member x1 s) ("member has index in sequence" member x2 s)) (= x1 x2) )))) WITH: Definition: sequence that has no member that is the member of more than one sequence position of the sequence CLIF Definition: (forall (s) (iff ("unique sequence" s) (and (sequence s) (forall (sp1 sp2 t1 t2) (if (and ("sequence has sequence position" s sp1) ("sequence has sequence position" s sp2) ("sequence position has member" sp1 t1) ("sequence position has member" sp2 t2) (not (= sp1 sp2)) ) (not (= t1 t2)) ))))) 7. In Annex D.2.4, at the end of the entry for ?unique sequence?, ADD: Necessity: Each thing has at most one index in each unique sequence. CLIF Axiom: (forall (thing (x1 integer) (x2 integer) (us "unique sequence")) (if (and ("member has index in sequence" thing x1 us) ("member has index in sequence" thing x2 us) ) (= x1 x2) )) OCL Constraint: context _"unique sequence" inv: ???
Actions taken:
July 28, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19566: the Convention du Metre is not a time interval (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In DTV clause 11.2, the entry for Convention du M�tre contains:    Definition:           time interval of the signing of the Convention du M�tre    Necessity:          The Convention du M�tre is at 20 May 1875.    These are inconsistent.  The Necessity uses an undefined verb concept 'time interval is at time interval'.    It was intended that the Necessity uses 'occurrence is at (during) time interval'.  The signing of the treaty is not a time interval; it is an event, an occurrence.  The important fact is that the signing event occurred within the day, month and year denoted by 20 May 1875.          The conventions for establishing which time interval was named 20 May 1875 were established at that time by observation of noon at the Greenwich observatory.  That was used as the basis for definition of Gregorian days until 1972, when it was replaced by Universal Coordinated Time (UTC).   By convention, 24-hour periods with a midpoint at Greenwich noon might also be used to define Gregorian days before 1875, although actual approaches were different.  Without specifying these conventions as well, the concept Gregorian day is not defined by the date of the Convention du M�tre.  There are several thousand distinct time intervals that encompass the signing of the treaty and have a duration of 86400 seconds.

Resolution: The Convention du M�tre is intended to be an occurrence. Inaccurate references should refer to the Gregorian day of the signing, which is properly defined as the 24 hours beginning at midnight as determined by Greenwich Mean Time from 1884 to 1972 and by UTC thereafter.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 11.2, correct the spelling of ?M�tre? to ?M�tre? in all occurrences. 2. In clause 11.2, in the entry for the Convention du M�tre, REPLACE the Definition and the Necessity: Definition: time interval of the signing of the Convention du M�tre Necessity: The Convention du M�tre is at 20 May 1875. WITH: Definition: occurrence that is the signing of the Convention du M�tre Necessity: The Convention du M�tre occurred within 20 May 1875. Note: The particular Gregorian day on which the signing of the Convention du M�tre occurred establishes the index origin of the various Gregorian scales. 3. In clause 11.2, in the entry for ?Gregorian years scale?, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: The Convention du M�tre is at the index origin element of the Gregorian years scale. WITH: Necessity: The time interval that Gregorian year 1875 corresponds to is started by the time interval that is the Gregorian day 684 467. Note: Gregorian day 684 467 is January 1, 1875. Note: The starting Gregorian day and the rules for the duration of Gregorian years define a unique time interval. 4. In clause 11.2, in the entry for ?Gregorian months scale?, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: The Convention du M�tre is at the index origin element of the Gregorian years scale. WITH: Necessity: The time interval that Gregorian month 22 493 corresponds to is a May and is started by the time interval that is the Gregorian day 684 587. Note: Gregorian day 684 587 is May 1, 1875. Note: The starting Gregorian day, and the fact that the Gregorian month is a May (and therefore has 31 days) defines a unique time interval. 5. In clause 11.2, in the entry for ?Gregorian day scale?, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: The Convention du M�tre is at the index origin element of the Gregorian years scale. WITH: Necessity: The Convention du M�tre occurred within the time interval that is the Gregorian day 684 606. Necessity: The duration of the time interval that is the Gregorian day 684 606 is 1 day. Necessity: The time interval that is the Gregorian day 684 606 is started by a time interval that is the 12 hours preceding an observation of noon at the Greenwich observatory. Note: Gregorian day 684 606 is May 20, 1875. Note: The combination of the above necessities identifies a unique time interval. The reference origin for the Gregorian months scale and the Gregorian years scale are defined in terms of that time interval. Note: Noon at the Greenwich observatory was the reference point for Gregorian days until 1884. The [International Meridian Conference] of 1884 established the Greenwich Meridian as the international standard for zero degrees longitude. It also established a uniform international time standard called the ?universal day? � a mean solar day of 24 hours measured from midnight on the Greenwich Meridian. This time standard was formally replaced by Universal Coordinated Time in 1972.
Actions taken:
August 1, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19570: Figures in 10.7 do not match the text (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 10.7 (time sets), Figure 10.15 is followed by text that relates time sets to time point sequences, but time point sequences do not appear in the Figure.  Similarly, Figure 10.16 is the same diagram, but it is followed by text that relates time sets to time periods, and time periods do not appear in the diagram.

