Issue 12437: Issue "fact type role is in fact type" (sbvr-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, mlinehan(at)us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form "fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role is in fact type". Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly *not* in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has role". Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed to "fact type has fact type role". Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 12, 2008: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: Issue "fact type role is in fact type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:30:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 05/12/2008 13:30:09 In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form "fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role is in fact type". Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly *not* in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has role". Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed to "fact type has fact type role". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 23:14:10 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Aci0WgJtOCCb2QlxTLuoNRf40ZOQTwAGgyO7 From: "Sjir Nijssen" To: "Juergen Boldt" , , To all, Thank you Mark for this proposal. If accepted it increases the consistency of Clause 8. Of course I support it. I sincerely hope your recommendation gets unanimous and very quick support. Kind regards Sjir -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Van: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Verzonden: ma 12-5-2008 19:52 Aan: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Onderwerp: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: Issue "fact type role is in fact type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:30:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 05/12/2008 13:30:09 In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form "fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role is in fact type". Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly *not* in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has role". Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed to "fact type has fact type role". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com 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 From: "Don Baisley" To: Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:54:02 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Aci0WgJtOCCb2QlxTLuoNRf40ZOQTwAGgyO7ADF0+CA= I think Mark makes a good point. It is best to see .fact type role. in the preferred form. If we simply make .fact type role is in fact type. to be the preferred form and make .fact type has role. to be the synonymous form, then there is no impact on the SBVR MOF or XMI. Removing .fact type has role. is a big change because that form is heavily used . there would be a lot of editing to do. To keep the change simple and to avoid unnecessary change to the MOF and XMI, I recommend simply switching the preference. Best regards, Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sjir Nijssen [mailto:sjir.nijssen@pna-group.nl] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:14 PM To: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue To all, Thank you Mark for this proposal. If accepted it increases the consistency of Clause 8. Of course I support it. I sincerely hope your recommendation gets unanimous and very quick support. Kind regards Sjir -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Van: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Verzonden: ma 12-5-2008 19:52 Aan: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Onderwerp: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: Issue "fact type role is in fact type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:30:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 05/12/2008 13:30:09 In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form "fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role is in fact type". Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly *not* in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has role". Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed to "fact type has fact type role". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com 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 Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:24:49 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 05/13/2008 17:24:49 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m4DLQ18h003532 Seems to me that we would still end up with two distinct concepts ("role" and "fact type role") both claiming to fill the "fact type role" of "fact type role is in fact type". That's not legitimate. By the way: I noticed another problem -- the Note under "role" says that "A role can be an object type or a fact type role." But the model does not permit a "role" to be an "object type". Instead, we have "role ranges over object type". So this part of the note is wrong. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com "Don Baisley" To 05/13/2008 04:54 cc PM Subject RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue I think Mark makes a good point. It is best to see â..,fact type roleâ.. in the preferred form. If we simply make â..fact type role is in fact typeâ.. to be the preferred form and make â..fact type has roleâ.. to be the synonymous form, then there is no impact on the SBVR MOF or XMI. Removing â..fact type has roleâ.. is a big change because that form is heavily used ­ there would be a lot of editing to do. To keep the change simple and to avoid unnecessary change to the MOF and XMI, I recommend simply switching the preference. Best regards, Don From: Sjir Nijssen [mailto:sjir.nijssen@pna-group.nl] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:14 PM To: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue To all, Thank you Mark for this proposal. If accepted it increases the consistency of Clause 8. Of course I support it. I sincerely hope your recommendation gets unanimous and very quick support. Kind regards Sjir Van: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Verzonden: ma 12-5-2008 19:52 Aan: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Onderwerp:. issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: Issue "fact type role is in fact type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:30:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1| February 07, 2008) at 05/12/2008 13:30:09 In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form "fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role is in fact type". Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly *not* in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has role". Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed to "fact type has fact type role". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com 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 Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:03:02 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 06/02/2008 16:03:08 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m52K5SUd001447 Here's an alternative resolution that -- upon reflection -- I like better. And it's consistent with what Don suggests, below. * make "fact type role is in fact type" to be the preferred form * make "fact type has role" to be a synonymous form * change figure 8.2 to (a) drop the box for "fact type role"; (b) show the association from "fact type" to "role" and label the end next to "role" as "fact type role" In other words, make it clear that "fact type role" is the role name (UML: association end name) for the concept "role" when used in "fact type role is in fact type". On a related point, the distinction between "fact type role" and "situational role" still is not very clear in the specification. A "fact type role" is a "role that specifically characterizes its instances by their involvement in an actuality that is an instance of a given fact type." A "situational role" is an "object type that corresponds to things based on their playing a part, assuming a function, or being used in some situation." But an actuality is a kind of situation. So a "fact type role" is about instances that are involved in actual situations, and a "situational role" is about things playing a part in some situation (whether actual or not). So how are "things that play a part in an actual situation" different from "instances involved in an actuality"? I find this quite confusing. It might be helpful to give a fact type that relates "fact type role" to "situational role". Is it the case that the extension of one of these kinds of roles is made up of the other kind of roles? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com "Don Baisley" To 05/13/2008 04:54 cc PM Subject RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue I think Mark makes a good point. It is best to see â..,fact type roleâ.. in the preferred form. If we simply make â..fact type role is in fact typeâ.. to be the preferred form and make â..fact type has roleâ.. to be the synonymous form, then there is no impact on the SBVR MOF or XMI. Removing â..fact type has roleâ.. is a big change because that form is heavily used ­ there would be a lot of editing to do. To keep the change simple and to avoid unnecessary change to the MOF and XMI, I recommend simply switching the preference. Best regards, Don From: Sjir Nijssen [mailto:sjir.nijssen@pna-group.nl] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:14 PM To: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue To all, Thank you Mark for this proposal. If accepted it increases the consistency of Clause 8. Of course I support it. I sincerely hope your recommendation gets unanimous and very quick support. Kind regards Sjir Van: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Verzonden: ma 12-5-2008 19:52 Aan: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Onderwerp:. issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: Issue "fact type role is in fact type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:30:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1| February 07, 2008) at 05/12/2008 13:30:09 In clause 8.1.1.1, we have "fact type has role", with a synonymous form "fact type role is in fact type". Figure 8.2 also shows "fact type role is in fact type". Issue: a "fact type role" is a specialization of "role", so it is confusing to see the preferred form of the fact type use "role" but the synonymous form use "fact type role". Especially because figure 8.2 seems to indicate that a "fact type role" is in a fact type but that a "role" is explicitly *not* in a fact type. So the figure appears to contradict "fact type has role". Recommendation: I think the preferred entry is wrong, and should be changed to "fact type has fact type role". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com 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: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:55:47 -0700 From: Keri Anderson Healy To: Mark H Linehan , SBVR RTF Subject: Re: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Originating-IP: 80.25.93.162 On 6/2/08 1:03 PM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > ... > On a related point, the distinction between "fact type role" and > "situational role" still is not very clear in the specification.... It might be easier to grasp the meaning of 'situational role' by looking at how this concept is presented in 11.1.5. There we understand that general concepts are either fundamental or situational -- e.g., fundamental, like 'dog', or situational, like 'pet'. A fact type role is an entirely different notion. Personally, I find it easier to understand these two concepts (situational role and fact type) first as distinct notions, each in its own right. And then pursue how they generalize, up, into 'role', when that is relevant. Trying to start with 'role' and grasp the specialization, down, is (IMO) less clarifying. > It might be helpful to give a fact type that relates "fact type role" to > "situational role". Perhaps the relationship you are seeking is the fact type that relates, in general, fact type role to general concept (object type) -- i.e., that a fact type role ranges over a general concept (i.e., either a fundamental concept or a situational role). > Is it the case that the extension of one of these > kinds of roles is made up of the other kind of roles? Not really ... in Fig. 8.1 we see that no general concept is a fact type role, and vice versa. ~ Keri Subject: Re: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:56:06 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 06/16/2008 16:56:02 Given what Keri says below, would "role ranges over object type" be clearer as "role ranges over situational role"? Or "fact type role ranges over situational role"? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Keri Anderson Healy To Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, 06/05/2008 05:55 SBVR RTF AM cc Subject Re: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue On 6/2/08 1:03 PM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > ... > On a related point, the distinction between "fact type role" and > "situational role" still is not very clear in the specification.... It might be easier to grasp the meaning of 'situational role' by looking at how this concept is presented in 11.1.5. There we understand that general concepts are either fundamental or situational -- e.g., fundamental, like 'dog', or situational, like 'pet'. A fact type role is an entirely different notion. Personally, I find it easier to understand these two concepts (situational role and fact type) first as distinct notions, each in its own right. And then pursue how they generalize, up, into 'role', when that is relevant. Trying to start with 'role' and grasp the specialization, down, is (IMO) less clarifying. > It might be helpful to give a fact type that relates "fact type role" to > "situational role". Perhaps the relationship you are seeking is the fact type that relates, in general, fact type role to general concept (object type) -- i.e., that a fact type role ranges over a general concept (i.e., either a fundamental concept or a situational role). > Is it the case that the extension of one of these > kinds of roles is made up of the other kind of roles? Not really ... in Fig. 8.1 we see that no general concept is a fact type role, and vice versa. ~ Keri From: "Don Baisley" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:51:08 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcjP85L7W2mXi+uoQ+u09319p865owAJtofg A fact type role can range over any sort of object type. It can range over a situational role (E.g. the 'department manager' fact type role in the fact type 'department has department manager' ranging over a situational role 'department manager'). A fact type role can also range over an object type that is not a situational role (E.g. the 'department' fact type role in the fact type 'department has department manager' ranging over the object type 'department' -- understood to be fundamental, not situational). Also, a situational role can range over any sort of object type. A situational role 'department manager' can range over another situational role 'manager'. And the situational role 'manager' can range over the object type 'person' understood as fundamental, not situational. The sense of "ranges over" seems the same to me in all of the cases above. Best regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:56 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue Given what Keri says below, would "role ranges over object type" be clearer as "role ranges over situational role"? Or "fact type role ranges over situational role"? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Keri Anderson Healy To Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, 06/05/2008 05:55 SBVR RTF AM cc Subject Re: issue 12437 -- SBVR RTF issue On 6/2/08 1:03 PM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > ... > On a related point, the distinction between "fact type role" and > "situational role" still is not very clear in the specification.... It might be easier to grasp the meaning of 'situational role' by looking at how this concept is presented in 11.1.5. There we understand that general concepts are either fundamental or situational -- e.g., fundamental, like 'dog', or situational, like 'pet'. A fact type role is an entirely different notion. Personally, I find it easier to understand these two concepts (situational role and fact type) first as distinct notions, each in its own right. And then pursue how they generalize, up, into 'role', when that is relevant. Trying to start with 'role' and grasp the specialization, down, is (IMO) less clarifying. > It might be helpful to give a fact type that relates "fact type role" to > "situational role". Perhaps the relationship you are seeking is the fact type that relates, in general, fact type role to general concept (object type) -- i.e., that a fact type role ranges over a general concept (i.e., either a fundamental concept or a situational role). > Is it the case that the extension of one of these > kinds of roles is made up of the other kind of roles? Not really ... in Fig. 8.1 we see that no general concept is a fact type role, and vice versa. ~ Keri internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com