Issue 11510: Restore Primary Reading to "Formulated Based On" Fact Type (bmm-ftf) Source: Business Rule Solutions, LLC (Ms. Keri Anderson Healy, keri_ah@mac.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Source: BRG Keri Anderson Healy, Ronald G. Ross Summary: The 07-08-06 version of BMM now reflects a 'forward' (primary) reading of a fact type that differs from business intent of this association, as expressed in both the BRG BMM and the prose for this assocation (see 8.2.6 Directive, first paragraph on p. 30 (PDF p. 40)). It is also possible for the Courses of Action to be formulated based on Directives. For example, the Tactics 'Comply with manufacturer's maintenance schedules' and 'Equalize use of cars across rentals so that mileage is similar for cars of the same car group and age' are both formulated based on the Business Policy 'Depreciation of cars must be minimized'. The Directive thereby serves as the source of the Course of Action. Given an understanding of how the BRG developed the prose reading of a model, it is clear which reading of this fact type is the intended primary reading. Here is the mechanistic process that was generally applied: · Express the fact type in a prose sentence that states the forward-reading's first concept as the subject, the primary reading phrase as the verb, and the forward-reading's second concept as the object of the sentence. · Give example(s). · Optionally, state the secondary reading. (Note: when the secondary reading is simply the passive form, omit.) From this, it is evident that the intended forward (primary) reading of this fact type is: course of action is formulated based on directive Indeed, this is the way the entry appeared in an early version of Clause 9 (e.g., dated Aug. 22, 2006). Changing the reading of this fact type to have 'directive' be the subject loses an important part of the business message of what is going on in this part of the model. There are two potential relationships between a course of action and a directive, each with a different 'subject', to yield a kind of back-and-forth synergy between the concepts. Depicting the same subject for both fact types loses this part of the message. Resolution: Restore the original designation of which reading is "primary" so that both the Concepts Catalog entry and the UML derivitaves are correct and consistent with the prose and the business intent of this fact type. Revised Text: In 9.1, p. 59 (PDF p. 69), change the entry that currently reads: directive is source of course of action Synonymous Form course of action is formulated based on directive to read: course of action is formulated based on directive Synonymous Form directive is source of course of action In 9.4, p. 67 (PDF, p. 77), change the line that currently reads: directive is source of course of action DirectiveIsSourceOfCourseOfAction to read: course of action is formulated based on directive CourseOfActionIsFormulatedBasedOnDirective In 9.5, p. 68 (PDF, p. 78), change the line that currently reads: directive is source of course of action baseDirective derivedCourseOfAction to read: course of action is formulated based on directive derivedCourseOfAction baseDirective Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 23, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: FW: [resending]: [BMM] Specification and convenience document - PROOFING Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:06:47 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [resending]: [BMM] Specification and convenience document - PROOFING Thread-Index: Acf8S9n6C66/3XxuTliI0y4PQ5iKaAABdF6gAE/Jb1cAAN2/sAAVZQ5mAAP01XcAA7BLYA== From: "Pete Rivett" To: Pls assign an issue number and let the people on original email know. Ta Pete From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 23 September 2007 11:52 To: Pete Rivett; BMM FTF Cc: Andrew Watson; Ronald G. Ross; John Hall Subject: Re: [resending]: [BMM] Specification and convenience document - PROOFING Pete suggested that I might not be using the correct OMG process to get this fix tended to. In case different covering paperwork is needed, attached is an Issue write-up that presents what should be needed. If I missed something, or different/additional paperwork is called for, please ask. Thanks, Keri PS . You will note that I left the UML role names unchanged. Personally, I would have preferred other ('more aligned') names but wanted this fix to be minimally disruptive to the UML side of the house and I did not presume 'better' terms for UML. Our primary concern is getting the business-facing material restored to its original/intended state. On 9/23/07 6:58 AM, "keri" wrote: On 9/23/07 6:02 AM, "Pete Rivett" wrote: > Thanks, Keri. > The UML name was explicit in the issue resolution and was not