Resolution: Both of these diagrams are out-of-date. They are replaced with the correct diagrams. Note also that Figure 10.15 correctly shows that ?time point sequence matches time set? specializes ?thing is in set?. The entry is modified to capture this.
Revised Text: see pages 106 - 107 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
August 5, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19572: time scale differs from time scale by time offset (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 10.5, Figure 10.7 is titled Time Zones, and it shows a verb concept:  �time scale differs from time scale by time offset�.  This verb concept is in the UML model (in Time Infrastructure), but does not appear anywhere in the text of DTV v1.1.  It appears to have been replaced by �calendar1 differs from calendar2 by time offset� in Figure 10.8.  But Figure 10.7 shows several other concepts that are defined in clause 10.5, and the definition of �local calendar� refers to a time scale that �differs from the UTC day-of-hours time scale by  a given time offset�, which appears to use the phantom verb concept.

Resolution: The UML diagram will be realigned with the text. The definition of ?local calendar? and the definitions of time coordinates ?with time offset? are modified to use the documented verb concept ?calendar1 differs from calendar2 by time offset?.
Revised Text: see pages 108 - 110 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
August 7, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19573: Clause 7.17 is misplaced (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Clause 7.17 is an overview of the specification structure.  It is incorrectly placed at the end of Clause 7 (Rationale).  It should be in Clause 6, following 6.3, which gives an overview of the specification.

Resolution: The issue is correct. The clause was inadvertently separated from Clause 6 when the Rationale section was added. It is moved back to follow 6.3. Note: Issue 19483 revises the Figure in clause 7.17 and some of the descriptive text. So, that revision is merged with this Issue. Note: Issue 19574 renames the ?Week Calendar? package to ?ISO Week Calendar? and that change is included in Figure 6.1 below.
Revised Text: see pages 111 - 113 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
August 11, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19574: The mythical 'weeks scale' (dtv-rtf)

DTV defines the indefinite 'weeks scale' in clause 12.2 as follows: Definition: indefinite time scale of granularity 'week' and of 'calendar week' time points Note: No special meaning is assigned to the indices of calendar weeks on the week scale. Therefore, no index origin element or index origin value is specified for this time scale. It then defines calendar week as follows: Definition: time point that is on the weeks scale and that is defined by a given calendar as 7 consecutive calendar days Note: ISO 8601 adds �starting on a Monday� to this definition. This vocabulary drops that phrase because it is culture-specific. The net effect of these is that weeks are some sequences of 7 days that are determined by a calendar. We don�t know where any such sequence begins, or what day-of-week it begins with. There is no significance to the indices because none of them is defined to refer to any particular point in time. So, DTV does not define a specific ' weeks scale' at all. Now, clause 12.1 says: "References to specific weeks are by week of year coordinate. This specification follows [ISO 8601] in defining 'Monday' as the first day of the week." This contradicts the above. But it does confirm that the finite 'year of weeks' scale is the only well-defined scale whose granularity is a week. Then in 12.4 we find this entry: year week coordinate indicates time point sequence Definition: the Gregorian year coordinate and the week of year coordinate of year week coordinate jointly specify a time point sequence of Gregorian days Note: Unlike other time coordinates, this one indicates a time point sequence, not a time point. This is because a year week coordinate means a sequence of calendar days rather an individual time point on some time scale. So a 'year week coordinate' does not refer to a 'week' on any 'weeks scale' . Now, since it does not indicate any time point, a year-week coordinate is NOT a time coordinate. The presented model is incomplete and inconsistent. The underlying model anchors a weeks scale to Gregorian days � every instance of a Gregorian day instantiates a particular day-of-week; and the relationship to Gregorian years is dependent on choosing Monday as the first day of week. It is absolutely necessary to anchor some day-of-week to some event or time interval, in order to have any idea which Gregorian days are Mondays. Somewhere in the text, it is mentioned that January 1, 2000 is a Saturday. (More useful is the fact that January 1, 1601 is a Monday.) And that, together with the assertion that Monday is the first day of a week-of-year, defines *a* weeks scale, except for assigning an index to the week containing January 1, 2000 (or 1601).

