Issue 10630: Rule-Set is not a defined concept (sbvr-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" Resolution: Deferred to first SBVR Revision Task Force because we ran out of time. Revised Text: Actions taken: January 26, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:39:08 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: issues@omg.org Subject: SBVR Issue: 'Rule-Set is not a defined concept' X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Doc: SBVR, dtc/06-08-05 Date: September 2006 Version: FTF Interim Specification Chapter: 8.2 Related issues: none Title: 'Rule-Set is not a defined concept' Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Description: Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:08:55 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: issues@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR Issue: 'Rule-Set is not a defined concept' X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Ed Barkmeyer wrote: Doc: SBVR, dtc/06-08-05 Date: September 2006 Version: FTF Interim Specification Chapter: 8.2 Related issues: none Title: 'Rule-Set is not a defined concept' Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Please correct the Chapter reference to Chapter: 7.1.2 and 13. Thanks, -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:51:50 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt , sbvr-ftf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Ed, SBVR defines both "set" and "rule". A "rule set" is nothing more and nothing less than a "set of rules" (unless you mean something else/more(?)). So what is the need for defining "rule set"? Ron P.S. This issue is actually covered by 10563 (intentionally). I don't think we really need a new issue for it, do we? At 10:21 AM 1/29/2007, Juergen Boldt wrote: This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:25:05 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: "Ronald G. Ross" CC: Juergen Boldt , sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Ronald G. Ross wrote: Ed, SBVR defines both "set" and "rule". A "rule set" is nothing more and nothing less than a "set of rules" (unless you mean something else/more(?)). So what is the need for defining "rule set"? The fact that we use the term, normatively, in clause 13. SBVR would use the term 'set of rules' to mean the 'set' that fills the 'set' role in the fact type 'rules have set', which doesn't exist. If 'rule set' means any finite collection of rules that is taken as a unit/group for some purpose, that makes it clear that it doesn't mean something more interesting. P.S. This issue is actually covered by 10563 (intentionally). I don't think we really need a new issue for it, do we? I didn't realize that it was explicitly covered in 10563. Stupid of me, of course. I think the Disposition should be just: resolved by 10563, assuming it is. The issue in 10630 is: What is clause 13 talking about? -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] issue 10630 -- Rule Set -- Solution Recommendation Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:14:45 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] issue 10630 -- Rule Set -- Solution Recommendation Thread-Index: AcdDwitSZUltfA3rQFaokkuyh4GeFwBnO5Aw From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2007 18:14:45.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFF6E2A0:01C74563] I prefer that SBVR not venture into the area of how business folks group their elements of guidance . another RFP covers that. I think we can fix the problem occurrences of .rule set. in the normative text very easily by replacing its use with other words that are defined. I find only two small changes are needed. At the start of chapter 7, change .This section gives names of vocabularies, rule sets and namespaces.. to this: .This section gives names of vocabularies, namespaces and sets of elements of guidance. . The title of 7.1.2 is .Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document.. Given the resolution of 10568, the section only has the Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set in it, so the title can be changed to this: .Sets of Elements of Guidance Presented in this Document.. At the front of chapter 13, .the rule set. is used as a pronominal reference to .Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set.. Perhaps those words should be changed to .the Rule Set. to be more clear. I found no other use of .rule set. in chapter 13 other than in the defined name .Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set.. Regards, Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:22 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:57:16 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: "Baisley, Donald E" CC: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR-FTF] issue 10630 -- Rule Set -- Solution Recommendation X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Baisley, Donald E wrote: I prefer that SBVR not venture into the area of how business folks group their elements of guidance - another RFP covers that. Actually, there is as yet no such RFP. More to the point, this is not about how "business folks group their elements of guidance". It is about how SBVR defines groups of "elements of guidance" that it itself defines, and about what the unit of exchange for SBVR is and means. Just as clause 13 defines a vocabulary and then uses