Issue 10639: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" (sbvr-ftf) Source: Business Rule Solutions, LLC (Ms. Keri Anderson Healy, keri_ah(at)mac.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) Resolution: Deferred to the SBVR RTF for the lack of time. Since there is a workaround of making the passive form of the verb "includes" explicit for each use of it in a verb concept by using the Synonymous Form feature of SBVR Structured English, this deferral to the SBVR RTF will not materially diminish the quality of the SBVR Available Specification. Revised Text: Actions taken: February 2, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== er-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:13:54 -1000 Subject: SBVR-FTF - new issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" From: keri To: Juergen Boldt Thread-Topic: SBVR-FTF - new issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" Thread-Index: AcdHBR9uKHTPx9lMRw2VsDiQbPL0qQACeuyU Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:09:05 -1000 Subject: Re: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up From: keri To: SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Thread-Index: AcdHL+XuJEeErLMjEdug6wARJM+Cgg== Per today.s telcon discussion and Don.s contributed addition to Annex C (thanks, Don!) the attached Resolution is submitted. ~ Keri On 2/2/07 12:31 PM, "Juergen Boldt" wrote: This is issue # 10639 From: keri implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) 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 Issue10639.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 10639 Title: Implicit passive form for partitive fact types that use the verb "includes" Source: Keri Anderson Healy, Business Rules Group Summary: To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) Resolution: 1. Add a special case to Annex C (SBVR Structured English). In Clauses 11 & 12: 2. Delete any existing explicit synonymous forms for this kind of entry in Clauses 11 and 12, and add the Concept Type caption, where needed. 3. Correct any partitive fact types that currently use the passive form as the primary fact type form to use the active form, so that all entries of this kind are consistently presented/specified. Note: The instances in Annex E will be handled under Issue 10628 as a part of its overall EU-Rent clean-up. Revised Text: ADD to 11.1.1.2 (pg. 112, for the entry "body of shared meanings includes body of shared concepts", immediately following the entry caption) this new content: Concept Type: partitive fact type DELETE from Clause 11.1.1.2 (pg. 112, in the entry "body of shared concepts includes concept") this existing content: Synonymous Form: concept is included in body of shared concepts REMOVE from Clause 11.1.1.2 (pg. 112, for the entry "body of shared meanings1 contains body of shared meanings2", in its Definition) the styling from the word "includes": includes and REPLACE with (unstyled): includes REMOVE from Clause 11.1.1.2 (pg. 112, for the entry "elementary fact type", its 2nd Example): Example: service depot is included in local area and REPLACE with: Example: local area includes service depot DELETE from Clause 11.1.1.3 (pg. 113, in the entry "vocabulary includes symbol") this existing content: Synonymous Form: symbol is included in vocabulary DELETE from Clause 11.1.1.3 (pg. 113, in the entry "vocabulary includes fact type form") this existing content: Synonymous Form: fact type form is included in vocabulary REMOVE from Clause 11.1.2.3 (pg. 116, for the entry "categorization scheme contains category"): Synonymous Form: category is included in categorization scheme and REPLACE with: Synonymous Form: categorization scheme includes category REMOVE from Clause 11.1.5.1 (pg. 124, for the entry "partitive fact type"), the three Examples: and REPLACE with: Example: The fact type 'region includes country'. An example of an instance of that fact type is that Scandinavia includes Sweden. Example: The fact type 'local area includes branch'. Example: The fact type 'car group includes car model'. DELETE from Clause 12.1.2 (pg. 139, in the entry "body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance") this existing content: Synonymous Form: body of shared guidance is included in body of shared meanings DELETE from Clause 12.1.2 (pg. 139, in the entry "body of shared guidance includes element of guidance") this existing content: Synonymous Form: element of guidance is included in body of shared guidance ADD to C.1 (pg. 198, in front of the last sentence of the last paragraph indented under the caption "verb") this new content: As a special case, where the verb .includes. is used for a partitive fact type, the implicit passive form is .is included in. rather than .is included by.. Disposition: Resolved Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:24:04 +0000 From: John Hall Reply-To: john.hall@modelsys.com Organization: Model Systems User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Cc: SBVR-FTF Subject: Re: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Hello all, keri wrote: Per today.s telcon discussion and Don.s contributed addition to Annex C (thanks, Don!) the attached Resolution is submitted. ~ Keri On 2/2/07 12:31 PM, "Juergen Boldt" wrote: This is issue # 10639 From: keri implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) 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 In yesterday's meeting, the problem was said to be the ambiguity between "is included in" and "is included" by" as passive forms. We should be talking about