Issue 10113: Section: 7, 8, 9 (bmm-ftf) Source: Inferware (Mr. John Hall, john.hall@modelsys.com johnhallms@hotmail.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: • 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. • 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: 1 The enterprise does not have the right business rules. 2 The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized Resolution: The relevant part of SBVR is illustrated in the following diagram from the SBVR specification: The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. Correspondence between SBVR and BMM Directive BMM Directive and SBVR element of guidance have the same definition: Definition: means that guides, defines, or constrains some aspect of an enterprise. Proposal In BMM, define 'SBVR element of guidance' as a synonym for Directive Business Policy In BMM, Business Policy is a specialization of Directive business policy Definition: directive that is not actionable Note: 'Actionable' means that a person who understands a Directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that Directive. In contrast to Business Rules, Business Policies are not actionable in that sense. In SBVR, business policy is a specialization of element of governance, which is a specialization of element of guidance. business policy Definition: element of governance that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise Note: 'Directly enforceable' means that a person who knows about the element of governance could observe relevant business activity (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with the element of governance. element of governance Definition: element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it SBVR business policy can be defined as a specialization of BMM Directve (to align with BMM Business Policy) by the following changes to its definition: · Replace the term 'element of governance' with its definition · Replace the term 'element of guidance' with its BMM synonym 'directive' Also, the final phrase ("Whose purpose …") can be removed, because it is covered by the definition of element of governance This results in: business policy Definition: directive that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it that is not directly enforceable Question Should this definition replace the definition of business policy ("directive that is not actionable") that is in the BMM as adopted? Business Rule In BMM, Business Rule has two definitions, one of which is adopted from SBVR. business rule Definition: directive that is actionable Definition: SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction Question If the BMM definition of Business Policy ("directive that is not actionable") is changed, should the (non-adopted) BMM definition of Business Rule be changed to correspond? Also, BMM includes a fact type: tactic effects enforcement level of business rule Synonymous Form: business rule has enforcement level effected by tactic In SBVR, only operative business rules can be enforced, so only they have enforcement levels Question How should this constraint be represented in the BMM? Revised Text: No yet developed Revised Text: Actions taken: August 21, 2006: received issue Discussion: deferred End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:58:21 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: John Hall Company: Model Systems mailFrom: john.hall@modelsys.com Notification: Yes Specification: BMM FAS Section: 7, 8, 9 FormalNumber: dtc/06-08-02 Version: 1 RevisionDate: 08/07/2006 Page: 16, 31, 32, 51, 52 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6 Description In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: . 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. . 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: 1 The enterprise does not have the right business rules. 2 The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized. X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:33:57 -0500 To: bmm-ftf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 10113 -- BMM FTF issue At 09:43 AM 8/23/2006, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:58:21 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: John Hall Company: Model Systems mailFrom: john.hall@modelsys.com Notification: Yes Specification: BMM FAS Section: 7, 8, 9 FormalNumber: dtc/06-08-02 Version: 1 RevisionDate: 08/07/2006 Page: 16, 31, 32, 51, 52 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6 Description In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: . 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. . 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: 1 The enterprise does not have the right business rules. 2 The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized. In your point #2, you use the word "apply" several times. Any time you put a rule to use, you are 'applying' it. Both structural business rules and operative business rules are 'applied' in that sense. And obviously, you would always want to 'apply' any rule correctly (whether automated or not). It doesn't need to be 'enforceable' for that. I think you will want to be more specific that an operative business rule always has to do with behavior. The focus is on whether relevant behavior conforms to the rule. Any resolution to this issue will need to be worded more carefully in this regard. Some sharpening of the language (I have seen the draft resolution) will avoid needless problems here. Ron Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:22:49 -0500 To: John Hall , keri , BMM FTF From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: [BMM - Issue 10113] Ballot 4 - Tuesday 4-Sep-2007 - Issues for deferral At 10:47 AM 8/31/2007, John Hall wrote: Oops. Sorry. John, I am confused by this process. You've attached yet another resolution write-up to Issue 10113 with this ballot, yet you're recommending it be deferred. I find the new write-up quite difficult to follow, and it does not seem to address the concerns I've previously written on the matter. Are we supposed to be a discussion?? If the issue is being deferred, why is there a new write-up now ... or indeed any suggested resolution at all?? Anyway, the matter 10113 addresses is quite simple, really. * I believe everyone in the BRG thinks BMM's "directive" is SBVR's "element of guidance". * The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why previously, so I won't go into it again here. * The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related to guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR with BRGers directly involved ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not be. I thought we had an understanding about that. Let's not re-invent the wheel. Anyway, so they won't get lost, I've inserted some comments into your write-up (attached). Ron Thanks, Keri John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:34:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [BMM] Ballot 4 - Tuesday 4-Sep-2007 From: keri_ah@mac.com To: johnhallms@hotmail.com; bmm-ftf@omg.org John, Do the two 'For Deferral' issues also need the documents attached here, showing that resolution, for the vote? I located a copy of 'v4' of 10113, sent yesterday, but cannot spot a write-up for 10586. Thanks, Keri On 8/31/07 8:10 AM, 'John Hall' wrote: Hello all, Attached is a set of issues for ballot - 4 for resolution and 2 for deferral. Proposals for all have been circulated (without editing instructions) for some time, with some feedback received for all 4 that are up for resolution. I needed the UML names for the diagrams in order to complete the editing instructions Please vote by 3:00 pm EDT on Tuesday 4 September. PROPOSALS FOR RESOLUTION Issue 10093: Move pre-defined set of Influencers to anAnnex, generalize categorization of Influencers, and distinguish Influencers from their sources yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Issue 10387: Support Organization Unit acting as source of Influencer Note: this proposal is an add-on to the one for Issue 10093. If 10093 fails, so will thisone yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Issue 11280: Provide a many-to-many association between Assessments yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Issue 11281: Move SWOT to an annex and generalize categorization of Assessments yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] PROPOSALS FOR DEFERRAL 10113: Directive is Actionable - alignment with SBVR yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] 10586: Update placeholders for Organization Unit and Business Process to align with latest versions of OSM and BPDM yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Thanks, John Voting members are: 88solutions, Manfred Koethe Adaptive, Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions, Ron Ross Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin Deere & Company, Duane Clarkson EDS, Fred Cummins Inferware, Allan Kolber