Resolution: The underlying problem here was the unwillingness of the FTF to commit to Monday as the first day of the week, as indicated in the cited Note. The assertion in 12.1 did not represent consensus of the RTF. As a consequence, the Week Calendar Vocabulary, and most of the terms introduced in the section, are now prefixed by ?ISO? to distinguish them from weeks calendars that choose other conventions for the first day of the week. At the same time, the neutral concepts ?calendar week? and ?week period? are retained and moved to Clause 10 to support the original purpose of allowing other choices for first day of week. Establishing Monday as day of week 1 enables the specification of a reference time period for an index origin member for the indefinite weeks scale, choosing Monday, January 3, 2000, with an index consistent with the Gregorian day numbering. Aligning the Gregorian calendar with the weeks calendar eliminates the need for the verb concept ?year week coordinate indicates time point sequence? and the related ?starting week day? idea, which are deleted. In its place, we create the ?starting week? concept, which is parallel to ?starting day?. This enables the correct axioms (Necessities) for the year of weeks and year of weekdays scales. Some related errors in terminology or arithmetic are also corrected. The RTF determined in resolving Issue 19525 that the definition of ?starting day? should be functional and the calculation should be a Necessity. The same idea is applied to ?starting week?. Issue 19034 recommended editorial corrections to the terms for day of week time points. These are included in the modifications to the (ISO) day of week entry below. Issue 19526 asked for corrections to the description of ?starting weekday?, which this resolution deletes. But the definition of ?starting week? requires the notion ?first Thursday?, which was embedded in the ?starting week day? concept. So the revised text carries the intent of Issue 19526 forward. The resolution to Issue 19645 modifies the entry for the year of weekdays scale and incorporates text changes related to this issue. It also adds the concept ISO week-based year, which is mentioned in the revised introductory text below. The resolution to Issue 19650 deletes section 12.5. Nomenclature changes in 12.5 that are related to this issue are therefore omitted below.
Revised Text: see pages 116 - 127 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
August 12, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19579: Status of Annex F: Simplified Syntax for Logical Formulations (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

First, the notation introduced in Annex F is used nowhere in the DTV v1.1 specification.  It was formerly used in Annex that was revised in DTV v1.0.  The title of Annex F is confusing for DTV, since DTV provides normative logical formulations in CLIF and OCL.  The intent is to describe SBVR logical formulations, for which DTV provides normative expressions in SBVR Structured English.         Second, the Annex specifies a notation for SBVR logical formulations.  If it is to have value, the notation should be specified in the SBVR specification.  In any case, this Annex should be considered for adoption by the SBVR RTF (as the DTV FTF recommended).  Indeed, the SBVR Logical Representation of Meaning clause might well profit from the ability to express examples in this form.  There are some technical defects in the Annex F specification, but these could be remedied by the SBVR RTF, whereas specifications for the representation of SBVR are out of scope for the DTV RTF.         Finally, the text of Annex F begins:  �The table below is kindly provided by Don Baisley of Microsoft Corp.�  This sentence is entirely inappropriate, and raises intellectual property concerns.  If the Annex is retained, this sentence must be deleted.  Don Baisley is properly included in the acknowledgements in 6.4, but the specification is the work of the submitters and the editing Task Forces, and this Annex is presumably not intended to be an exception.

Resolution: The RTF agrees that the Annex should not be a part of the Date Time Vocabulary. The Issue of incorporating in SBVR has been raised to the SBVR RTF, noting that the specification in Annex F was formally adopted by the OMG.
Revised Text: DELETE Annex F ?Simplified Syntax for Logical Formulations? in its entirety, renumbering subsequent annexes.
Actions taken:
August 14, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19589: DTV Issue: Annex G: "OWL/UML Diagrams" (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

DTV Informative Annex G contains a set of UML diagrams of the OWL mapping of DTV.  There are two problems with this Annex: (1) it is out-of-date with respect to the informative OWL ontologies that were included in DTV 1.1; (2) the set is incomplete with respect to the DTV 1.1 OWL.  The diagrams should be updated or the Annex should be deleted.

Resolution: Since the scope of the Annex is only the supporting concepts in Annex D, as opposed to the DateTime concepts, the RTF determined that its relevance to the DTV specification is marginal. Since it is no longer accurate even for Annex D, the RTF agrees to delete the Annex.
Revised Text: DELETE Annex G "OWL/UML Diagrams" in its entirety.
Actions taken:
August 28, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19590: There is no 'index origin element' (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The term 'index origin element' is used in several places in clauses 10-13.    This term is not defined.  The term defined in Annex D is 'index origin member', and it should be substituted for all occurrences of 'index origin element'.

