Issue 10958: Entry for "categorization scheme", p. 147, Definition. and Example (sbvr-ftf)
Source: Hendryx & Associates (Mr. Stan Hendryx, stan(at)hendryxassoc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The definition currently reads "scheme for partitioning things ..." 
Should read "scheme for classifying things ..."
 
'Partitioning' is a segmentation, which is a categorization scheme that is complete and disjoint. The problem here is that the general concept, "categorization scheme" is defined to be a specialization of itself, "partitioning". Categorization schemes are not, in general, segmentations. Categorization schemes are, in general, neither complete nor disjoint. The word "classifying" captures the more general concept and should be substituted for "partitioning" in the definition. The Example is a segmentation.  It could be revised to show a categorization scheme that is neither total nor disjoint, e.g. {boy, adult}. The Example under "categorization scheme" could be moved to be an example under "segmentation."

Resolution: Deferred to first SBVR Revision Task Force because we ran out of time.
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
April 18, 2007: received issue
Discussion: 
SBVR FTF Working Specification - Ballot 4
End of Annotations:=====
il-OSG: 7eaUSQUVM1n3LQHhRS8fKMIQjIx1B6gvNj5hvgiSuZfhvR9kpHtE1LXh6m3fgMdSc44Hn3aA5g--
From: "Stan Hendryx" <stan@hendryxassoc.com>
To: "'Juergen Boldt'" <juergen@omg.org>
Subject: SBVR issue
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:10:42 -0700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AceB04/eX48MdelUTDythiZ+/3KcYA==
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org


Hello Juergen,
 
Please log the following issue against SBVR FTF Working Specification - Ballot 4 
 
Thanks,
 
Stan
 
 
 
 
Entry for "categorization scheme", p. 147, Definition. and Example.
 
The definition currently reads "scheme for partitioning things ..." 
Should read "scheme for classifying things ..."
 
'Partitioning' is a segmentation, which is a categorization scheme that is complete and disjoint. The problem here is that the general concept, "categorization scheme" is defined to be a specialization of itself, "partitioning". Categorization schemes are not, in general, segmentations. Categorization schemes are, in general, neither complete nor disjoint. The word "classifying" captures the more general concept and should be substituted for "partitioning" in the definition. The Example is a segmentation.  It could be revised to show a categorization scheme that is neither total nor disjoint, e.g. {boy, adult}. The Example under "categorization scheme" could be moved to be an example under "segmentation."