that vocabulary in a set of rules which constitutes a "body of shared guidance" for all implementors, it is to be expected that what is managed and exchanged by business rules tooling will be vocabularies and sets of rules. And while rules are atomic, that doesn't make them independent of the body to which they belong. SBVR provides a means of exchanging rules and the "body of shared guidance" concept to group them. I think we can fix the problem occurrences of "rule set" in the normative text very easily by replacing its use with other words that are defined. I find only two small changes are needed. I don't want a resolution that is "find another undefined term". I want to relate the collection of rules in Clause 13 to a concept that SBVR has defined. So if "ruleset" is to go, what other SBVR-defined term is to replace it? At the start of chapter 7, change "This section gives names of vocabularies, rule sets and namespaces." to this: "This section gives names of vocabularies, namespaces and sets of elements of guidance. " > The title of 7.1.2 is "Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document". Given the resolution of 10568, the section only has the Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set in it, so the title can be changed to this: "Sets of Elements of Guidance Presented in this Document". What is the semantic content of a "set of elements of guidance"? Is it a collection of miscellaneous rules thrown into a bucket? That is the problem that Issue 10563 is really addressing. The point is that a ruleset is the "body of shared guidance" for some purpose. It is not just the set of all business rules in which the word XMI appears. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue - Status Checkpoint Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:55:32 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue - Status Checkpoint Thread-Index: AcdDwcjNSZJ3KO6pQx6f6hJypl7LjAYKodfAAA7a62A= From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2007 17:55:33.0659 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF1E26B0:01C75C2A] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org I believe the 9930 resolution removes all uses of .rule set. from the normative text. So that aspect of 10630 issue seems to be resolved by accepting the resolution to 9930. But I will let others answer about other aspects of the issue in question. Regards, Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:30 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue - Status Checkpoint From an Issue management point of view, I am assuming that the current proposals for the resolution of Issues 10562 + 10504 + 10505/06 will also resolve all the points in this Issue (10630). If anyone thinks that this is not the case, please reply to this email by summarizing in bullet points what questions will remain open for Issue 10630 after Issues 10562 + 10504 + 10505/06 are resolved. Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 29 January 2007 16:22 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:32:55 +0000 From: John Hall Reply-To: john.hall@modelsys.com Organization: Model Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) To: SBVR-FTF , Donald Chapin Subject: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org See attached Issue10630.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 10630 Title: Rule-Set is not a defined concept Source: Ed Barkmeyer Summary: The original reason for requiring rule-set has been dealt with. I think that we need rule-set for another reason - semantic communities will want to adopt them, in a way similar to adoption of vocabularies. One area of application is regulatory compliance. Companies that need to comply with regulation will in some cases acquire business rules from external bodies such as trade associations and domain specialists, who have agreed compliance with regulators on behalf of their members or clients. Companies that adopt rule-sets need to be able to see which rules are in them, so that they know that they should not change those rules (or, at least, should change them with caution). Resolution: Here, I propose simply defining rule-set. I propose dealing with rule-set adoption in Issue 10560, along with vocabulary adoption Revised Text: Add to the end of Section 12.1.2 rule-set Definition: set of business rules rule-set includes business rule Definition: business rule is included in rule-set Necessity: Each business rule is included in at most one rule-set. Disposition: Resolved To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:46:16 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML083/01/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2 IGS702HF6|February 20, 2006) at 03/20/2007 09:46:17, Serialize complete at 03/20/2007 09:46:17 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org John, A question I have about this is whether rule sets should include advice and business policies, in addition to business rules. Some reasons to consider including them: Presumably, advice is given because it is not obvious. So including advice in rule sets makes them more complete. This might be particularly important for regulatory and standards groups, where the likely wide audience for a rule set may include people with varying backgrounds and assumptions. Given the approach we have adopted for authorizations, some advice may act as exceptions to "dark rules". Rules and advice may derive from business policy. Including both the policy and the rules -- as well as the relationships between them -- helps to document the purpose and origin of the rules. Should rule sets contain the actual rules, policies, and advice -- or should they contain the corresponding statements, or both? How do rule sets relate to bodies of shared guidance? One easy answer would be to define the term "rule set" as a synonym for "body of shared guidance". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com John Hall 03/19/2007 09:32 PM Please respond to john.hall@modelsys.com To SBVR-FTF , Donald Chapin cc Subject [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 See attached [attachment "Issue10630.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:37:49 -0500 To: john.hall@modelsys.com, SBVR-FTF , Donald Chapin From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org At 08:32 PM 3/19/2007, John Hall wrote: See attached John, Is there some subtle distinction between "rule-set" and "rule set" that we should be aware of? You define "rule-set" as "set of rules", which I think would be the natural definition of "rule set". You say, "I propose dealing with rule-set adoption in Issue 10560, along with vocabulary adoption." So am I right to assume there is more than meets the eye in your proposal for 10630? You recommend the necessity, "Each business rule is included in at most one rule-set." I can find nothing intrinsic in the definition of "rule-set" that implies that necessity. It certainly doesn't follow naturally from either the mathematical notion of "set", or from the real-world notion of "rule set". Could you explain, preferably in e-mail to save meeting time? I've always thought that the notion of "rule set" gets us into the area of rule management. From that perspective, your proposed necessity definitely misses the mark. But I certainly have an open mind if there are some aspects to adoption and inclusion that requires some new concept. Could you explain? Actually, I wrote issue 10560, and I don't recall it mentioning "rules". However, I can certainly see how adoption or inclusion would require bringing along alethic eogs. However, alethic eogs are tied to vocabulary items, so there is no need for rule sets in that regard is there? As for deontic eogs, they might be "adopted", but that does not follow naturally from vocabulary adoption (does it?). Adoption of deontic eogs would be an interesting and possibly important topic, but I don't believe we have an issue (or time) for it at this stage. Ron 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-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=tZUmZBgq7F1aj6UYe3pxAH08WH3PFKKlrTcC5qSxHsAOqGqxEVGbXIhSsko91XBDNFkGCu6iFVCz/nUKqqd1Ek7pWRAC5oyPSJHMqfJFSYzr+9rMU2ju1/jUR9fEH7gTvT6nS8o1jFlcxtHmjtMZS/gBRJ9UjhCwlB8agc9Ydts= ; X-YMail-OSG: 0kOl4esVM1nMYy6EFYDzCG45wF7F.CFYU0YMS.XrC57ByOumoQpAFbugMRRsodMJwVmn3t9AdBFKBgciwF9mona9PnKH2NwLnPpxTOwQQea1UZgkT4dcy7mY.l7MwLTQZnZXG0EkfzyZ Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue - Status Checkpoint Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:30:04 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdDwcjNSZJ3KO6pQx6f6hJypl7LjAYKodfA X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org From an Issue management point of view, I am assuming that the current proposals for the resolution of Issues 10562 + 10504 + 10505/06 will also resolve all the points in this Issue (10630). If anyone thinks that this is not the case, please reply to this email by summarizing in bullet points what questions will remain open for Issue 10630 after Issues 10562 + 10504 + 10505/06 are resolved. Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 29 January 2007 16:22 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue - Status Checkpoint X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:33:59 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML083/01/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2 IGS702HF4|January 9, 2006) at 03/01/2007 17:34:01, Serialize complete at 03/01/2007 17:34:01 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org 10562 + 10504 + 10505 + 10506 do not address the issues raised in 10630. I think the original list of points remain open. I've wondered about these issues, too. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com "Donald Chapin" 03/01/2007 05:30 AM Please respond to To cc Subject RE: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue - Status Checkpoint From an Issue management point of view, I am assuming that the current proposals for the resolution of Issues 10562 + 10504 + 10505/06 will also resolve all the points in this Issue (10630). If anyone thinks that this is not the case, please reply to this email by summarizing in bullet points what questions will remain open for Issue 10630 after Issues 10562 + 10504 + 10505/06 are resolved. Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 29 January 2007 16:22 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:54:04 -0500 To: Mark H Linehan , sbvr-ftf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: [off-line] Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org At 08:46 AM 3/20/2007, Mark H Linehan wrote: John, A question I have about this is whether rule sets should include advice and business policies, in addition to business rules. Some reasons to consider including them: Presumably, advice is given because it is not obvious. So including advice in rule sets makes them more complete. This might be particularly important for regulatory and standards groups, where the likely wide audience for a rule set may include people with varying backgrounds and assumptions. Given the approach we have adopted for authorizations, some advice may act as exceptions to "dark rules". Rules and advice may derive from business policy. Including both the policy and the rules -- as well as the relationships between them -- helps to document the purpose and origin of the rules. Should rule sets contain the actual rules, policies, and advice -- or should they contain the corresponding statements, or both? How do rule sets relate to bodies of shared guidance? One easy answer would be to define the term "rule set" as a synonym for "body of shared guidance". I really don't think we want to equate "body of shared guidance" (a semantic idea) with "rule set" (a rule management idea). Rule sets can, and are(!), created for any of a large variety of reasons, many of which aren't semantic at all. Ron -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com John Hall 03/19/2007 09:32 PM Please respond to john.hall@modelsys.com To SBVR-FTF , Donald Chapin cc Subject [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 See attached [attachment "Issue10630.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:10:13 -1000 Subject: Re: [off-line] Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 From: keri To: "Ronald G. Ross" , Mark H Linehan , SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: [off-line] Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 Thread-Index: AcdrPIgpxnsK6NcvEduX0wARJM+Cgg== X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org At 08:46 AM 3/20/2007, Mark H Linehan wrote: How do rule sets relate to bodies of shared guidance? One easy answer would be to define the term "rule set" as a synonym for "body of shared guidance". On 3/20/07 11:54 AM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: I really don't think we want to equate "body of shared guidance" (a semantic idea) with "rule set" (a rule management idea). Rule sets can, and are(!), created for any of a large variety of reasons, many of which aren't semantic at all. I thought the reason for defining .rule set. (rule-set) was to have a collection that was on the .expression. side ... that.s why it couldn.t be a synonym for .body of shared guidance.. Its contents would be statements. The cardinality (if restricted) should follow the pattern we have for vocabulary, right? If we say that (for example) a symbol can be included in at most one (or exactly one) vocabulary then that.s what we.d do for a guidance statement. And if symbol isn.t restricted in that way, why would the guidance statement be restricted to .1.? ~ Keri User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:13:48 -1000 Subject: Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 From: keri To: "Ronald G. Ross" , Mark H Linehan , SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 Thread-Index: AcdrPQhQRqV/M9cwEduX0wARJM+Cgg== X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org (resending . without the .(offline). prefix ) At 08:46 AM 3/20/2007, Mark H Linehan wrote: How do rule sets relate to bodies of shared guidance? One easy answer would be to define the term "rule set" as a synonym for "body of shared guidance". On 3/20/07 11:54 AM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: I really don't think we want to equate "body of shared guidance" (a semantic idea) with "rule set" (a rule management idea). Rule sets can, and are(!), created for any of a large variety of reasons, many of which aren't semantic at all. I thought the reason for defining .rule set. (rule-set) was to have a collection that was on the .expression. side ... that.s why it couldn.t be a synonym for .body of shared guidance.. Its contents would be statements. The cardinality (if restricted) should follow the pattern we have for vocabulary, right? If we say that (for example) a symbol can be included in at most one (or exactly one) vocabulary then that.s what we.d do for a guidance statement. And if symbol isn.t restricted in that way, why would the guidance statement be restricted to .1.? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:42:27 -0700 From: John Hall Reply-To: john.hall@modelsys.com Organization: Model Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) To: "Ronald G. Ross" Cc: SBVR-FTF , Donald Chapin Subject: Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlx=0 adultscore=0 adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=3.1.0-0701160000 definitions=main-0702270060 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org See responses in-line Ronald G. Ross wrote: At 08:32 PM 3/19/2007, John Hall wrote: See attached John, Is there some subtle distinction between "rule-set" and "rule set" that we should be aware of? No, "rule-set" is just the way it's referred to in issue 10630 as posted You define "rule-set" as "set of rules", which I think would be the natural definition of "rule set". You say, "I propose dealing with rule-set adoption in Issue 10560, along with vocabulary adoption." So am I right to assume there is more than meets the eye in your proposal for 10630? No more than what