Resolution: The RTF agrees
Revised Text: In clauses 10, 11, 12, 13 CHANGE all occurrences of 'index origin element' TO 'index origin member'
Actions taken:
August 28, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19628: Confusion of Axioms and Verb Concepts for Time Interval operations (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  DTV v1.1    Title: Confusion of Axioms and Verb Concepts for Time Interval operations         Summary:         In clause 8.2.5, there are two versions of Axiom Sum, but they seem to say mostly the same thing.  There is a typo: t2+t2 in the first Axiom Sum.    The two definitions of 'time interval1 to time interval2 is time interval3' conflict � the first half of each should be a condition.         In clause 8.2.6, what starts as Axiom Start-complement becomes a verb concept declaration that somehow has a corollary.  Similarly Axiom End-complement, and for Axiom Intersection in 8.2.7.  This seems to be primarily a text organization problem, but there is no Necessity and no OCL Constraint for each of the Axioms.

Resolution: In 8.2.5, remove the duplicate Axioms, rewrite the Definition of ?sum? to be the first two ?Corollaries?, and change the multiple ?Definitions? and ?CLIF Definitions? of sum to SBVR Necessities and CLIF Axioms. In 8.2.5 merge the two partial definitions of ?time interval1 to time interval2 specifies time interval3? to one corrected definition. In 8.2.6, reorganize the axioms and corollaries to follow the definition of the verb concepts, and correct the SBVR definitions of the verb concepts. In 8.2.7, reorganize the axioms and corollaries to follow the definition of the verb concept, and correct the definitions of the verb concept.
Revised Text: see pages 131 - 141 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
October 2, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19635: misplaced paragraph in 10.6.3 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Following the entry for �compound time coordinate combines atomic time coordinate�, the following paragraph appears:    Calendar scales (i.e., those involving calendar years, calendar months, calendar weeks, and calendar days) use index origin value 1, while time-of-day scales (i.e., those involving hours of day, minutes of hour and seconds of minute) use index origin value 0. In all cases other than the Gregorian years scale, the index original element is the first element of the time scale. For clarity, the index origin value and index origin element of each time scale is included with the time scale.         The paragraph has nothing to do with the nature of time coordinates, which is the topic of 10.6.  It may belong in 10.8 or at the end of 10.1.

Resolution: The paragraph is out of place, but it is most relevant to atomic time coordinates that involve the index of the time point. It is reworded to make that clear, and to clarify the forward references to clauses 11 and 13. The text revision is in the area modified by issues 19547 and 18991, and the corresponding text changes are merged with Issue 19547. Revised Text: see Issue 19547. Disposition: Merged (see Issue 19547)
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 8, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Duplicate or Merged
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19645: what is the year of weekdays? (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification: Date Time Vocabulary v1.1 Title: what is the year of weekdays? Summary: In clause 12.2, the year of weekdays is defined as: Definition: the finite time scale that has granularity 1 day and that has cardinality 366 and that repeats over the year of days scale Since the year of days also has 366 time points, it is impossible that the year of weekdays can repeat over it. The intent must be that it repeats over the Gregorian days scale. But that also describes the year of days scale. So it is inadequate. The Necessity provides the real delimiting characteristic: Necessity: Each time interval that is an instance of the first time point of the year of weekdays is a Monday and is an instance of a day of year that has an index that is less than 8. Now, if the intent is that the year of week days goes from the first Monday of one year to the Sunday before the first Monday of the following year (which is not at all clear from the above), then the scale must have 371 (7 x 53) time points, because a year that starts on a Monday ends on a Monday, and the first Monday of the following year is 6 days later. This structure has no relationship to the year of weeks calendar, because the year of weeks starts with the Monday of the week that contains the first Thursday, and 3 times in 7 years, the year of weekdays will begin in week of year 2. So, what (and why) is the 'year of weekdays'?