inverse forms rather than passive forms. Yesterday.s example was about a letter - something like .Ed includes $10. ($10 is included by Ed) or .letter includes address. (address is included in letter) . These are two different meanings for .includes. (1) some actor has included something (2) something contains something else. In the first, 'includes' is an active verb. Its inverse is its passive form: 'is included by'. In the second 'includes' is not active; it describes a relationship. Its inverse form is 'is included in'. For 'includes' as an active verb, .Ed includes $10. doesn.t make much sense unless you say what he includes it in - a letter, a birthday card, the payment for your dinner, the pocket of your suit he collected from the cleaners. To be understandable, .includes. as an active verb would require a ternary fact type, of the form "Actor_role includes noun_concept1 in noun_concept2". "Ed includes $10 in your letter" and "Unisys includes Don in SBVR FTF" would be facts of this type. But with 'includes' as an active verb, that doesn't really make sense as a fact type. Better fact types would be: "Actor_role has included noun_concept1 in noun_concept2" or "Actor_role can include noun_concept1 in noun_concept2". Facts of these types would represent actualities -and they would not use the verb "includes" by itself. If we have just a binary fact type with the verb "includes", it's a relationship and its inverse form is .is included in.. Regards, John User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:59:18 -1000 Subject: Re: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up From: keri To: John Hall , SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Thread-Index: AcdH71CyjwaHxbPiEduPPwARJM+Cgg== Regardless of the errors in wording in the problem statement that I submitted, are the specifics of the Resolution write-up (the set of Edit Instructions) what was asked for? (And I.m happy to correct the problem statement if that.s called for.) ~ Keri On 2/3/07 9:24 AM, "John Hall" wrote: Hello all, keri wrote: Re: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Per today.s telcon discussion and Don.s contributed addition to Annex C (thanks, Don!) the attached Resolution is submitted. ~ Keri On 2/2/07 12:31 PM, "Juergen Boldt" wrote: This is issue # 10639 From: keri implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) 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 In yesterday's meeting, the problem was said to be the ambiguity between "is included in" and "is included" by" as passive forms. We should be talking about inverse forms rather than passive forms. Yesterday.s example was about a letter - something like .Ed includes $10. ($10 is included by Ed) or .letter includes address. (address is included in letter) . These are two different meanings for .includes. (1) some actor has included something (2) something contains something else. In the first, 'includes' is an active verb. Its inverse is its passive form: 'is included by'. In the second 'includes' is not active; it describes a relationship. Its inverse form is 'is included in'. For 'includes' as an active verb, .Ed includes $10. doesn.t make much sense unless you say what he includes it in - a letter, a birthday card, the payment for your dinner, the pocket of your suit he collected from the cleaners. To be understandable, .includes. as an active verb would require a ternary fact type, of the form "Actor_role includes noun_concept1 in noun_concept2". "Ed includes $10 in your letter" and "Unisys includes Don in SBVR FTF" would be facts of this type. But with 'includes' as an active verb, that doesn't really make sense as a fact type. Better fact types would be: "Actor_role has included noun_concept1 in noun_concept2" or "Actor_role can include noun_concept1 in noun_concept2". Facts of these types would represent actualities -and they would not use the verb "includes" by itself. If we have just a binary fact type with the verb "includes", it's a relationship and its inverse form is .is included in.. Regards, John User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 07:52:43 -1000 Subject: Re: [SBVR-FTF] -- AGENDA ITEM - styling of Examples in Normative Clauses From: keri To: "Donald R. Chapin" , SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] -- AGENDA ITEM - styling of Examples in Normative Clauses Thread-Index: AcdFYOTHldTEVByFQJaQFy3j8c5TQwBdpsWwAJ276Bw= X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id l15HiSEL002065 Donald, A question was raised by the write-up I did for Issue 10639, which included some rewording of a couple of Examples to reflect the active form "includes" rather than the passive form. In this change I simply used whatever styling I found in the Example text. I received a suggestion that, instead, I should change the styling of the entries so that they conform to our convention for Examples in the Normative Clauses. And that raises the more general question of all the Examples in Clauses 11 and 12. Please include the following *short* topic/question on this weekıs agenda: Item: Styling uniformity in the Examples in the Normative Clauses. Examples in the normative chapters do not use the formal styling to refer to EU-Rent terms and fact types. Instead, they use normal text except for mentions of fact type forms and roles within fact type forms which use normal text plus underlying. Chapters 11 and 12 have some Examples that use various forms -- some are in color and some already follow the rule above. Questions: 1) Should I revise the Examples specifically presented in the 10639 write-up so that they conform to the styling conventions? 