Issue 11328: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpre (sbvr-ftf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: - a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 - the table will contain: o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs - the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force Resolution: Deferred to second SBVR Revision Task Force because there were more foundational issues that had to be resolved first, and it was very important SBVR v1.1 out as soon as they were done. Disposition: Deferred Revised Text: Actions taken: August 30, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== mainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=zsUv54UlWGZSqQQJs7ZWpXibihhbgyuselRUVfy1o8moFmETXwQCWewOVR2ECTi4cF3Ra5bWDznlN1e5P8AWoCx3Qq/PWiO3t8zy9p/0BN8T4yjOcw3psTwMHthzPQaiwk10ujIr76775Ou6WisDX0xClJj8NZcyF9mbxFkIJHI= ; X-YMail-OSG: 3P6mMjsVM1mJnte14hlEtEOts6ZpYmx0TpDisQnh78XgrlR.g6mPijs_UMRZA3sjISVbnDr7KQ-- Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: , "'Juergen Boldt'" Cc: Subject: SBVR Vote Initiated Issue - Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table (from Issue 9959 Vote) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:49:38 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcfrFPpXfzgG2QNQTyigC9HoFL6wFQ== Issue Submitter.s Name: Donald Chapin Issue Submitter.s Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair) Issue Submitter.s Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Issue Name: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table Document No: dtc/06/03/01 Document Revision Date: March 2006 Document Version No: --- Chapter/Section: 10.2 Page No(s): 101 Nature of Issue: Clarification Severity of Issue: Major Issue Description: As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: - a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 - the table will contain: o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs - the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force 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:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index; b=rU94okDiJRXQDtui+0/VY2A5onZZkHMOPpbiDDhC1otaMUGkycW2l2MlLFDaD7R5JwtwL9Fzlh0Onb76CnxWDRN69FG7iZ55me3AL+SG/VLcJs6c+hgc2mCyg82pn2Y00xT4kKLoekAIOXg74T7mHQU7gN1J9zPMW31jjQPb1jE= ; X-YMail-OSG: uAtVo1sVM1lOQrUAv5GDmWf_ABmolT_TbtgoysRKItT_xd.rmS3HJKUYaksyL2K8wT.i9EE8gh3YsKuLhXngEi0pTVsfYpmcVQiz7o3ezQSc785a Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:46:49 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcfxX2ygAHFm8iyOQEGZoOeQMxjqwAABaqYg Attached is the Issue 11328 (.Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table.) resolution document that was requested by Elisa Kendall and Terry Halpin as part of their votes on Issue 9959 in Ballot 10. The wording of the .clarified and strengthened note. has been agreed by Terry and Elisa. Please provide any feedback on this Issue resolution document by end of day Monday, Sept 10th, as I plan to put it to Ballot on Tuesday. Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 September 2007 15:53 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue Issue Submitter Name: Donald Chapin Issue Submitter Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair) Issue Submitter Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Issue Name: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table Document No: dtc/06/03/01 Document Revision Date: March 2006 Document Version No: --- Chapter/Section: 10.2 Page No(s): 101 Nature of Issue: Clarification Severity of Issue: Major Issue Description: As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: - a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 - the table will contain: o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs - the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force 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 Issue11328.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 11328 Title: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table Source: Donald Chapin, Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair), Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Summary: As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: v a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 v the table will contain: Ø a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 Ø a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs v the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force Resolution: 1. Move the two table notes to the first landscape page of the table just before the first row of the table 2. Replace for note: .NOTE: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification.. with the clarified and strengthened Note. Revised Text: MOVE the following two Notes to the top of the first landscape page containing the Clause 10.2 Formal Logic Interpretation Table: NOTE: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification. NOTE: All SBVR Terms are .meanings. where all CL Terms are .representations of meanings.. Therefore there is a one-to-many relationship between SBVR Terms as meanings and CL Terms as representations of meanings; i.e. there can be multiple CL representations of one SBVR meaning. REPLACE this Note: .NOTE: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification.. With: NOTE: A major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1. The following table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force. When completed, the table will contain: · a clear specification of which SBVR constructs have a formal logic interpretation · a formal logic interpretation for each SBVR construct so identified that is specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 · the conditions under which each given ISO Common Logic interpretation holds, if not for all conditions · a cross-reference to OWL constructs that have an equivalent representation to those SBVR constructs that have a formal logic interpretation Disposition: Resolved X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:19:18 -0500 To: , From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document Donald, It is inappropriate (not to mention unwise) to use such pejorative language in a standard, especially when describing itself. The phrase "the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force" should be changed to something like "the current table has recognized gaps, which will be addressed during the SBVR Revision Task Force" (or something). I will vote against the resolution simply on the basis of the wording, and would advise everyone else to do so as well. We need a little common sense here. Ron At 10:46 AM 9/7/2007, Donald Chapin wrote: Attached is the Issue 11328 (.Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table.) resolution document that was requested by Elisa Kendall and Terry Halpin as part of their votes on Issue 9959 in Ballot 10. The wording of the .clarified and strengthened note. has been agreed by Terry and Elisa. Please provide any feedback on this Issue resolution document by end of day Monday, Sept 10th, as I plan to put it to Ballot on Tuesday. Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 September 2007 15:53 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue Issue Submitters Name: Donald Chapin Issue Submitters Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair) Issue Submitters Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Issue Name: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table Document No: dtc/06/03/01 Document Revision Date: March 2006 Document Version No: --- Chapter/Section: 10.2 Page No(s): 101 Nature of Issue: Clarification Severity of Issue: Major Issue Description: As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: - a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 - the table will contain: o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs - the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force 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: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:01:51 -0400 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: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Cc: sbvr-ftf@omg.org, Andrew Watson , Tom Rutt , Jishnu Mukerji , "Manfred R. Köthe" Subject: Re: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document 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 Donald Chapin wrote: Please provide any feedback on this Issue resolution document by end of day Monday, Sept 10th, as I plan to put it to Ballot on Tuesday. You have no authority for such an FTF ballot. The FTF Report was due last Tuesday. This FTF is done; it must stop! Any issue submitted after last Tuesday is clearly out of your jurisdiction. If this issue goes to ballot on Tuesday, you will be 10 days past the 3-week rule producing your FTF Report. At least one AB member will surely refuse to permit the FTF report to be discussed in Jacksonville. All that can be done now is to fix the FTF report and clean up the editing instructions for the existing resolutions. -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 Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:00:23 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: [SBVR-FTF] issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document Thread-Index: AcfxX2ygAHFm8iyOQEGZoOeQMxjqwAABaqYgAATCfrA= From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2007 18:00:24.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6D4CFE0:01C7F178] I have made a small change to the draft resolution (with change tracking on). Rather than saying a .term. is a .meaning. (when it is not), we can say a .concept. is a meaning. The first column of the mapping table introduces SBVR concepts (both noun concepts and fact types) and we want people understand that column of the table in that way, not as a list of terms. Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:47 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document Attached is the Issue 11328 (.Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table.) resolution document that was requested by Elisa Kendall and Terry Halpin as part of their votes on Issue 9959 in Ballot 10. The wording of the .clarified and strengthened note. has been agreed by Terry and Elisa. Please provide any feedback on this Issue resolution document by end of day Monday, Sept 10th, as I plan to put it to Ballot on Tuesday. Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 September 2007 15:53 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue Issue Submitter Name: Donald Chapin Issue Submitter Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair) Issue Submitter Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Issue Name: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpretation Table Document No: dtc/06/03/01 Document Revision Date: March 2006 Document Version No: --- Chapter/Section: 10.2 Page No(s): 101 Nature of Issue: Clarification Severity of Issue: Major Issue Description: As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: - a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 - the table will contain: o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs - the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force 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: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:32:27 -0400 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 11328 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Resolution Document 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 have made a small change to the draft resolution (with change tracking on). Rather than saying a .term. is a .meaning. (when it is not), we can say a .concept. is a meaning. The first column of the mapping table introduces SBVR concepts (both noun concepts and fact types) and we want people understand that column of the table in that way, not as a list of terms. Well, actually, there are a number of confused ideas here. First, the things that appear in Column 1 are in fact signifiers, not concepts. And the use of "term" here is probably better, since the intent is the signifier understood as designating the concept. Second, the CL things are only sometimes "terms". What appears in this column are definitions, i.e. characterizations of concepts, using CL terminology. Third, the OWL column contains descriptions of concepts using OWL terminology. So in fact, every column contains representations (perforce, since it is only possible to refer to a concept by a representation of it). And they all contain representations of concepts. The intent of the table is to express the equivalences of concepts. Every row of the table provides three representations of exactly one concept, and each column provides *a* representation of that concept in the corresponding language. It will be noted that, in general, there are few synonyms here. (In the CL table, there are 16 entries that are 'terms', all the others are concept definitions using CL terms.) So this is not in fact a vocabulary-to-vocabulary mapping; it is an interpretation -- a description of each SBVR concept in the terms of another language. There is not a 1-to-many relationship between SBVR concepts and CL or OWL concepts. In general, there is a many-to-1 relationship between SBVR concepts for which there are terms in the SBVR vocabulary and CL or OWL concepts for which there are terms in the respective vocabulary. This is demonstrated by the fact that most of the SBVR concepts require the form in the CL and OWL columns. (And this is what one might expect, since the formal logic concepts are often more fundamental. This leads to a question about what is really meant by FL, but that is not this issue.) So the second NOTE to 10.2 is mostly wrong, and the proposed resolution is even worse. Finally, there is no reason whatsoever for the FTF to change the first Note, which seems to be correct, and certainly no reason to replace it with the proposed Note, which is uglier and provides irrelevant useless information. I think this FTF has exhausted its ability to do anything useful in this area and should leave Issue 11328 to the RTF. -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."