Resolution: The year of weekdays is intended to provide a subdivision of the ?week-based year? that is defined by the year of weeks time scale, in order to support relative time coordinates of the week-day form. For that intent, the existing Definition and Necessity are incorrect. The ISO week-based year concept is introduced in parallel to the Gregorian year, and the weekday of year concept is then defined as a ?day of ISO week-based year?. The revised text below incorporates terms from the resolution to Issue 19574.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 12.2, in the entry for (ISO) year of weekdays scale, REPLACE the Definition and the Note: Definition: the finite time scale that has granularity 1 day and that has cardinality 366 and that repeats over the year of days scale Note: The difference between the year of weekdays scale and the year of days scale is the notional alignment of the year of weekdays scale to one of the first seven days of the calendar year, and the fact that the last 3 calendar days of the year of weekdays scale may extend into the next Gregorian year. WITH: Definition: the finite time scale that has granularity 1 day and that has cardinality 371 and that subdivides each ISO week-based year Note: The ISO year of weekdays scale subdivides the ISO week-based year in parallel to the way the Gregorian year of days subdivides the Gregorian year. But the two kinds of year are of different lengths and are only loosely aligned. 2. In clause 12.2, in the entry for (ISO) year of weekdays scale, REPLACE the 3rd Necessity: Necessity: Each time interval that is an instance of the first time point of the year of weekdays is a Monday and is an instance of a day of year that has an index that is less than 8. WITH: Necessity: Each instance of the first time point of the ISO year of weekdays is a Monday and is part of the instance of the starting week of a Gregorian year. Note: An instance of ISO weekday of year 1 may be as late as January 4 of the Gregorian year or as early as December 29 of the previous Gregorian year. 3. In clause 12.2, immediately before the entry for ?day of week?, INSERT a new entry: ISO week-based year Definition: time period that has duration 52 weeks or 53 weeks and that is started by an ISO week of year 1 and that meets an ISO week of year 1 Necessity: The ISO year of weeks scale subdivides each ISO week-based year. Necessity: Each ISO week-based year is an instance of a time point sequence of ISO weeks. Note: There is an indefinite sequence of ISO week-based years that covers the Time Axis in parallel to the indefinite sequence of Gregorian years. But it was not necessary to model it. ISO week-based years are identified by Gregorian year numbers and the ?first Thursday rule?. Necessity: First Thursday Rule: The first Thursday in an ISO week-based year is the first Thursday of a Gregorian year. Necessity: Each ISO week-based year is started by a time interval that is the 3 days preceding the first Thursday of a Gregorian year. Note: The last Thursday of a Gregorian year is part of the last week of the corresponding ISO week-based year. That determines whether the ISO week-based year has 52 weeks or 53 weeks. Note: Any Gregorian year that begins on Thursday, and any leap year that begins on Wednesday, relates to an ISO week-based year that has 53 ISO week of year time intervals and 371 ISO weekday of year time intervals. The first ISO week of year includes 2 or 3 days from the prior year (from the Monday to the start of the year), and the 53rd ISO week of year includes 2 or 3 days from the following year (from the Thursday or Friday that is December 31st through the following Sunday). Any other year has 52 ISO week of year time intervals and 364 ISO weekday of year time intervals, but it may include 1 or 2 days of the prior year or 1 or 2 days from the following year, while losing 1 to 3 days to the other of them. 4. In clause 12.2, in the entry for (ISO) weekday of year, REPLACE the Necessity: Necessity: Each week of year renumbers at least 1 calendar week. WITH: Necessity: Each ISO weekday of year renumbers at least 1 Gregorian day. 5. In clause 12.4, in the entry for (ISO) week day coordinate, REPLACE the Description and the Note: Description: A weekday coordinate combines a week of year and a day of week to identify a weekday of year, a calendar day within a year period. Note: The first week of year may start up to 3 calendar days before the first calendar day of a calendar year, and the last week of year may include up to 3 calendar days from the following calendar year. See [ISO 8601] clause 3.2.2 for details. WITH: Description: An ISO week day coordinate combines an ISO week of year coordinate and an ISO day of week coordinate to identify an ISO weekday of year, i.e., a calendar day within an ISO week-based year. Note: The first ISO week of year may start up to 3 days before the first calendar day of a Gregorian year, and the last ISO week of year may include up to 3 calendar days from the following Gregorian year. See [ISO 8601] clause 3.2.2 for details.
Actions taken:
October 21, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19650: week-of-year to day-of-year conversions ignore overlap (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In clause 12.5, the very first Necessity reads:   " Necessity:    Each week of year shares the Gregorian year of days scale with each Gregorian day of year."      According to 10.9 that means that each week of year corresponds to some time point sequence in Gregorian day of year.  This is not possible.  The week of year scale has 53 time points and any given Gregorian year has either 52 weeks (364 days) or 53 weeks (371 days).  So, in a year that has 53 weeks, there must be at least 5 days that have no counterpart.      Even in a 52-week year, the first and last weeks of the year may include days from the prior or following year.  The mapping to day of year can work, but not necessarily to days of the same year; one must consider the repeating aspect, and time point sequences that wrap around the end of the finite scale.  For example, week of year 1 can convert to day of year 364, 365, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, if the year begins on Wednesday.  If that is a valid 'time point sequence' on the year of days scale, then the rules given for the conversions in clause 12.5 do not support it.

