Issue 10577: Distinguish Between Concepts (sbvr-ftf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: ISSUE TITLE: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Donald Chapin'" , Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:28:15 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AccxAPonDjyg1tXORo6n8A4NlBIrLomqqTnAAsS0dJA= X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4DCD23E1.0039, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.5.13.113918:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, DOC_ATTACHED, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NAME, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_BOLD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr14.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0201.4DCD2427.009A,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Attached is a strawman table mapping all the SBVR concepts/designations in SBVR Clauses 7-12 to the three official files in SBVR Clause 15 (Clause 15.1 XMI File; Clause 15.2 XSD File; and Clause 15.3 SBVR Model XML Interchange File). As we come to agreement on the contents of this table, the content for the resolution to this Issue (10577) will be agreed. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 29 April 2011 11:12 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue Proposed Draft Resolution for Issue 10577 attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 05 January 2007 19:37 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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 Relationship of SBVR Clause 7-12 Concepts with SBVR Clause 15 Files.doc From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:02:58 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Acx5IgopLDVQu0/PTYi4ZKvFkIGS1wQfacGg X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4E96D373.00CC, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=8/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.10.13.103015:17:8.317, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, DOC_ATTACHED, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NAME, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_BOLD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_90_100, HTML_95_100, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr13.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4E96D441.01C1,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All . Don Baisley and I were asked to work together to produce the next version of this resolution. The attached updated draft resolution for Issue 10577 is the result of that work and, to the best of my knowledge, we both agree with everything that is included. Donald From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 22 September 2011 13:21 To: 'sbvr-ftf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Attached in the simplified and focused draft resolution for Issue 10577 for discussion in today.s meeting. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 05 January 2007 19:37 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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 Draft Resolution for Issue 10577 (2011-10-13).doc Disposition: (to be) Resolved OMG Issue No: 10577 Title: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, donald.chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kind of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concepts. Resolution: Classes in the SBVR Metamodel are changed to be abstract for cases where there should be no instance in a MOF-based SBVR model is not an instance of a more specific class. In this way, things and states of affairs in general are excluded from an SBVR model, but the specific kinds of things in the SBVR subject area (like individual concepts and statements) can be included and can be interrelated. The generally defined fact types (e.g., .thing is in set., .concept has extension.) will remain useful, but only for relating things that are in the SBVR subject area (e.g., a term is in a vocabulary, a concept is in the extension of a concept type). The clause 15 files must be changed to reflect that certain classes in the SBVR metamodel are abstract. Revised Text: ADD the following paragraph in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts. just before the line that says .Example Vocabulary:.. The classes in the metamodel that mirror the following concepts are abstract (isAbstract = true): Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set Clause 9: semantic formulation, closed semantic formulation, logical formulation, modal formulation, logical operation, binary logical operation, quantification, projecting formulation, bindable target Clause 11: situation, res, community ADD the following sentence at the end of the one paragraph in the section in 13.2.2 that has the heading .Elements of MOF-based SBVR Models.: An element of an abstract class exists in a MOF-based model only by instantiating a nonabstract subclass of that abstract class. ADD the following paragraph in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts. just after the first paragraph in the .Rationale. section. In general, a class in the SBVR metamodel is abstract if the concept it mirrors has no reference scheme, is defined in Clause 8.6 Extensions, or is not a concept type but is defined in 8.7 Elementary Concepts. The SBVR metamodel is intended to provide for representing meanings and their representations. It is not intended for representing things in general. Making some classes abstract simplifies interpretation of MOF-based SBVR models by limiting them to the specific kinds of things that have reference schemes and that are within SBVR.s specific subject area. Disposition: Resolved To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution X-KeepSent: EDEA5BDD:AFE1631F-85257928:00594420; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:31:47 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 10/13/2011 12:31:48, Serialize complete at 10/13/2011 12:31:48 x-cbid: 11101316-5930-0000-0000-0000004DE13E I don't understand the motivation for this Issue: Who is "resisting some critical concepts"? How does making some classes abstract simplify the interpretation? Where SBVR has a concept hierarchy (as "closed logical formulation" is a category of "closed semantic formulation"), I do think this Issue helps by indicating which element type should be present in an interchange file. I also don't understand the criteria for making some concepts abstract. Why does it make a difference whether a concept has a reference scheme? Why are "semantic formulation", "closed semantic formulation", and "logical formulation" all marked abstract, but not "closed logical formulation"? I note that the latter has no reference scheme and thus appears to satisfy the criteria for being abstract. But I agree that this element type must be used in interchange files. So I think the criteria are not stated correctly. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 10/13/2011 08:15 AM Subject: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Don Baisley and I were asked to work together to produce the next version of this resolution. The attached updated draft resolution for Issue 10577 is the result of that work and, to the best of my knowledge, we both agree with everything that is included. Donald From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 22 September 2011 13:21 To: 'sbvr-ftf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Attached in the simplified and focused draft resolution for Issue 10577 for discussion in todayâs meeting. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 05 January 2007 19:37 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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[attachment "Draft Resolution for Issue 10577 (2011-10-13).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] X-SpamScore: -32 X-BigFish: PS-32(z21cILzbb2dK9371Kc89bh936eK62a3Kc857hzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT007.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Thread-Topic: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Thread-Index: Acx5IgopLDVQu0/PTYi4ZKvFkIGS1wQfacGgAAl6LIAAFpDlMA== Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:44:33 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [76.104.188.194] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT007.namprd03.prod.outlook.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%US.IBM.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%OMG.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn% X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com Hi Mark, I don.t know who Donald refers to in the issue summary . the people that are resisting .criticcal concepts.. He might have told us when triaging the issue. I am OK with the proposed solution, but I.m also OK with doing nothing. For me, the SBVR metamodel is for communicating facts about meanings and their representations. Making a few classes abstract does not interfere with that goal. MOF does not support multiclassification, so instances of some classes will tend to be equated with instances of other classes, as explained in SBVR clause 13. If we make the class for .closed logical formulation. abstract, then we won.t have a way to say, for example, that a conjunction (or any other specific logical formulation) is closed because we won.t be able to equate the conjunction with a closed logical formulation. So we leave .closed logical formulation. and some others as not abstract for that practical reason. Why does a reference scheme make a difference? If there is a reference scheme for a concept, then a person can identify an individual instance of that concept without further subcategorization. We should not say a class is abstract if it mirrors a concept that has a defined way of identifying individuals. That would contradict the point of having the reference scheme. I consider the list of candidate .abstract. classes in the draft resolution to be the maximum list. It would not bother me to cut the list back. It might be that the issue is satisfied with this minimal list: state of affairs, actuality, thing, set, situation, res, community Best regards, Don From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:32 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution I don't understand the motivation for this Issue: Who is "resisting some critical concepts"? How does making some classes abstract simplify the interpretation? Where SBVR has a concept hierarchy (as "closed logical formulation" is a category of "closed semantic formulation"), I do think this Issue helps by indicating which element type should be present in an interchange file. I also don't understand the criteria for making some concepts abstract. Why does it make a difference whether a concept has a reference scheme? Why are "semantic formulation", "closed semantic formulation", and "logical formulation" all marked abstract, but not "closed logical formulation"? I note that the latter has no reference scheme and thus appears to satisfy the criteria for being abstract. But I agree that this element type must be used in interchange files. So I think the criteria are not stated correctly. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 10/13/2011 08:15 AM Subject: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Don Baisley and I were asked to work together to produce the next version of this resolution. The attached updated draft resolution for Issue 10577 is the result of that work and, to the best of my knowledge, we both agree with everything that is included. Donald From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 22 September 2011 13:21 To: 'sbvr-ftf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Attached in the simplified and focused draft resolution for Issue 10577 for discussion in today.s meeting. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 05 January 2007 19:37 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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[attachment "Draft Resolution for Issue 10577 (2011-10-13).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:57:12 +0100 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: Don Baisley CC: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Hi Don, Mark, After an issue is logged, its summary should not be changed; this is an OMG operative business rule. Issue 10577 was logged on 5 January 2007, a year before SBVR V1.0 was published. The summary has not changed since then. The issue was deferred, to FTF and then to RTF, because (both times) we ran out of time. It's possible that the resistance mentioned in the summary no longer exists. I guess we'll find out when the proposed resolution is discussed. Regards, John On 14/10/2011 04:44, Don Baisley wrote: Hi Mark, I don.t know who Donald refers to in the issue summary . the people that are resisting .critical concepts.. He might have told us when triaging the issue. I am OK with the proposed solution, but I.m also OK with doing nothing. For me, the SBVR metamodel is for communicating facts about meanings and their representations. Making a few classes abstract does not interfere with that goal. MOF does not support multiclassification, so instances of some classes will tend to be equated with instances of other classes, as explained in SBVR clause 13. If we make the class for .closed logical formulation. abstract, then we won.t have a way to say, for example, that a conjunction (or any other specific logical formulation) is closed because we won.t be able to equate the conjunction with a closed logical formulation. So we leave .closed logical formulation. and some others as not abstract for that practical reason. Why does a reference scheme make a difference? If there is a reference scheme for a concept, then a person can identify an individual instance of that concept without further