I said in the proposed resolution: "I think that we need rule-set for another reason - semantic communities will want to adopt them, in a way similar to adoption of vocabularies. One area of application is regulatory compliance. Companies that need to comply with regulation will in some cases acquire business rules from external bodies such as trade associations and domain specialists, who have agreed compliance with regulators on behalf of their members or clients. Companies that adopt rule-sets need to be able to see which rules are in them, so that they know that they should not change those rules (or, at least, should change them with caution)." You recommend the necessity, "Each business rule is included in at most one rule-set." I can find nothing intrinsic in the definition of "rule-set" that implies that necessity. It certainly doesn't follow naturally from either the mathematical notion of "set", or from the real-world notion of "rule set". Could you explain, preferably in e-mail to save meeting time? Maybe it should be "Each business rule is included in at most one adopted rule set." - if we need rule sets other than for adoption I've always thought that the notion of "rule set" gets us into the area of rule management. From that perspective, your proposed necessity definitely misses the mark. But I certainly have an open mind if there are some aspects to adoption and inclusion that requires some new concept. Could you explain? Actually, I wrote issue 10560, and I don't recall it mentioning "rules". However, I can certainly see how adoption or inclusion would require bringing along alethic eogs. However, alethic eogs are tied to vocabulary items, so there is no need for rule sets in that regard is there? As for deontic eogs, they might be "adopted", but that does not follow naturally from vocabulary adoption (does it?). Adoption of deontic eogs would be an interesting and possibly important topic, but I don't believe we have an issue (or time) for it at this stage. Adoption of rule sets is needed for: Dealing with regulation, when rules for compliance are distributed to organizations that are sharing their compliance approach, as above. Regulation is not the only reason why rule sets might be shared, but it's a particular concern of mine. Consistency with W3C RIF. I see three options for addressing this: Do it under 10630, as part of the rationale for why we need rule sets Handle it under adoption of vocabulary, since much of what is needed is similar Leave it out of SBVR and include it in an RC SIG RFP as an RC-specific extension of SBVR, if the FTF thinks that it has no wider relevance I'll abide by what the majority of the FTF wants John Ron X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:21:01 -0500 To: john.hall@modelsys.com From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 Cc: SBVR-FTF , Donald Chapin X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org At 10:42 AM 3/29/2007, John Hall wrote: See responses in-line Shouldn't it be "guidance set" or something, rather than "rule set"? You'd probably want to adopt advices and maybe business policies along with rules. The problem with "rule set" (or "guidance set") is that SBVR can't understand the semantics for why they are formed. SBVR deals with the semantics of individual eogs, and certainly has the right and need to identify the set of all eogs (bosg), but "guidance set" falls something in between (I presume). For some reason unknown to SBVR. However, you point out that *adopted* guidance set might be mechanically needed for adoption and/or inclusion. So I suggest the matter be considered under that issue. That might give it a legitimate rationale for being included in SBVR (which would be good). Otherwise, even though I fully understand how useful and necessary the concept is in the real world, I feel it should be left for rule management. Ron Ronald G. Ross wrote: At 08:32 PM 3/19/2007, John Hall wrote: See attached John, Is there some subtle distinction between "rule-set" and "rule set" that we should be aware of? No, "rule-set" is just the way it's referred to in issue 10630 as posted You define "rule-set" as "set of rules", which I think would be the natural definition of "rule set". You say, "I propose dealing with rule-set adoption in Issue 10560, along with vocabulary adoption." So am I right to assume there is more than meets the eye in your proposal for 10630? No more than what I said in the proposed resolution: "I think that we need rule-set for another reason - semantic communities will want to adopt them, in a way similar to adoption of vocabularies. One area of application is regulatory compliance. Companies that need to comply with regulation will in some cases acquire business rules from external bodies such as trade associations and domain specialists, who have agreed compliance with regulators on behalf of their members or clients. Companies that adopt rule-sets need to be able to see which rules are in them, so that they know that they should not change those rules (or, at least, should change them with caution)." You recommend the necessity, "Each business rule is included in at most one rule-set." I can find nothing intrinsic in the definition of "rule-set" that implies that necessity. It certainly doesn't follow naturally from either the mathematical notion of "set", or from the real-world notion of "rule