KnowGravity, Markus Schacher MEGA International, Antoine Lonjon Model Driven Solutions, Cory Casanave NIST, Ed Barkmeyer Neumont University, Tony Morgan Pegasystems, John Pellant Rule ML Initiative, Said Tabet TIBCO, Paul Vincent Unisys, David Bridgeland Xactium, Andy Evans BMM Issue 10113 Directive is Actionable V4 - RGR.doc Disposition: Defer OMG Issue No: 10113 Title: BMM: SBVR update of .Directive is Actionable. Source: John Hall Summary: In finalization, changes have been made to SBVR that affect Business Rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and Business Policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to maintain consistency with SBVR. Summary of relevant SBVR changes 1) The SBVR concept that corresponds to the BMM concept Directive is now called element of guidance, The SBVR concept element of guidance has a specialization called element of governance 2) In SBVR, the characteristic directive is actionable has been replaced by two characteristics: · element of guidance is practicable · element of governance is directly enforceable 3) In SBVR, business rule has two specializations, operative business rule and structural business rule. Only operative business rule is directly enforceable. Resolution: The relevant part of SBVR is illustrated in the following diagram from the SBVR specification: The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. Correspondence between SBVR and BMM Directive BMM Directive and SBVR element of guidance have the same definition: Definition: means that guides, defines, or constrains some aspect of an enterprise. Proposal In BMM, define .SBVR element of guidance. as a synonym for Directive There is no reason that this change should not be made immediately. Or, .Directive., which some people have criticized for over the years as being misleading or off-target, should simply be replaced. Easy fix. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I find the rest of this discussion hard to follow and off-target. Also, the scope of the changes suggested by this proposed resolution are by no means .minor.. But they could be . and should be. The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related to guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not be. The issue is simply this: The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why previously. To understand this issue fully, it is important to understand what .SBVR. does and does not mean by .directly enforceable., and how this idea relates to the BMM. All rules have to be .applied. (and indeed, .applied as intended.) to have any effect. The difference between operative (behavioral) business rules and structural (definitional) business rules is that the former can be broken by people (willfully or through ignorance), but the latter cannot. Consequently, the former are generally .enforced. (i.e., have some enforcement level and means of enforcement, automated or otherwise). The latter do not . and indeed *cannot*. Working through several examples will help illustrate. Examples: * .It is obligatory that a hard hat be worn in a construction site. is an operative (behavioral) business rule because a person can break it . i.e., not wear a hard hat where required. Enforcement is clearly relevant (e.g., a supervisor walking around with a big stick in his hand poking people on the head). * .It is necessary that a gold customer place at least 10 orders in each calendar month. is a structural (definitional) rule because it establishes meaning. Something fits as a concept or it doesn.t. Either a customer is a gold customer or it is not. Period . that.s just the way it is (i.e., the way we define it to be). Now the rule might be misapplied, misunderstood, misused, or mis-implemented, but it cannot be broken per se. No .enforcement. level or means of enforcement is necessary or relevant. Since the rule is about shaping the meaning of a concept . not the behavior of people . what would .enforcement. even mean?? * .A gold customer must be given a 10% discount on each purchase., on the other hand, is an operative business rule. This one can be broken (by people). Enforcement is again relevant (and incidentally, in this case probably automatable). The point is that rules do *not* have to be enforceable (in the SBVR sense) .to establish that the rules [are] being applied as they were intended to be.. You *always* have that problem. Again, what is the issue at hand? Fundamentally, the issue at hand is whether structural business rules can (a) *guide business processes*, and (b) *govern courses of action*. In the BRG.s BMM model, the answer is, and has always been, .yes.. In the Example above, the specific questions are whether the structural business rule .It is necessary that a gold customer place at least 10 orders in each calendar month. could (a) *guide business processes*, and (b) *govern courses of action*. Of course it could. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Business Policy In BMM, Business Policy is a specialization of Directive business policy Definition: directive that is not actionable Note: 'Actionable' means that a person who understands a Directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that Directive. In contrast to Business Rules, Business Policies are not actionable in that sense. In SBVR, business policy is a specialization of element of governance, which is a specialization of element of guidance. business policy Definition: element of governance that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise Note: .Directly enforceable' means that a person who knows about the element of governance could observe relevant business activity (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with the element of governance. element of governance Definition: element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it SBVR business policy can be defined as a specialization of BMM Directve (to align with BMM Business Policy) by the following changes to its definition: · Replace the term .element of governance. with its definition · Replace the term .element of guidance. with its BMM synonym .directive. Also, the final phrase (.Whose purpose ..) can be removed, because it is covered by the definition of element of governance This results in: business policy Definition: directive that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it that is not directly enforceable Question Should this definition replace the definition of business policy (.directive that is not actionable.) that is in the BMM as adopted? Business Rule In BMM, Business Rule has two definitions, one of which is adopted from SBVR. business rule Definition: directive that is actionable Definition: SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction Question If the BMM definition of Business Policy (.directive that is not actionable.) is changed, should the (non-adopted) BMM definition of Business Rule be changed to correspond? Also, BMM includes a fact type: tactic effects enforcement level of business rule Synonymous Form: business rule has enforcement level effected by tactic In SBVR, only operative business rules can be enforced, so only they have enforcement levels Question How should this constraint be represented in the BMM? Revised Text: No yet developed Disposition: Defer X-Originating-IP: [86.2.188.23] From: John Hall To: "Ronald G. Ross" , keri , BMM FTF Subject: RE: [BMM - Issue 10113] Ballot 4 - Tuesday 4-Sep-2007 - Issues for deferral Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 11:21:55 +0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2007 11:21:56.0140 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DFCBEC0:01C7EC8A] Ron, The updated proposal was intended to be an explanation of why I thought the issue should be deferred - the state of the resolution at the point of deferral. I have been advised that I should have made that explanation in a different document. Here it is ... You proposed that all that was needed to resolve Issue 10113 was to change the name .Directive. to .Element of Guidance.. I started out to write editing instructions so that I could put this to vote. Changing the name of Directive to .Element of Guidance. required two further changes: The BMM definition of Business Policy becomes "Element of Guidance that is not actionable" The BMM definition of Business Rule becomes "Element of Guidance that is actionable" (its second definition .SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction. is not affected). It's clear that these changes do not make BMM consistent with SBVR, where .actionable. is not used. In fact, this is the issue - to change .actionable. in BMM to something that is consistent with SBVR. With hindsight, I should have stopped there, reported that the proposal ignored the issue and proposed deferral. But I went on. We cannot change SBVR, so I saw two options for consistency: Copy some SBVR infrastructure into BMM: at least .element of governance. and the two different ways of