Issue 10576: Section: 9.3 (sbvr-ftf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: ISSUE TITLE: Relationships Between Definition Concepts and Semantic Formulation Concpets Seem to be Wrong or Missing ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The relationships between 'definition' (both intensional and extensional) and 'semantic formulation' (both 'necessity' and 'closed projection') and the 'intension' and 'extension' of a concept in some cases seem to be wrong and other cases missing. - The connections between 'intensional definition', 'necessity' logical formulation (structural rule), 'essential characteristic set' and 'concept' are missing (as discussed above). - The connection between 'definition', 'closed projection' and 'concept' seems ambiguous, and maybe incorrect, as 'closed projection' is usually associated with 'extension' and not directly with 'concept'. Also associating 'closed projection' with 'definition' in general (vs. intensional or extensional definition) seems strange. - The connection between 'extensional definition', some kind of semantic formulation, and extension seemns to be missing. Resolution: Deferred to first SBVR Revision Task Force because we ran out of time. Revised Text: Actions taken: January 5, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 10:59:17 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donald Chapin Company: Business Semantics Ltd mailFrom: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Notification: No Specification: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) Section: 9.3 FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: 69 (printed) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description ISSUE TITLE: Relationships Between Definition Concepts and Semantic Formulation Concpets Seem to be Wrong or Missing ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The relationships between 'definition' (both intensional and extensional) and 'semantic formulation' (both 'necessity' and 'closed projection') and the 'intension' and 'extension' of a concept in some cases seem to be wrong and other cases missing. - The connections between 'intensional definition', 'necessity' logical formulation (structural rule), 'essential characteristic set' and 'concept' are missing (as discussed above). - The connection between 'definition', 'closed projection' and 'concept' seems ambiguous, and maybe incorrect, as 'closed projection' is usually associated with 'extension' and not directly with 'concept'. Also associating 'closed projection' with 'definition' in general (vs. intensional or extensional definition) seems strange. - The connection between 'extensional definition', some kind of semantic formulation, and extension seemns to be missing.