Resolution: The Necessity is false. The problem is not overlap; the time point sequence can wrap around the end of the Gregorian day of year scale. The problem is that there is no single time point sequence on the Gregorian year of days that corresponds to the same time intervals as any given week of year (see 10.9). Both Necessities following Figure 12.4 are false. Some of the Examples are true, but only because they fall outside the related time sets. They have nothing to do with sharing the time scale. Similarly, the conversion to time sets on the year of days scale is misleading, because the wrap around the end of the Gregorian year of days causes the time points to refer to time periods in different Gregorian years. So, it would be necessary to add additional rules to explain the complex correspondences of the time sets to time intervals. The intent of this section cannot be preserved. The generic relationships between the year of weeks and the Gregorian year of days are defined by the year of weeks itself. There are no others. When the Gregorian year is given, the specific correspondences can be determined from the common Gregorian days scale, on which all of them are based.
Revised Text: DELETE clause 12.5 in its entirely.
Actions taken:
October 30, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19652: ad-hoc time tables reference the same situation kind for all the time table entries (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Experience with FIBO reveals two problems with the way schedules are defined in DTV:    1.      DTV schedules that are based on ad-hoc time tables reference the same situation kind for all the time table entries.  This is a problem because financial contracts that use ad-hoc time tables need to specify a unique situation kind for each entry.     For example a step-up bond pays different interest rates for different periods.  An ad-hoc time table can adequately represent the different periods, but each interest rate needs to be a distinct situation kind � which is not possible in the current design.

Resolution: The RTF agrees with the problems raised by these issues. Their resolution requires reworking both the DTV ?schedule? and ?time table? concepts, because: � The time table concept was created to support the schedule concept but it does not properly support the business concept of ad hoc schedules. As defined, there are two kinds of ?time table? (?regular? and ?ad hoc?) and one kind of ?schedule? that has a single general situation kind. � What is needed is two kinds of ?schedule?, one of which associates a single situation kind with a regular time table, and the other associates multiple situation kinds, each with its own time period. � Also, the existing ?regular time table? is defined as a set of time periods, when what is really needed is a starting time, a repeat count, and a repeat interval. To solve these problems, the RTF is forced to entirely replace the original ?schedule? design. The resolution of issue 19653 is merged into this solution because the two issues are intimately connected. This resolution adds the ?schedule stub? idea. A verb concept 'time interval1 starts after time interval1' is added to clause 8.2.4 to simplify the definition of 'schedule has earliest time'. A synonym is added for DTV ?situation kind? to match the designation of the equivalent concept in FIBO. A verb concept "set1 is set2 plus element" is added to a new Annex D.2.6 to support the definition of regular schedules.
Revised Text: see pages 148 - 160 of dtc/2015-03-12 for details
Actions taken:
November 2, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19653: �stubs� at the beginning and end of a regular time table needed (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

DTV schedules that are based on regular time tables need a way to model �stubs� at the beginning and end of a regular time table. These stubs are time periods that fall immediately before or after the time span of the regular time table. They capture any special handling that is required before the start or after the end of the regular portion of the schedule.    A typical financial example is a home mortgage where payments are due at the start of each calendar month.  If the mortgage is initiated in the middle of a calendar month, then there will be an initial payment, covering the period to the beginning of the next calendar month.  Similarly, there may be a final payment for the days after the last monthly payment.  As currently defined, a DTV schedule that uses a regular time table can model the regular monthly mortgage payments.  But DTV has no provision for the �stub� initial and final payments.         These two problems should be fixed in order to make DTV schedules usable for typical financial contracts.

Resolution: The RTF agrees to add the requested feature. The resolution is merged with that of issue 19652 since the latter replaces the affected clause. Disposition: Merged (see Issue 19652)
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 2, 2014: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Duplicate or Merged
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 19703: DTV Issue: OCL in clause 8.2.1 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The only OCL Constraint in DTV clause 8.2.1 reads:         context: _'time interval'     inv: _'time interval'._'time interval1 is proper part of time interval2'-->notEmpty()         It should be:         context: _'time interval'     inv: self._'time interval1 is proper part of time interval2'-->notEmpty()         (The first word after the �inv:� in the second line should be �self�, not �_�time_interval��.)