specializing .business policy. and .business rule. from 'element of guidance' Derive the BMM definitions from the SBVR definitions I was confident that the BMM FTF would not want option 1, so I tried deriving the BMM definitions. This led to two options for Business Policy in BMM: "Business Policy: Directive [Element of Guidance] that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise." "Business Policy: Directive [Element of Guidance] that is not practicable." The first is based on the SBVR definition of .business policy.: .element of governance that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise.. We don.t have .element of governance. in BMM. We can deal with this by substituting the definition for the term in the BMM definition of Business Policy The SBVR definition of .element of governance. is: .element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it.. Substituting, the BMM definition of Business Policy becomes: .element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise.. That is consistent with SBVR, but cumbersome. The second definition is based on .business policy. in SBVR being a direct specialization of .element of guidance.. The other two specializations, .business rule. and .advice., are practicable. If the BMM definition of Business Policy were .Directive [Element of Guidance] that is not practicable., it would be consistent with what SBVR implies. But this definition has an unfortunate connotation; .not being practicable. is probably not how people want to describe their business policies. There is a similar requirement to align the BMM definition of Business Rule with the SBVR definitions. I thought that there was sufficient scope for discussion to justify proposing deferral. Doing so gives you the resolution you wanted for finalization, apart from the change of name of Directive. Regards, John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:22:49 -0500 To: johnhallms@hotmail.com; keri_ah@mac.com; bmm-ftf@omg.org From: rross@brsolutions.com Subject: Re: [BMM - Issue 10113] Ballot 4 - Tuesday 4-Sep-2007 - Issues for deferral At 10:47 AM 8/31/2007, John Hall wrote: Oops. Sorry. John, I am confused by this process. You've attached yet another resolution write-up to Issue 10113 with this ballot, yet you're recommending it be deferred. I find the new write-up quite difficult to follow, and it does not seem to address the concerns I've previously written on the matter. Are we supposed to be a discussion?? If the issue is being deferred, why is there a new write-up now ... or indeed any suggested resolution at all?? Anyway, the matter 10113 addresses is quite simple, really. * I believe everyone in the BRG thinks BMM's "directive" is SBVR's "element of guidance". * The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why previously, so I won't go into it again here. * The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related to guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR with BRGers directly involved ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not be. I thought we had an understanding about that. Let's not re-invent the wheel. Anyway, so they won't get lost, I've inserted some comments into your write-up (attached). Ron Thanks, Keri John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:34:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [BMM] Ballot 4 - Tuesday 4-Sep-2007 From: keri_ah@mac.com To: johnhallms@hotmail.com; bmm-ftf@omg.org John, Do the two 'For Deferral' issues also need the documents attached here, showing that resolution, for the vote? I located a copy of 'v4' of 10113, sent yesterday, but cannot spot a write-up for 10586. Thanks, Keri On 8/31/07 8:10 AM, 'John Hall' wrote: Hello all, Attached is a set of issues for ballot - 4 for resolution and 2 for deferral. Proposals for all have been circulated (without editing instructions) for some time, with some feedback received for all 4 that are up for resolution. I needed the UML names for the diagrams in order to complete the editing instructions Please vote by 3:00 pm EDT on Tuesday 4 September. PROPOSALS FOR RESOLUTION Issue 10093: Move pre-defined set of Influencers to anAnnex, generalize categorization of Influencers, and distinguish Influencers from their sources yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Issue 10387: Support Organization Unit acting as source of Influencer Note: this proposal is an add-on to the one for Issue 10093. If 10093 fails, so will thisone yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Issue 11280: Provide a many-to-many association between Assessments yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Issue 11281: Move SWOT to an annex and generalize categorization of Assessments yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] PROPOSALS FOR DEFERRAL 10113: Directive is Actionable - alignment with SBVR yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] 10586: Update placeholders for Organization Unit and Business Process to align with latest versions of OSM and BPDM yes [ ] no [ ] abstain [ ] Thanks, John Voting members are: 88solutions, Manfred Koethe Adaptive, Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions, Ron Ross Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin Deere & Company, Duane Clarkson EDS, Fred Cummins Inferware, Allan Kolber KnowGravity, Markus Schacher MEGA International, Antoine Lonjon Model Driven Solutions, Cory Casanave NIST, Ed Barkmeyer Neumont University, Tony Morgan Pegasystems, John Pellant Rule ML Initiative, Said Tabet TIBCO, Paul Vincent Unisys, David Bridgeland Xactium, Andy Evans X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:32:24 -0500 To: John Hall , BMM FTF From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: [BMM - REVISED BRS VOTE - **and Issue 10113**] Ballot 3 - EOB 30-Aug-07 At 06:02 PM 8/29/2007, John Hall wrote: Ron, www.omg.org/issues/issue10113.txt All, O.K., I think I see what's going on now. What we have here could only be described as a comedy of errors. John sent Ballot 3 out to everyone with the wrong file. That's what I reacted to in my revised vote on Ballot 3. Then John mistyped and sent me looking for an Issue that doesn't exist. (Do I have this right John?) Well, I've been off-line, installing 2 of my kids in universities this last 10 days or so ... so 'comedy of errors' is something I definitely get! BUT, there *is* a need for serious discussion ... about Issue 10113 -- not 10013 or even Ballot 3. So I will take this opportunity to *briefly* discuss 10113. My answer about what to do on Ballot 3 is at the end of this message. Ballot 3 *cannot* stand as is because it changes the BMM radically without license to do so. Members couldn't possibly know what they are voting for or against. I assume John will correct that, if not already. Anyway, following are major reasons why the FTF should *not* adopt John's draft resolution to 10113. 1. Fundamentally, the issue is about whether *structural* (definitional) rules can (a) *guide business processes*, and (b) *govern courses of action*. In the BRG.s BMM model, the answer is, and has always been, .yes.. (For those not familiar with the SBVR concepts of "definitional" vs. "behavioral" rules, this is a fundamental idea. If you have a minute, have a look at the brief examples I've inserted in the attached document. Also, John, for the life of me, I can't figure out if you've actually sent this document to the whole BMM FTF or only the BRG, and if so, which version. My apologies if I too have mis-stepped here.) 2. Business Rule Solutions (BRS) has actively used the BMM (or forerunners) for 11 years now, and has never found any reason to question the original BMM wisdom in this matter. 3. Although described as a minor matter of creating just two new role names for UML purposes, the implications for the BMM are actually *major*. As I understand the OMG.s RFC process, major changes are not supposed to be entertained by the FTF (or RTF). For sure, discussion of such fundamental questions should not be scheduled for the 11th hour. 4. There has been no discussion whatsoever of the proposed resolution, either in e-mail or in meetings. This resolution arrived unheralded (at least to some of us) just a few weeks ago. 5. If some tool or methodology wishes to follow a more restrictive approach (i.e., one limiting things in the BMM to operative business rules only), it would certainly be free to provide an option or feature to support that. (Obviously, I can't see people using it myself.) However, the more restrictive approach suggested by John's draft resolution would *not* allow for the more general approach (i.e., allowing any kind of business rule in the BMM). I believe from a purely pragmatic view, this is the wrong way to go. 6. I am currently reading Competing on Analytics by Tom Davenport and Jeanne Harris. I think you.d be hard-pressed to argue that having exactly the right/best meaning of concepts (e.g., .gold customer.) would never be crucial to any business.s strategic success (and therefore their business strategy). Of course the meaning of concepts (and therefore structural rules) can be crucial to strategic success and help shape business plans!! 