subcategorization. We should not say a class is abstract if it mirrors a concept that has a defined way of identifying individuals. That would contradict the point of having the reference scheme. I consider the list of candidate .abstract. classes in the draft resolution to be the maximum list. It would not bother me to cut the list back. It might be that the issue is satisfied with this minimal list: state of affairs, actuality, thing, set, situation, res, community Best regards, Don From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:32 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution I don't understand the motivation for this Issue: Who is "resisting some critical concepts"? How does making some classes abstract simplify the interpretation? Where SBVR has a concept hierarchy (as "closed logical formulation" is a category of "closed semantic formulation"), I do think this Issue helps by indicating which element type should be present in an interchange file. I also don't understand the criteria for making some concepts abstract. Why does it make a difference whether a concept has a reference scheme? Why are "semantic formulation", "closed semantic formulation", and "logical formulation" all marked abstract, but not "closed logical formulation"? I note that the latter has no reference scheme and thus appears to satisfy the criteria for being abstract. But I agree that this element type must be used in interchange files. So I think the criteria are not stated correctly. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 10/13/2011 08:15 AM Subject: FW: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Don Baisley and I were asked to work together to produce the next version of this resolution. The attached updated draft resolution for Issue 10577 is the result of that work and, to the best of my knowledge, we both agree with everything that is included. Donald From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 22 September 2011 13:21 To: 'sbvr-ftf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Attached in the simplified and focused draft resolution for Issue 10577 for discussion in today.s meeting. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 05 January 2007 19:37 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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[attachment "Draft Resolution for Issue 10577 (2011-10-13).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-SpamScore: -20 X-BigFish: PS-20(z21cILzc89bhc857hzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h34h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT009.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue -- resolution ready for ballet Thread-Topic: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue -- resolution ready for ballet Thread-Index: AcyKk3ZB7clkj+AHTTuE0mF9gIpUVw== Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:05:33 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [131.107.0.76] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT009.namprd03.prod.outlook.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%OMG.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn% X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com The resolution to issue 10577 agreed in today.s SBVR RTF call is attached and is ready for ballot. Best regards, Don Issue 10577.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 10577 Title: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, donald.chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kind of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concepts. Resolution: Classes in the SBVR Metamodel are changed to be abstract for cases where there should be no instance in a MOF-based SBVR model that is not an instance of a more specific class. In this way, things and states of affairs in general are excluded from an SBVR model, but the specific kinds of things in the SBVR subject area (like individual concepts and statements) can be included and can be interrelated. The generally defined fact types (e.g., .thing is in set., .concept has extension.) will remain useful, but only for relating things that are in the SBVR subject area (e.g., a term is in a vocabulary, a concept is in the extension of a concept type). The clause 15 files must be changed to reflect that certain classes in the SBVR metamodel are abstract. Revised Text: ADD the following paragraph in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts. just before the line that says .Example Vocabulary:.. The classes in the metamodel that mirror the following concepts are abstract (isAbstract = true): Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set Clause 9: semantic formulation, closed semantic formulation, logical formulation, modal formulation, logical operation, binary logical operation, quantification, projecting formulation, bindable target Clause 11: community, situation, res ADD the following sentence at the end of the one paragraph in the section in 13.2.2 that has the heading .Elements of MOF-based SBVR Models.: An element of an abstract class exists in a MOF-based model only by instantiating a nonabstract subclass of that abstract class. ADD the following paragraph in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts. just after the first paragraph in the .Rationale. section. The SBVR metamodel is intended to provide for representing meanings and their representations. It is not intended for representing things in general. Making some classes abstract simplifies interpretation of MOF-based SBVR models by limiting them to SBVR.s scope. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue --- Updated Draft Resolution Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:20:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Acx5IgopLDVQu0/PTYi4ZKvFkIGS1w== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4E7B281A.011C, actions=TAG X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.7.19.51514:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, DOC_ATTACHED, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NAME, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_BOLD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_90_100, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4E7B28C1.0074,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Attached in the simplified and focused draft resolution for Issue 10577 for discussion in today.s meeting. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 05 January 2007 19:37 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10577 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Jan 2007 11:26:17 -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: As Needed FormalNumber: dtc\06-08-05 Version: 2nd Interim Specification RevisionDate: 10/6/2006 Page: As Needed 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: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept. 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