an editing > mistake applying the resolution to the document. So the editor does not > have discretion to change it. > It can in theory be corrected in time, but in order to stand any chance > of getting your change incorporated there needs to be an official issue > that the FTF members can actually vote on in the very limited time left. > And the report etc needs to be updated to match. > > Pete Pete, Thanks for your persistence in trying to help here. The process that Andrew outlined, and which I believe we are following is the following: On 9/21/07 2:49 AM, "Andrew Watson" wrote: > > 3. There is one exception to (2) above - if a technical issue that urgently > needs resolving is found with a published specification, that issue can be > declared "urgent", after which it must be resolved by the RTF within two > weeks, and that resolution (only) is applied to the published spec, > creating (in this example) SBVR 1.0.1. Only the technical director (that's > me) can declare an issue as "Urgent". If asked to do so, I always consult > the RTF chair(s) before taking any action. Now I realize that this isn't yet a "published specification" but I thought that it was close enough to being "published" that it would apply. If I need to do some other process ... or some additional process, I'm happy to do so. Are you saying that I now need to write up/send in an "Issue" for this? You point out that it was a vote and I repeat that I was NOT challenging that -- nor am I claiming that this came from some flawed application of an edit instruction. But it is an error -- no one is contesting that. I am doing the best I can, given my lack of familiarity with all the hoops of the OMG, to get it fixed before the 1.0 rev. is cut. But if it can't, it can't. Perhaps I am striving for too much perfection or being too optimistic that "the process" can NOT be this hard for a small, late-hour fix. I now feel like I've living that stereotype case of the poor, poor businessperson. This can be my newest addition to the lecture on "Why the Transform from Business to IT is predictably Lossy": Businessperson: Here are my requirements. IT/UML person: Great! ... (time passes) ... Here it is; look it over. Businessperson: Wow! Impressive. But I've spotted this one tiny problem. IT/UML person: That's not a problem; our UML gurus said that's the way it needs to be. Businessperson: But it isn't what I asked for. I thought I had written it down clearly. Why didn't you check with me? IT/UML person: Sorry. We didn't think to ask you. We took a vote instead. Businessperson: But it isn't what I asked for. Can't you change it? IT/UML person: Oh, my. That's a problem. The code has been written. It's really hard to change now. Businessperson: What can I do about this? IT/UML person: Would it be hard for you to change your business to do it this way? If not, please put in a change request. When things get too dire I try to see humor in the situation (even if black/ironic). Say, wasn't "doing models" (as in "model driven development") supposed to make life better? (asked with tongue firmly planted in cheek). Next step? ~ Keri > -----Original Message----- > From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] > Sent: 22 September 2007 23:21 > To: Pete Rivett; Andrew Watson > Cc: John Hall; Ronald G. Ross; Linda Heaton; BMM FTF > Subject: Re: [resending]: [BMM] Specification and convenience document - > PROOFING > > Hi, Pete, > > Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this. > > This is not a matter of my "not liking" some name, or of my challenging > that > a vote was held. In my proofing I discovered an error. What is under > discussion is the appropriate handling of it. The matter has been > raised to > Andrew, who brought the appropriate process to our attention in a note > (to > the SBVR folks) in which he identified that he is the person who > determines > the outcome of "urgent" fixes. > > If it cannot be corrected in time for BMM 1.0 then at least there is now > an > awareness of the problem. Vendors yet-to-implement can be made aware of > it > and can plan accordingly. Of course, I do still hold out hope that this > is > such a small fix it can be done under the wire and that BMM 1.0 can be > published without this blemish. > > Regards, > Keri > > On 9/21/07 6:30 AM, "Pete Rivett" wrote: > >> As John said, this is not something that he was empowered to do as an >> editorial correction since the name was explicitly voted on (as part > of >> a large list of similar name proposals - hence the general rule John >> mentioned that was agreed with UML/MOF 'experts'). >> Hence it does not make sense to argue about his rejection of your > proof >> reading comment: if you don't like the name then raise an issue with > an >> explicit proposal as