7. I believe John's draft resolution is based on an errant interpretation of "enforcing" business rules vs. "applying" business rules correctly. Obviously, *any* business rule can be applied incorrectly (e.g., not implemented right). See attached for additional discussion. Note: I sent a message earlier pointing out what I perceived to be significant difficulties in John's write-up for the Issue. That was not discussion of the proposed resolution. In fact, I believe these difficulties more or less precluded meaningful discussion. 8. Definitional business rules do satisfy the real-world sense of "guide" and "govern". Consider the sample definitional business rule .It is necessary that a gold customer place at least 10 orders in each calendar month. . Could this rule (a) *guide business processes*, and (b) *govern courses of action*? Of course it could. Consider the MWUD definitions of .guide. and .govern.. * .Guide. (2a) ... .to regulate and manage : direct or supervise especially toward some desirable end, course, way, or development.. Can the structural business rule help .regulate and manage. some business process(es)? . . direct [some business process(s)] toward some desirable end.? Of course it can. That.s what business rules *do*! * .Govern. (3a) ... .to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of.. Can the structural business rule help .control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of. some course(s) of action? Of course it can. Again, that.s what business rules *do*! The proposed resolution also does not address the question of what should be done about the BMM's "Directive", which is not in SBVR. A number of problems have been cited for "Directive". Assuming this question does not have its own issue, I believe "Directive" should be replaced by "Element of Guidance". Indeed, this is the only item I believe needed to close 10113. Ron P.S. Assuming you (John) send the correct file out with Ballot 3 (one that does not touch on the above issues), and takes into account any other corrections received (I think I have already seen some), yes, I would be willing to change my vote on that Ballot, and withdraw my suggestion that it be withdrawn. John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:37:55 -0500 To: johnhallms@hotmail.com; bmm-ftf@omg.org From: rross@brsolutions.com Subject: RE: [BMM - REVISED BRS VOTE] Ballot 3 - EOB 30-Aug-07 At 05:07 PM 8/29/2007, John Hall wrote: Ron, Sorry, this is a versioning error. I am juggling three versions of the BMM specification and the UML/MOF model to make the right text and diagram changes in editing instructions. You're right that: "OperativeBusinessRule" should be "GuidingBusinessRule" "ElementOfGovernance" should be "GoverningDirective" I included in the proposed solution for Issue 11282 a proposed solution for Issue 10013 that hasn't been voted on yet. John, I don't really find an Issue "10013". Ron If I make the two changes, are you willing to: Accept the changes as simply corrections of editing instructions? Re-revise your vote (maybe even to 'yes' now that you've had time to look at the proposal in detail)? Regards, John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:45:11 -0500 To: johnhallms@hotmail.com; bmm-ftf@omg.org From: rross@brsolutions.com Subject: Re: [BMM - REVISED BRS VOTE] Ballot 3 - EOB 30-Aug-07 John, There are at least 2 **serious errors** in the Resolution for 11282 that I just discovered. I ask that this Ballot be **withdrawn** immediately. Notwithstanding, BRS changes its vote from abstain to **NO**. Specifically, the Resolution indicates the following: (1) business rule guides business process ... OperativeBusinessRule ... GuidedBusinessProcess To follow the pattern you have set up in the table, the entry should read: business rule guides business process ... **Guiding**BusinessRule ... GuidedBusinessProcess (2) directive governs course of action ... ElementOfGovernance ... GovernedCourseOfAction To follow the pattern you have set up in the table, the entry should read: directive governs course of action ... **GoverningDirective** ... GovernedCourseOfAction As it stands, the Resolution **completely changes** the current meaning of these associations. It also changes the meanings that the Business Rules Group (BRG) always intended. It is against the position of Business Rule Solutions (BRS) and its practice of over 11 years with the BMM model. The resolution states its purpose and scope explicitly: "For other associations, construct role names based on the class name and the verb phrase." You have done far more than that in these 2 instances. Specifically, you have excluded the possibility that structural/definitional rules can "guide" business processes (etc.) or "govern" CoursesofAction. I object in the strongest terms. These changes has never been discussed or agreed. If anything, they falls more properly under Issue 10113 (or some other) where appropriate and open attention can be given to the matter. In any event, such major changes run counter the spirit of the OMG's RFC process as I understand it. Ron P.S. If I have missed anything in my analysis, please explain. I have only had a short time to review this Ballot, which as far as I know, was not scheduled beforehand. In any event, I am quite sure these changes have never been agreed in any open forum. Business Rule Solutions, LLC votes "abstain" on these 2 issues. The intent of the "abstain" is to defer to others better qualified to make this call. Ron At 12:16 PM 8/29/2007, John Hall wrote: Hello all, These two issues (two parts of the same requirement) have been under discussion for a long time, and several drafts have been circulated. The only comments I had in response to yesterday.s request were from Pete Rivettand Andy Evans, and I have incorporated them. Could you, please, vote by EOB 30 August 2007 on: Issue 10090: Base UML association names on fact type representations in the Concepts Catalog Yes [ ] No[ ] Abstain [ ] Issue 11282: Base UML role names on terms and verbs used in fact type representations in the Concepts Catalog Yes [ ] No[ ] Abstain [ ] Voting members are: 88solutions, Manfred Koethe Adaptive, Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions, Ron Ross Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin Deere & Company, Duane Clarkson EDS, Fred Cummins Fair, Isaac, James Taylor Inferware, Allan Kolber KnowGravity, Markus Schacher MEGA International, Antoine Lonjon Model Driven Solutions, Cory Casanave NIST , Ed Barkmeyer Neumont University, Tony Morgan No Magic, Bobbin Teegarden Pegasystems, John Pellant Rule ML Initiative, Said Tabet TIBCO, Paul Vincent Unisys, David Bridgeland Thanks, John BMM Issue 10113 Directive is Actionable V3 - RGR.doc Disposition: Open OMG Issue No: 10113 Title: BMM: SBVR update of .Directive is Actionable. Source: John Hall Summary: In finalization, changes have been made to SBVR that affect Business Rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and Business Policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to maintain consistency with SBVR. Keeping changes to .minor. to maintain consistency is indeed important. Unfortunately, the scope of the changes suggested by this proposed resolution are by no means .minor.. Summary of relevant SBVR changes 1) The SBVR concept that corresponds to the BMM concept Directive is now called element of guidance, The SBVR concept element of guidance has a specialization called element of governance 2) In SBVR, the verb concept (unary fact type) directive is actionable has been replaced by two verb concepts: · element of guidance is practicable · element of governance is directly enforceable To understand this issue fully, it is extremely important to understand what .SBVR. does and does not mean by .directly enforceable., and how this idea relates to the BMM. All rules have to be .applied. (and indeed, .applied as intended.) to have any effect. The difference between operative (behavioral) business rules and structural (definitional) business rules is that the former can be broken by people (willfully or through ignorance), but the latter cannot. Consequently, the former are generally .enforced. (i.e., have some enforcement level and means of enforcement, automated or otherwise). The latter do not . and indeed *cannot*. Working through several examples will help illustrate. Examples: * .It is obligatory that a hard hat be worn in a construction site. is an operative (behavioral) business rule because a person can break it . i.e., not wear a hard hat where required. Enforcement is clearly relevant (e.g., a supervisor walking around with a big stick in his hand poking people on the head). * .It is necessary that a gold customer place at least 10 orders in each calendar month. is a structural (definitional) rule because it establishes meaning. Something fits as a concept or it doesn.t. Either a customer is a gold customer or it is not. Period . that.s just the way it is (i.e., the way we define it to be). Now the rule might be misapplied, misunderstood, misused, or mis-implemented, but it cannot be broken per se. No .enforcement. level or means of enforcement is necessary or relevant. Since the rule is about shaping the meaning of a concept . not the behavior of people . what would .enforcement. even mean?? * .A gold customer must be given a 10% discount on each purchase., on the other hand, is an operative business rule. This one can be broken (by people). Enforcement is again relevant (and incidentally, in this case probably automatable). The point is that rules do *not* have to be enforceable (in the SBVR sense) .to establish that the rules [are] being applied as they were intended to be.. You *always* have that problem. About the Current Issue . What is the issue at hand? Fundamentally, the issue at hand is whether structural business rules can (a) *guide business processes*, and (b) *govern courses of action*. In the BRG.s BMM model, the answer is, and has always been, .yes.. In the Example above, the specific questions are whether the structural business rule .It is necessary that a gold customer place at least 10 orders in each calendar month. could (a) *guide business processes*, and (b) *govern courses of action*. Of course it could. Consider the real-world definitions of .guide. and .govern.. * .Guide. . The relevant definition from MWUD (2a) is .to regulate and manage : direct or supervise especially toward some desirable end, course, way, or development.. Can the structural business rule help .regulate and manage. some business process(es)? . . direct [some business process(s)] toward some desirable end.? Of course it can. That.s what business rules in general *do*! * .Govern. . The relevant definition from MWUD (3a) is .to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of.. Can the structural business rule help .control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of. some course(s) of action? Of course it can. Again, that.s what business rules in general *do*! Specific comments embedded below. Resolution: The relevant part of SBVR is illustrated in the following diagram from the SBVR specification: The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. The SBVR concept corresponding to Directive in the BMM is element of guidance, the generalization of business policy and business rule. This is correct. And that.s what it should be. However, it is element of governance (a specialization of element of guidance, and the generalization of business policy and operative business rule) that governs Course of Action and governs and guides Business Process. This is fundamentally wrong. In SBVR, .element of governance. excludes structural (definitional) business rules. But as discussed earlier, structural business rules and *do* govern Courses of Action, and guide Business Processes. That.s the way it has always been in the BRG.s BMM, and it remains correct. We can model this in BMM using roles: The following model is wrong in at least 2 respects. 1. The role name .ElementOfGovernance. is not needed (since *any* Directive can .govern Courses of Action.). (Or, it could be .GoverningDirective..) 2. The role name .OperativeBusinessRule. is not needed (again, since *any* BusinessRule can .guide Business Processes.). (Or it could be .GuidingBusinessRule.. In the concepts catalog, SBVR.s element of guidance can be defined as a synonym for BMM.s Directive. Then, from the SBVR perspective: · Only an element of guidance that is an element of governance (a specialization) can play a BMM Directive.s role of ElementOfGovernance. This is wrong, as above. · Only a business rule that is an operative business rule (a specialization) can play a BMM Business Rule.s role of OperativeBusinessRule. This is wrong, as above. But that is not relevant (or visible) to the BMM. This proposal would mean no change to the MOF model, simply the addition of the role names (which, anyway, we need to have for MOF). These are by *no* means simple changes. As discussed, they change the BMM model dramatically, in highly undesirable ways. Shaping concepts *can* be central to business strategy! Revised Text: Waiting for feedback The only issue that needs to be resolved to close 10113 is what should be done with .Directive.. For consistency with SBVR, I believe it should be replaced by Element of Guidance. SBVR does not include .Directive. and I believe there are a number of problems with it. Disposition: Open User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:43:16 -0700 Subject: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) From: keri To: John Hall , "Ronald G. Ross" , Ed Barkmeyer , BMM FTF Thread-Topic: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) Thread-Index: Acfs6V3inJNWhljcEdyP/gARJM+CggAEOHue John, (and Ron, and Ed, and All), There appears to be a call for getting 10113 Resolved (rather than Deferred) this round, if at all possible. (See input from Ron and Ed, below.) I have attached a simplified Resolution alternative (v5) . one with a different factoring from earlier versions, which makes the common points fewer and lessens the potential for impact to BMM if, in the future, SBVR's detail changes in the area of 'business rule'. I understand that this proposal could not be voted in Ballot 4 -- but perhaps, if we have some quick discussion to agree/complete this approach, it could appear on Ballot 5. Please consider resolving this Issue and, during this RTF, putting into BMM some basic alignment with SBVR. Regards, Keri > On 8/31/07 6:22 PM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: >> I am confused by this process. You've attached yet another resolution >> write-up to Issue 10113 with this ballot, yet you're recommending it be >> deferred. I find the new write-up quite difficult to follow, and it does not >> seem to address the concerns I've previously written on the matter. Are we >> supposed to be a discussion?? If the issue is being deferred, why is there a >> new write-up now ... or indeed any suggested resolution at all?? >> >> Anyway, the matter 10113 addresses is quite simple, really. >> >> * I believe everyone in the BRG thinks BMM's "directive" is SBVR's "element >> of >> guidance". >> >> * The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business >> processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why >> previously, so I won't go into it again here. >> >> * The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related >> to >> guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR with >> BRGers directly involved ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM >> and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not >> be. I thought we had an understanding about that. Let's not re-invent the >> wheel. ... > At 01:11 PM 8/31/2007, Ed wrote: >>> PROPOSALS FOR DEFERRAL >>> >>> 10113: Directive is Actionable - alignment with SBVR >>> >>> yes [ x ]* no [ ] abstain [ ] >> *I would have wished for a resolution to this, ... BMM Issue 10113 Directive is Actionable V5.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 10113 Title: BMM: SBVR update of .Directive is Actionable. Source: John Hall Summary: In finalization, changes have been made to SBVR that affect Business Rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and Business Policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to maintain consistency with SBVR. Summary of relevant SBVR changes This resolution proposes a factoring that minimizes the number of BMM elements to be harmonized with SBVR, leaving much of the "business rule" detail on the SBVR side of the factoring divide. This not only simplifies the harmonization between the two Standards, it will serve to insulate BMM from changes, should SBVR's 'business rule' detail evolve in the future. 