set". Could you explain, preferably in e-mail to save meeting time? Maybe it should be "Each business rule is included in at most one adopted rule set." - if we need rule sets other than for adoption I've always thought that the notion of "rule set" gets us into the area of rule management. >From that perspective, your proposed necessity definitely misses the mark. But I certainly have an open mind if there are some aspects to adoption and inclusion that requires some new concept. Could you explain? Actually, I wrote issue 10560, and I don't recall it mentioning "rules". However, I can certainly see how adoption or inclusion would require bringing along alethic eogs. However, alethic eogs are tied to vocabulary items, so there is no need for rule sets in that regard is there? As for deontic eogs, they might be "adopted", but that does not follow naturally from vocabulary adoption (does it?). Adoption of deontic eogs would be an interesting and possibly important topic, but I don't believe we have an issue (or time) for it at this stage. Adoption of rule sets is needed for: Dealing with regulation, when rules for compliance are distributed to organizations that are sharing their compliance approach, as above. Regulation is not the only reason why rule sets might be shared, but it's a particular concern of mine. Consistency with W3C RIF. I see three options for addressing this: Do it under 10630, as part of the rationale for why we need rule sets Handle it under adoption of vocabulary, since much of what is needed is similar Leave it out of SBVR and include it in an RC SIG RFP as an RC-specific extension of SBVR, if the FTF thinks that it has no wider relevance I'll abide by what the majority of the FTF wants John Ron User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:29:24 -1000 Subject: Re: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 From: keri To: SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: [SBVR] Issue 10630 - for discussion March 21 Thread-Index: AcdyH2lTp8X51t4SEduBAQARJM+Cgg== X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org (resending . I sent this earlier, as part of the 10630 discussion. It contains my unanswered questions for this Issue. ~ Keri) At 08:46 AM 3/20/2007, Mark H Linehan wrote: How do rule sets relate to bodies of shared guidance? One easy answer would be to define the term "rule set" as a synonym for "body of shared guidance". On 3/20/07 11:54 AM, "Ronald G. Ross" wrote: I really don't think we want to equate "body of shared guidance" (a semantic idea) with "rule set" (a rule management idea). Rule sets can, and are(!), created for any of a large variety of reasons, many of which aren't semantic at all. I thought the reason for defining .rule set. (rule-set) was to have a collection that was on the .expression. side ... that.s why it couldn.t be a synonym for .body of shared guidance.. Its contents would be statements. The cardinality (if restricted) should follow the pattern we have for vocabulary, right? If we say that (for example) a symbol can be included in at most one (or exactly one) vocabulary then that.s what we.d do for a guidance statement. And if symbol isn.t restricted in that way, why would the guidance statement be restricted to .1.? ~ Keri 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-Mailer:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE; b=5tnfW1e8isOEFme+BhBMCgAVFaV+MFCNEuR+8YSmKDnAIUdVk6mHEp2lyiteaEr9zW/Fsw9kSQJ+y0Qclo2ayxHGwVEQ/Zr+5sIDHDi2vQ+wf9hz5lx5IZ1tLajXqtehmFuoS3cIGIDyu6C31EBV7eWZrZeHv0slsM1qBwLPbE0= ; X-YMail-OSG: SBHiJgIVM1n9nssop7mY2rfJP7FltKcw0bqnvyfJJTe8vg4HVNnxRyrNZLT77OgSgti9U6Rtsv9NhXhm_rCdPt7knTJc2VprtiUwqWXWvLSrX5TH Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:40:46 -0600 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdDwcjNSZJ3KO6pQx6f6hJypl7LjCfbYpOA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 29 January 2007 09:22 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 Issue10630.doc Disposition: Deferred OMG Issue No: 10630 Title: Rule-Set is not a defined concept Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark@nist.gov edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov) Summary: Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" Discussion: Deferred to first SBVR Revision Task Force because we ran out of time. Disposition: Deferred From: Don Baisley To: "'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" Subject: RE: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue Thread-Index: Acp570Ecf/alSeXiEd6TAQARJM+CghSddGqg Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:51:39 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Here is a proposed resolution to SBVR issue 10630 based on what was discussed and agreed in today.s RTF meeting. Regards, Don From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 3:20 PM To: Don Baisley Subject: FW: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue The original Issue. - K ------ Forwarded Message From: Juergen Boldt Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:21:55 -0500 To: , Subject: issue 10630 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10630 From: Ed Barkmeyer Rule-Set is not a defined concept Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set" 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 ------ End of Forwarded Message Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694