Resolution: The RTF agrees that the OCL is incorrect. Interpretation of the corrected OCL, however, seems to require any conforming M0 population of the UML/MOF model to be infinite, in that each ?time interval? object must have different ?proper part? time interval. The intent of the Axiom is that no time interval can be declared or assumed to be atomic, but in any given model population there will be time intervals that have no proper part in the population. The proposed OCL constraint would make such a population invalid.
Revised Text: In clause 8.2.1, in the entry for Axiom: There is no smallest time interval, REPLACE the OCL Constraint: OCL Constraint: context: _'time interval' inv: 'time interval'.'time interval1 is proper part of time interval2'-->notEmpty() WITH: OCL Constraint: context: _'time interval' inv: self._'time interval1 is proper part of time interval2':: _'time interval1'-->notEmpty() Note: This axiom requires the Open World Assumption: Things can exist without being explicitly included in a population
Actions taken:
January 7, 2015: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19714: DTV Issue: situation kind1 ends before situation kind2 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The definition of �situation kind1 ends before situation kind2� depends upon a verb concept �time interval1 ends before time interval2� that does not exist.  Probably it should use �time interval1 ends after time interval2� � and the �situation kind� version should use the same verb symbol for consistency and clarity.

Resolution: The RTF agreed to create the synonymous form for ?time interval1 ends before time interval2?. The situation kind verb and the related occurrence verb are parallel and both provide the corresponding synonymous form. A typographical error in the OCL is also corrected.
Revised Text: 1. In clause 8.2.4, in the entry for ?time interval1 ends after time interval2?, immediately after the item heading, INSERT: Synonymous Form: time interval2 ends before time interval1 2. In clause 16.6, in the entry for ?situation kind1 starts before situation kind2?, in the OCL definition, CHANGE ?precedes? TO ?starts before?. 3. In clause 16.6, in the entry for ?situation kind1 ends before situation kind2?, in the OCL definition, CHANGE ?precedes? TO ?ends before?.
Actions taken:
January 28, 2015: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
July 8, 2015: closed issue

Issue 19733: DTV 1.2 issue: incorrect character styling (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The following Synonymous Forms have incorrect character styling: although the roles appear to have �term� styles, in fact they are styled in some other way:         time point2 follows time point1    time point2 is next after time point1    time point starts time interval    time point ends time interval    time scale of calendar    time scale on calendar

Resolution: Repair the formatting of the cited entries Of the cited synonymous forms, all but one were apparently corrected in the formal text of version 1.2. The exception: "time point ends time interval" is repaired here. Note: this was corrected by in Ballot #1, but subsequently confused by inconsistencies in the v1.2 convenience documents.
Revised Text: In clause 8.6 in the entry for ?time interval ends on time point?, REPLACE the misformatted Synonymous form: Synonymous Form: time point ends time interval WITH: Synonymous Form: <term>time point</term> <verb>ends</verb> <term>time interval</term> where the markups refer to the SBVR term and verb character styles.
Actions taken:
March 16, 2015: received issue
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Issue 19734: DTV 1.2 issue: Ordinals (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: General Electric (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, Mark.H.Linehan(at)ge.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

These errors/typos occur in Annex D.2.6 �Ordinals�, of the dtc/2015-03-02 version of DTV 1.2:         �        The synonym for �eleventh member� is given as �third�; it should be �eleventh�.    �        All the ordinals are given as �General Concept: thing�; they should be �General Concept: member� for consistency with the names of these ordinals.  �First member� in Annex D.2. should also be �General Concept: member�.  (Comment: �member� is �General Concept: thing� in D.2.2.  Making the ordinals �General Concept: member�, clarifies that the ordinals only apply to things that are members of unique sequences, not to things in general.)

Resolution: Clarify the "Nth member" concepts in D.2.6 'member' is a 'role', it is not a 'general concept', so it cannot be the text of a General Concept paragraph. But the concept 'second member' does specialize the (role) concept 'member', which is the point of the issue. The text is changed to state this. The clarification concern is valid. The problem is that 'second member' itself has no Definition; and is separated in the text from the verb concept that implicitly defines it. The text is reorganized to place the role declaration immediately before the verb concept to supply a Definition.
Revised Text: see attached file: Issue13-75-ordinals.docx.
Actions taken:
March 15, 2015: received issue
March 28, 2015: closed issue; Resolved
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Issue 19742: DTV Issue: merger of separate concepts in 8.2.5 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Clause 8.2.5 says it is about "time interval sum" and it introduces the concept "time interval plus time interval equals time interval" along with supporting axioms.  But it apparently also introduces the concepts "time interval to time interval specifies time interval" and "time interval through time interval specifies time interval", which conceptually have nothing to do with "sum".  Further, the UML diagram in Figure 8.8 only shows the 'to time interval' form.           The merger of these two topics is caused by mis-characterizing "time interval through time interval specifies time interval" as a synonymous form for "time interval plus time interval equals time interval".  The two verb concepts are co-extensive, but they are different concepts.  The time interval that is specified by t1 through t2 is the same time interval as the sum of t1 and t2 as the sum is defined, but its definition is more like "t1 starts t3 and t2 finishes t3".  And 't1 to t2' is a relative of 't1 through t2', and its definition is not related to the sum at all.         The two concepts 't1 to t2 specifies t3' and 't1 through t2 specifies t3' should not be in 8.2.5 at all.  They should be in a separate section, as another way of specifying time intervals in terms of other time intervals � one that is actually used by business people, while the verbs in 8.2.5, 8.2.6 and 8.2.7 are not.