2) Would the group like me to volunteer to make an 'editorial pass' through Clauses 11 and 12 to make the changes to all the Examples? (And, if yes, we need to discussion the logistics and timing -- specifically, I don't have current/accessible source material to use for this task.) Of course, if this can be quickly answered/agreed by email, that would be fine/better. Regards, Subject: RE: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:15:47 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Thread-Index: AcdHySzK/WCjI279T6KEmwrd1lM5kQBkB+fw From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: "SBVR-FTF" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2007 19:15:47.0106 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A3DE020:01C7495A] Hi John, The small change to Annex C that I recommended to Keri covers your concerns because the change explicitly applies only to partitive fact types. If .Ed includes $10. uses a partitive fact type, then we could say .$10 is included in Ed. rather than .$10 is included by Ed.. But then we would also assume that Ed is made of money. Enjoy, Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hall [mailto:john.hall@modelsys.com] Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:24 AM Cc: SBVR-FTF Subject: Re: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue - draft of Resolution write-up Hello all, keri wrote: Per today.s telcon discussion and Don.s contributed addition to Annex C (thanks, Don!) the attached Resolution is submitted. ~ Keri On 2/2/07 12:31 PM, "Juergen Boldt" wrote: This is issue # 10639 From: keri implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) 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 In yesterday's meeting, the problem was said to be the ambiguity between "is included in" and "is included" by" as passive forms. We should be talking about inverse forms rather than passive forms. Yesterday.s example was about a letter - something like .Ed includes $10. ($10 is included by Ed) or .letter includes address. (address is included in letter) . These are two different meanings for .includes. (1) some actor has included something (2) something contains something else. In the first, 'includes' is an active verb. Its inverse is its passive form: 'is included by'. In the second 'includes' is not active; it describes a relationship. Its inverse form is 'is included in'. For 'includes' as an active verb, .Ed includes $10. doesn.t make much sense unless you say what he includes it in - a letter, a birthday card, the payment for your dinner, the pocket of your suit he collected from the cleaners. To be understandable, .includes. as an active verb would require a ternary fact type, of the form "Actor_role includes noun_concept1 in noun_concept2". "Ed includes $10 in your letter" and "Unisys includes Don in SBVR FTF" would be facts of this type. But with 'includes' as an active verb, that doesn't really make sense as a fact type. Better fact types would be: "Actor_role has included noun_concept1 in noun_concept2" or "Actor_role can include noun_concept1 in noun_concept2". Facts of these types would represent actualities -and they would not use the verb "includes" by itself. If we have just a binary fact type with the verb "includes", it's a relationship and its inverse form is .is included in.. Regards, John 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:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To; b=z1CmjuvR/hL/g8XIIezfe6obxEcIbAKhW9g/S0DrlUcfgnMDQw5eRBOC8hVkIuqdMloeOBknRBX76dM0CPojQ/nJu2rZrDDEPex8v44GlrqbGyFlkRlCu5fl686m9hS5npkY5OEK2jm4NmeRbQr7Q5mCPT8HXJ2NLBS+b16flU4= ; X-YMail-OSG: _Q64IwIVM1lwoV1_eu8Uylx.tBRvZ.ommr0GYMFyHK787tp4r655_fNUjTK8BzAH1anzsNiJhx4VXL2.YNJFsT6KV1o7z8U8qMMMxoWItWV6nqsXGEg8RVwh6CltV5bYjujZMfY2BOp9 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:31:21 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: AcdHGgYTDZ25+pfkQN+8PjCfSnl5gQFM2zVw X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Attached is the Issue 10693 disposition, revised to .deferred. in Wednesday.s meeting, for agreement of the deferral wording. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 02 February 2007 22:32 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 10639 -- SBVR FTF issue This is issue # 10639 From: keri implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) 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 Issue106391.doc Disposition: Deferred OMG Issue No: 10639 Title: Implicit passive form for partitive fact types that use the verb "includes" Source: Keri Anderson Healy, Business Rules Group Summary: To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007) Discussion: Since there is a work around of making the passive form of the verb .includes. explicit for each use of it in a verb concept by using the Synonymous Form feature of SBVR Structured English, this deferral will not materially diminish the quality of the SBVR Available Specification. Disposition: Deferred From: Don Baisley To: "'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" Subject: SBVR Issue 10639 resolution Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue 10639 resolution Thread-Index: AcrMN2E+LIBDQxywQ0mdjMXfyGlQFw== Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:25:33 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: A proposed resolution document is attached. The resolution, as agreed in today.s RTF meeting, is to make no change. Best regards, Don ~ Keri