1) The SBVR concept that corresponds to the BMM concept Directive is now called element of guidance. (In SBVR, there is a further breakdown of 'element of guidance' -- as 'element of governance' -- but that detail is left on the SBVR side and is not mirrored in BMM.) 2) In SBVR, the characteristic directive is actionable has been replaced by two characteristics, the first of which is relevant to BMM: · element of guidance is practicable (The second SBVR characteristic (element of governance is directly enforceable) is detail left on the SBVR side and not mirrored in BMM.) 3) In SBVR, business rule has two specializations, operative business rule and structural business rule. This detail is not reflected in BMM -- just as is done with other detail that is omitted from BMM and left for SBVR to specify (e.g., the SBVR distinction between meaning and representation, the SBVR distinction between business rule and advice, etc.) 4) BMM includes a fact type: tactic effects enforcement level of business rule Synonymous Form: business rule has enforcement level effected by tactic In SBVR, only operative business rules can be enforced. However, since the operative/structural business rule distinction is not carried forward into BMM, this BMM fact type can be left as-is. There is no constraint in BMM that every business rule have some enforcement level, so no change is required in BMM. Resolution: The relevant part of SBVR is illustrated in the following diagram (Fig. 12.1) from the SBVR specification, with the common elements highlighted (in yellow): The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. Correspondence between SBVR and BMM Directive BMM Directive and SBVR element of guidance have the same definition: Definition: means that guides, defines, or constrains some aspect of an enterprise. Proposal In BMM, define .SBVR element of guidance. as a synonym for Directive Business Policy In BMM, Business Policy is a specialization of Directive. In SBVR, business policy is a specialization of element of guidance (the proposed BMM synonym for Directive). The characteristic 'is actionable' In BMM, Business Policy is distinguished from Business Rule -- as categories of Directive (element of guidance) -- based on whether or not the Directive (element of guidance) is "actionable" or not. In SBVR, the original concept of "actionable" was given an improved wording; the comparable SBVR characteristic is now worded as 'is practicable'. In SBVR terms, a business policy is an element of guidance that is not practicable; a business rule is an element of guidance that is practicable. In BMM terms, the change would be from: business policy Definition: directive that is not actionable Note: 'Actionable' means that a person who understands a Directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that Directive. In contrast to Business Rules, Business Policies are not actionable in that sense. to: business policy Definition: directive that is not practicable Note: 'Practicable' means that the Directive is sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the Directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood. In contrast to Business Rules, Business Policies are not practicable in that sense. Some have objected to the "not practicable" wording as being difficult for a businessperson to digest. If that is so, then the definition text, given in SBVR for the characteristic "is practicable", could be substituted (and the Note then dropped), as follows: business policy Definition: directive that is not sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the Directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood Question Should the above definition replace the definition of business policy (.directive that is not actionable.) that is in the BMM as adopted? Business Rule In BMM, Business Rule has two definitions, one of which is adopted from SBVR. business rule Definition: directive that is actionable Definition: SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction If a change parallel to that proposed for Business Policy were made to BMM Business Rule, it would appear as (simple form): business rule Definition: directive that is practicable Definition: SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction or (expanded form): business rule Definition: directive that is sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the Directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood Definition: SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction Question If the BMM definition of Business Policy (.directive that is not actionable.) is changed, should the (non-adopted) BMM definition of Business Rule be changed to correspond? Revised Text: Not yet developed Disposition: Resolved DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Importance; b=vuU+M79iuQ8om+4oihDTGvJZESrLCWW1NMHgYWBRgpgCCCRc6yMEMPvVwEKKOBxlkYAyLIYfWNbQbh56OvGWWEPkxfsfS7LdlBvbECzlHt1S3k6lrDRHFZDKri1hcohOKRHsiNhul/i/CzfxryeTlAXH/bq+oJQ1uupT6XLkt3E= ; X-YMail-OSG: l0gJhhoVM1kvU.yyCI8iibRdonK6RUoYACbsrzMANPsI3f1n Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'keri'" , "'John Hall'" , "'Ronald G. Ross'" , "'Ed Barkmeyer'" , "'BMM FTF'" Subject: RE: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:48:55 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acfs6V3inJNWhljcEdyP/gARJM+CggAEOHueAAysR0A= Keri, This version 5 proposal is fundamentally flawed because when it says: The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. it omits the most important delimiting characteristic of .business policy. which is .is directly enforceable.; in the words of the proposal: (The second SBVR characteristic (element of governance is directly enforceable) is detail left on the SBVR side and not mirrored in BMM.) .Is directly enforceable. is to business people the critical distinction between .business policy. and .business rule.. Furthermore, structural rules do not themselves govern business actions any more than definitions do. In SBVR structural rules are another way of saying a part of a definition. Of course, structural rules govern information processing actions. Unless SBVR is being used for the vocabulary of an information processing system (which is explicitly not its stated purpose) structural rules do not govern actions. BMM is not about information processing. This proposal is totally unacceptable. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 02 September 2007 01:43 To: John Hall; Ronald G. Ross; Ed Barkmeyer; BMM FTF Subject: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) John, (and Ron, and Ed, and All), There appears to be a call for getting 10113 Resolved (rather than Deferred) this round, if at all possible. (See input from Ron and Ed, below.) I have attached a simplified Resolution alternative (v5) . one with a different factoring from earlier versions, which makes the common points fewer and lessens the potential for impact to BMM if, in the future, SBVR's detail changes in the area of 'business rule'. I understand that this proposal could not be voted in Ballot 4 -- but perhaps, if we have some quick discussion to agree/complete this approach, it could appear on Ballot 5. Please consider resolving this Issue and, during this RTF, putting into BMM some basic alignment with SBVR. Regards, Keri > On 8/31/07 6:22 PM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: >> I am confused by this process. You've attached yet another resolution >> write-up to Issue 10113 with this ballot, yet you're recommending it be >> deferred. I find the new write-up quite difficult to follow, and it does not >> seem to address the concerns I've previously written on the matter. Are we >> supposed to be a discussion?? If the issue is being deferred, why is there a >> new write-up now ... or indeed any suggested resolution at all?? >> >> Anyway, the matter 10113 addresses is quite simple, really. >> >> * I believe everyone in the BRG thinks BMM's "directive" is SBVR's "element >> of >> guidance". >> >> * The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business >> processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why >> previously, so I won't go into it again here. >> >> * The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related >> to >> guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR with >> BRGers directly involved ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM >> and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not >> be. I thought we had an understanding about that. Let's not re-invent the >> wheel. ... > At 01:11 PM 8/31/2007, Ed wrote: >>> PROPOSALS FOR DEFERRAL >>> >>> 10113: Directive is Actionable - alignment with SBVR >>> >>> yes [ x ]* no [ ] abstain [ ] >> *I would have wished for a resolution to this, ... User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:52:18 -0700 Subject: Re: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) From: keri To: "Donald R. Chapin" , John Hall , "Ronald G. Ross" , Ed Barkmeyer , "'BMM FTF'" Thread-Topic: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) Thread-Index: Acfs6V3inJNWhljcEdyP/gARJM+CggAEOHueAAysR0AAAk+Vfw== Hi, Donald, This proposal is offered to provide, as the problem statement outlines, that "minor update of BMM [that] is needed to maintain consistency with SBVR". As the title of this Issue indicates, these modest changes are only being put forth to make modest changes in the area of "is actionable." Current BMM distinguishes Directives as either business policies and business rules based on whether the directive is 'actionable' or not. According to the proposed solution, that same basic kind of distinction is being made . all Directives (elements of guidance) have the characteristic of being practicable (or not). Is a Directive practicable? If yes, it is a Business Rule; if no it is a Business Policy. It is not necessary to look further at any characteristics to make that call. >From day-one, Business Rule in BMM has always included both operative business rules and structural business rules (in SBVR terms) but has omitted the details of that finer specialization. For those who want that detail, they can look to SBVR. For those who elect to omit that detail, they can use BMM as they always have. Cheers, Keri On 9/1/07 11:48 PM, "Donald Chapin" wrote: Keri, This version 5 proposal is fundamentally flawed because when it says: The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. it omits the most important delimiting characteristic of .business policy. which is .is directly enforceable.; in the words of the proposal: (The second SBVR characteristic (element of governance is directly enforceable) is detail left on the SBVR side and not mirrored in BMM.) .Is directly enforceable. is to business people the critical distinction between .business policy. and .business rule.. Furthermore, structural rules do not themselves govern business actions any more than definitions do. In SBVR structural rules are another way of saying a part of a definition. Of course, structural rules govern information processing actions. Unless SBVR is being used for the vocabulary of an information processing system (which is explicitly not its stated purpose) structural rules do not govern actions. BMM is not about information processing. This proposal is totally unacceptable. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 02 September 2007 01:43 To: John Hall; Ronald G. Ross; Ed Barkmeyer; BMM FTF Subject: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) John, (and Ron, and Ed, and All), There appears to be a call for getting 10113 Resolved (rather than Deferred) this round, if at all possible. (See input from Ron and Ed, below.) I have attached a simplified Resolution alternative (v5) . one with a different factoring from earlier versions, which makes the common points fewer and lessens the potential for impact to BMM if, in the future, SBVR's detail changes in the area of 'business rule'. I understand that this proposal could not be voted in Ballot 4 -- but perhaps, if we have some quick discussion to agree/complete this approach, it could appear on Ballot 5. Please consider resolving this Issue and, during this RTF, putting into BMM some basic alignment with SBVR. Regards, Keri > On 8/31/07 6:22 PM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: >> I am confused by this process. You've attached yet another resolution >> write-up to Issue 10113 with this ballot, yet you're recommending it be >> deferred. I find the new write-up quite difficult to follow, and it does not >> seem to address the concerns I've previously written on the matter. Are we >> supposed to be a discussion?? If the issue is being deferred, why is there a >> new write-up now ... or indeed any suggested resolution at all?? >> >> Anyway, the matter 10113 addresses is quite simple, really. >> >> * I believe everyone in the BRG thinks BMM's "directive" is SBVR's "element >> of >> guidance". >> >> * The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business >> processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why >> previously, so I won't go into it again here. >> >> * The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related >> to >> guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR with >> BRGers directly involved ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM >> and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not >> be. I thought we had an understanding about that. Let's not re-invent the >> wheel. ... > At 01:11 PM 8/31/2007, Ed wrote: >>> PROPOSALS FOR DEFERRAL >>> >>> 10113: Directive is Actionable - alignment with SBVR >>> >>> yes [ x ]* no [ ] abstain [ ] >> *I would have wished for a resolution to this, ... X-Originating-IP: [86.2.188.23] From: John Hall To: keri , "Donald R. Chapin" , "Ronald G. Ross" , Ed Barkmeyer , "'BMM FTF'" Subject: RE: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:56:32 +0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Sep 2007 11:56:32.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DF51200:01C7ED58] Keri and Donald, If there is a majority vote on ballot 4 that Issue 10113 be deferred, then it has to be deferred. If there is a majority vote against deferral of Issue 10113, then we shall have to find a resolution for it. I want to have the FTF report filed by the OMG.s end of business on Tuesday, and the specification and XMI by start of business on Wednesday. So, if there is a majority vote against deferral, we shall need a very quick vote, which would require a simple solution. Keri.s Version 5 proposal could be the basis of it. The change I think is needed is that Directive in BMM is not the same as .element of guidance. in SBVR. This was highlighted for me by Keri.s highlighting of the diagram. SBVR.s .element of guidance. used to be .directive. (that.s why the text definition is the same - it was adopted from BMM). But it was changed in SBVR. The reason for changing its name to .element of guidance. was that the SBVR team added some non-directive concepts to it. I think that we just need to explain the difference. My proposal for BMM would be to make the following changes in the Concepts Catalog (Clause 9). No changes would be needed to the UML model. Business Policy 1) [as Keri proposes] Change the BMM definition to .directive that is not sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood. 2) Add a note: .Business Policy in BMM is the same concept as .business policy. in SBVR. [This is needed because the text of the definition in SBVR is different.] Business Rule 1) [as Keri proposes] Change the BMM definition to .directive that is sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood. 2) Add a note: .Business Rule in BMM is the same concept as .business rule. in SBVR. [This is needed because the text of the definition in SBVR is different.] Directive Add a note: .Directive in BMM corresponds to .element of guidance. in SBVR, but .element of guidance. also includes .business advice of permission or possibility. and .element of governance.. At some future time, the OMG will develop a mapping between BMM and SBVR, which will remove the need for the three notes. So, if the majority vote on ballot 4 is for against deferral, then the above is the proposal on which I would like to ask ask for a quick vote. And if the majority vote is for deferral, it is the proposal I would raise for RTF. Donald, I hope to persuade you that Keri.s proposed definitions (although a bit longer than .is actionable / is not actionable.) would enable a business person to distinguish a business policy from a business rule. If you think the definitions need further refinement, would you be willing to deal with that in RTF? Regards, John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:18 -0700 Subject: Re: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) From: keri_ah@mac.com To: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com; johnhallms@hotmail.com; rross@brsolutions.com; edbark@nist.gov; bmm-ftf@omg.org Hi, Donald, This proposal is offered to provide, as the problem statement outlines, that "minor update of BMM [that] is needed to maintain consistency with SBVR". As the title of this Issue indicates, these modest changes are only being put forth to make modest changes in the area of "is actionable." Current BMM distinguishes Directives as either business policies and business rules based on whether the directive is 'actionable' or not. According to the proposed solution, that same basic kind of distinction is being made . all Directives (elements of guidance) have the characteristic of being practicable (or not). Is a Directive practicable? If yes, it is a Business Rule; if no it is a Business Policy. It is not necessary to look further at any characteristics to make that call. >From day-one, Business Rule in BMM has always included both operative business rules and structural business rules (in SBVR terms) but has omitted the details of that finer specialization. For those who want that detail, they can look to SBVR. For those who elect to omit that detail, they can use BMM as they always have. Cheers, Keri On 9/1/07 11:48 PM, "Donald Chapin" wrote: Keri, This version 5 proposal is fundamentally flawed because when it says: The part of this SBVR fragment that is relevant to BMM is illustrated below. it omits the most important delimiting characteristic of .business policy. which is .is directly enforceable.; in the words of the proposal: (The second SBVR characteristic (element of governance is directly enforceable) is detail left on the SBVR side and not mirrored in BMM.) .Is directly enforceable. is to business people the critical distinction between .business policy. and .business rule.. Furthermore, structural rules do not themselves govern business actions any more than definitions do. In SBVR structural rules are another way of saying a part of a definition. Of course, structural rules govern information processing actions. Unless SBVR is being used for the vocabulary of an information processing system (which is explicitly not its stated purpose) structural rules do not govern actions. BMM is not about information processing. This proposal is totally unacceptable. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 02 September 2007 01:43 To: John Hall; Ronald G. Ross; Ed Barkmeyer; BMM FTF Subject: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) John, (and Ron, and Ed, and All), There appears to be a call for getting 10113 Resolved (rather than Deferred) this round, if at all possible. (See input from Ron and Ed, below.) I have attached a simplified Resolution alternative (v5) . one with a different factoring from earlier versions, which makes the common points fewer and lessens the potential for impact to BMM if, in the future, SBVR's detail changes in the area of 'business rule'. I understand that this proposal could not be voted in Ballot 4 -- but perhaps, if we have some quick discussion to agree/complete this approach, it could appear on Ballot 5. Please consider resolving this Issue and, during this RTF, putting into BMM some basic alignment with SBVR. Regards, Keri > On 8/31/07 6:22 PM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: >> I am confused by this process. You've attached yet another resolution >> write-up to Issue 10113 with this ballot, yet you're recommending it be >> deferred. I find the new write-up quite difficult to follow, and it does not >> seem to address the concerns I've previously written on the matter. Are we >> supposed to be a discussion?? If the issue is being deferred, why is there a >> new write-up now ... or indeed any suggested resolution at all?? >> >> Anyway, the matter 10113 addresses is quite simple, really. >> >> * I believe everyone in the BRG thinks BMM's "directive" is SBVR's "element >> of >> guidance". >> >> * The BMM needs to allow structural (definitional) rules to "guide" business >> processes and "govern" courses of action. I've written up the reasons why >> previously, so I won't go into it again here. >> >> * The BMM doesn't need to work out its own definitions for anything related >> to >> guidance and business rules. We spent many, many months on that in SBVR with >> BRGers directly involved ... that's solid work. There's no need for the BMM >> and SBVR to be out of sync in this area, and many reasons why they should not >> be. I thought we had an understanding about that. Let's not re-invent the >> wheel. ... > At 01:11 PM 8/31/2007, Ed wrote: >>> PROPOSALS FOR DEFERRAL >>> >>> 10113: Directive is Actionable - alignment with SBVR >>> >>> yes [ x ]* no [ ] abstain [ ] >> *I would have wished for a resolution to this, ... User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:05:13 -0700 Subject: Re: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) From: keri To: John Hall , "Ronald G. Ross" , Ed Barkmeyer , "'BMM FTF'" Thread-Topic: [BMM] Issue 10113 - Alternative Proposed Resolution (v5) Thread-Index: AcftYeYEJLki3llVEdy4ZQARJM+Cgg== John, Thanks for this. See below. ~ Keri On 9/2/07 4:56 AM, "John Hall" wrote: If there is a majority vote on ballot 4 that Issue 10113 be deferred, then it has to be deferred. If there is a majority vote against deferral of Issue 10113, then we shall have to find a resolution for it. On the basis of what you propose here, I support a vote against Deferral of Issue 10113 (i.e., a 'no' vote on 10113 in Ballot 4) . and I am in favor of applying John's proposal (below)... ... My proposal for BMM would be to make the following changes in the Concepts Catalog (Clause 9). No changes would be needed to the UML model. Business Policy 1) [as Keri proposes] Change the BMM definition to .directive that is not sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood. 2) Add a note: .Business Policy in BMM is the same concept as .business policy. in SBVR. [This is needed because the text of the definition in SBVR is different.] Business Rule 1) [as Keri proposes] Change the BMM definition to .directive that is sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the directive can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood. 2) Add a note: .Business Rule in BMM is the same concept as .business rule. in SBVR. [This is needed because the text of the definition in SBVR is different.] Directive Add a note: .Directive in BMM corresponds to .element of guidance. in SBVR, but .element of guidance. also includes .business advice of permission or possibility. and .element of governance.. ...as content for the follow-on quick-vote Resolution. X-Originating-IP: [86.2.188.23] From: John Hall To: BMM FTF Subject: [BMM] Issue 10113 Directive is Actionable Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:24:28 +0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Aug 2007 19:24:29.0243 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA6CA8B0:01C7E35F] Hello all, One of the documents that didn't make it to everyone last week Regards, John BMM Issue 10113 Directive is Actionable.doc Disposition: Open OMG Issue No: 10113 Title: BMM: SBVR update of .Directive is Actionable. Source: John Hall Summary: In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). An update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: · 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. · 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: · The enterprise does not have the right business rules. · The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized Resolution: The part of SBVR where this aspect is defined is illustrated in the following diagram from the SBVR specification: The part of this relevant to BMM is the substructure for element of guidance, element of governance, business policy, business rule and operative business rule. The concept corresponding to Directive in the BMM as published is element of guidance, the generalization of business policy and business rule. However, it is element of governance that governs Course of Action and governs and guides Business Process. We can model this in BMM using roles (I hope I am now getting the role names at the correct ends of the association lines): From the SBVR perspective: · Only an element of guidance that is an element of governance (a specialization) can play the role of ElementOfGovernance in a BMM · Only a business rule that is an operative business rule (a specialization) can play the role of OperativeBusinessRule in a BMM But that is not relevant to the BMM. This proposal would mean no change to the MOF model, simply the addition of the role names - and we need to have role names for MOF. The open question is what we should do with Directive: · Replace it with ElementOfGuidance for consistency with SBVR? · Keep it as Directive and in the Concepts Catalog (Section 9) define element of guidance in SBVR as a synonym for it? Revised Text: In [section no] on page [9999], xxxx . Disposition: Open User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:30:43 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 10113 -- BMM FTF issue From: keri To: John Hall , Cc: "Ronald G. Ross" Thread-Topic: issue 10113 -- BMM FTF issue Thread-Index: Acfpd6Hn4FivEVVqEdy5KgARJM+Cgg== John, (FYI - Apparently some members did not see Ron's reply (see bottom of the note, below).) Where does 10113 stand in terms of resolution discussion (and potential to come to ballot)? Or is this on the list to be deferred? Thanks for clarifying. Keri On 8/25/06 7:33 PM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: At 09:43 AM 8/23/2006, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:58:21 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: John Hall Company: Model Systems mailFrom: john.hall@modelsys.com Notification: Yes Specification: BMM FAS Section: 7, 8, 9 FormalNumber: dtc/06-08-02 Version: 1 RevisionDate: 08/07/2006 Page: 16, 31, 32, 51, 52 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6 Description In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: . 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. . 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: 1 The enterprise does not have the right business rules. 2 The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized. In your point #2, you use the word "apply" several times. Any time you put a rule to use, you are 'applying' it. Both structural business rules and operative business rules are 'applied' in that sense. And obviously, you would always want to 'apply' any rule correctly (whether automated or not). It doesn't need to be 'enforceable' for that. I think you will want to be more specific that an operative business rule always has to do with behavior. The focus is on whether relevant behavior conforms to the rule. Any resolution to this issue will need to be worded more carefully in this regard. Some sharpening of the language (I have seen the draft resolution) will avoid needless problems here. Ron Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org