to what this name should be and make your >> 'appeals'/offers of help to John - for the effort of instituting > another >> BMM Ballot, reissuing the spec, XMI, FTF report etc etc. >> >> Pete >> .... >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Watson [mailto:andrew@omg.org] >> Sent: 21 September 2007 05:31 >> To: keri >> Cc: John Hall; Ronald G. Ross; Linda Heaton; BMM FTF >> Subject: Re: [resending]: [BMM] Specification and convenience document > - >> PROOFING >> >> Keri, >> >> You wrote: >> >>> From your reply in the SBVR-FTF thread, it appears that you are the >>> person to whom I need to bring this matter for an item in the >> about-to-be >>> approved BMM work. (I refer to your SBVR-FTF point 3, outlining the >>> handling of "urgent" fixes.) >>> >>> Below is from a reply to John (sent earlier). It involves something > I >>> reported from my "proofing" of the material that was circulated. One >> item >>> was rejected as not being a 'correction'; I request that that ruling >> be >>> reconsidered. The relevant part of the exchange, supporting my >>> interpretation of 'error', is quoted below. >> >> The BMM FTF report is about to be presented to the OMG Membership for >> approval as an OMG specification. That takes a vote of the Domain >> Technical >> Committee, and also the approval of the Architecture Board. Clearly > OMG >> members voting on this should be aware of your concern before they do >> so. >> >> Will you be at the Jacksonville meeting? If so, I suggest you, John > Hall >> and I get together to discuss this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrew > > BMM Issue xxxxx restorePrimaryReading1.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: xxxxx Title: BMM: Restore Primary Reading to "Formulated Based On" Fact Type Source: BRG Keri Anderson Healy, Ronald G. Ross Summary: The 07-08-06 version of BMM now reflects a 'forward' (primary) reading of a fact type that differs from business intent of this association, as expressed in both the BRG BMM and the prose for this assocation (see 8.2.6 Directive, first paragraph on p. 30 (PDF p. 40)). It is also possible for the Courses of Action to be formulated based on Directives. For example, the Tactics 'Comply with manufacturer's maintenance schedules' and 'Equalize use of cars across rentals so that mileage is similar for cars of the same car group and age' are both formulated based on the Business Policy 'Depreciation of cars must be minimized'. The Directive thereby serves as the source of the Course of Action. Given an understanding of how the BRG developed the prose reading of a model, it is clear which reading of this fact type is the intended primary reading. Here is the mechanistic process that was generally applied: · Express the fact type in a prose sentence that states the forward-reading's first concept as the subject, the primary reading phrase as the verb, and the forward-reading's second concept as the object of the sentence. · Give example(s). · Optionally, state the secondary reading. (Note: when the secondary reading is simply the passive form, omit.) From this, it is evident that the intended forward (primary) reading of this fact type is: course of action is formulated based on directive Indeed, this is the way the entry appeared in an early version of Clause 9 (e.g., dated Aug. 22, 2006). Changing the reading of this fact type to have 'directive' be the subject loses an important part of the business message of what is going on in this part of the model. There are two potential relationships between a course of action and a directive, each with a different 'subject', to yield a kind of back-and-forth synergy between the concepts. Depicting the same subject for both fact types loses this part of the message. Resolution: Restore the original designation of which reading is "primary" so that both the Concepts Catalog entry and the UML derivitaves are correct and consistent with the prose and the business intent of this fact type. Revised Text: In 9.1, p. 59 (PDF p. 69), change the entry that currently reads: directive is source of course of action Synonymous Form course of action is formulated based on directive to read: course of action is formulated based on directive Synonymous Form directive is source of course of action In 9.4, p. 67 (PDF, p. 77), change the line that currently reads: directive is source of course of action DirectiveIsSourceOfCourseOfAction to read: course of action is formulated based on directive CourseOfActionIsFormulatedBasedOnDirective In 9.5, p. 68 (PDF, p. 78), change the line that currently reads: directive is source of course of action baseDirective derivedCourseOfAction to read: course of action is formulated based on directive derivedCourseOfAction baseDirective Disposition: Resolved