Resolution: Make 'time interval1 through time interval2 specifies time interval3' a separate concept The task force agrees that the ?sum? of two time intervals, and the time interval defined by ?time interval1 through time interval2? are distinct. The concepts are not even co-extensive, since the latter requires time interval1 to start no later than time interval2. At the same time, the concept ?time interval1 to time interval2? is unrelated to ?sum?. Clauses 8.2.5 (sum), 8.2.6 (complement), 8.2.7 (intersection) all define means of constructing a time interval from two others. ?time interval1 to/through time inteval2? is a fourth means, and should be a separate section (8.2.8).
Revised Text: see attached file Issue13-64.docx
Actions taken:
April 17, 2015: received issue
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Issue 19743: missing OCL (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Specification:  Date Time Vocabulary    Version:  v1.2         Title:  missing OCL         Summary:         The following DTV axioms have SBVR and CLIF formulations but no OCL formulation    1.            In clause 8.3.2, under �duration = duration plus duration�, in Axiom V.1    2.            In clause 8.3.2, under �duration = number times duration�, in Axiom V.8, first Corollary    3.            In clause 8.3.2, under �duration = number times duration�, in Axiom V.8, 2nd Corollary    4.            In clause 8.3.2, under �duration = number times duration�, in Axiom V.8, 3rd Corollary    5.            In clause 16.3, under �occurrence occurs for occurrence interval�    6.            In Annex D.2.3, under �sequence has index origin value�    7.            In Annex D.3.1, under �quantity has quantity kind�         Note:  This is a follow-on to Issue 19462

Resolution: Supply missing OCL Definitions and Axioms in Clauses 8, 16, Annex D The missing OCL text is added. Some entries are reworked to align the formulations. Note that some of the CLIF Axioms only state that the arguments of particular predicates have particular types, which is conveyed by the UML signatures of the operations for OCL.
Revised Text: see attached file Issue13-65-missingOCL.docx
Actions taken:
April 17, 2015: received issue
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue

Issue 19744: Use of 'week' vs. 'ISO week' in clause 10 (dtv-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, ebarkmeyer(at)thematix.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

DTV v1.2 changed the model of the 'week' concept to distinguish the 'ISO week' concept.  Several vestigial uses of 'week' in clause 10 should be corrected:    - In clause 10.4, in the entry for finite time scale subdivides time point kind', the Note refers to 'day of week', which should be 'ISO day of week'.    - In the introduction to clause 10.6, the example 'week 41 day 6' should be 'ISO week of year 41 ISO day of week 6'  (really?, this wording has no business use).    - In 10.6.3, under atomic time coordinate, the example "calendar week 53" should probably be "ISO week of year 53".    - In 10.6.3, under 'atomic time coordinate uses index', the references to 'week of year' and 'day of week' should use "ISO".    - In clause 10.7 (Time sets), the introduction twice refers to 'week of year' and 'weekday of year', which should use "ISO"    - Clause 10.10 makes several references to the "year of weeks" and "week-based year", which should use "ISO"         Also,  the concept 'ISO weekday of year' in clause 12 appears to mean 'day of ISO week-based year', but that characterization in so many words does not appear in the description of the time scale or the time point.  The time coordinate may have the (compound) week/day form described in clause 18, or the ungainly form noted above, but the time point only has an index, and the term 'weekday' (without the solidus) is misleading.

Resolution: Correct references to 'week' terms in Clause 10 Correct clause 10 as indicated. Revise introduction to clause 10.7. Add a Note to 'weekday of year' in Clause 12.
Revised Text: See attached file [1]DTV13-66.docx ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://issues.omg.org/browse/DTV13-66
Actions taken:
April 17, 2015: received issue
March 29, 2016: Resolved
July 12, 2016: closed issue