Issue 12543: A rulebook should have a URI (sbvr-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, mlinehan(at)us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules: * conceptual schema (clause 8.5) * fact model (8.5) * body of shared meanings (11.1.1) * body of shared concepts (11.1.1) * terminological dictionary (11.1.1) * vocabulary (11.1.1) * rulebook (11.2.2.4) Some issues: 4) A rulebook should have a URI, so that the rulebook can be addressed over the Internet. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 20, 2008: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 12543 A rulebook should have a URI SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules: * conceptual schema (clause 8.5) * fact model (8.5) * body of shared meanings (11.1.1) * body of shared concepts (11.1.1) * terminological dictionary (11.1.1) * vocabulary (11.1.1) * rulebook (11.2.2.4) Some issues: 4) A rulebook should have a URI, so that the rulebook can be addressed over Subject: Issue 12543 resolution To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:23:48 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MLC04/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 10/29/2008 18:27:12 At Donald's request, here is a proposed resolution for Issue 12543 "A rulebook should have a URI". Keri -- please note that this needs a minor revision for figure 11.7. (See attached file: Issue 12543.doc) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Issue 12543.doc From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:49:01 -0700 Subject: RE: Issue 12543 resolution Thread-Topic: Issue 12543 resolution Thread-Index: Ack6FazGTlXST6WNTU6JFg8y+odX9wABt0UQ Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Mark.s proposed resolution looks fine except it has the following text: In Annex C.4 .Specifying a Rule Set., add a new clause C.4.6: C.4.6 Namespace URI The .Namespace URI. caption is used to give a URI for a rule set. I recommend removing that text. A rulebook is not the same thing as a rule set. Also, a rulebook does not have a .Namespace URI.. It simply has a URI. But in any case, Annex C does not address rulebooks. Also, I just noticed that in the first paragraph of 7.1, the text ., rules sets. should be removed. There are no longer any rule sets named in clause 7. Regards, Don From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:24 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 12543 resolution At Donald's request, here is a proposed resolution for Issue 12543 "A rulebook should have a URI". Keri -- please note that this needs a minor revision for figure 11.7. (See attached file: Issue 12543.doc) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1226089225.93575@PhDIlTXE2bPLyPzpANflNQ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:20:25 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) To: Mark H Linehan CC: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 12543 resolution X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner-ID: m9VKKPcU011907 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Mark H Linehan wrote: Looking at clause 11, I can see that a rule set is just a set that contains rules. It's wonderful how you have to look at the clause 11 implementation to understand SBVR concepts.... There is no SBVR concept 'ruleset' or 'rule set'. That was deemed to be a term for IT captures of rules. So it is used only in an example in Clause 13. Of course, the only thing SBVR standardizes is interchanges of ?vocabularies? and rules among IT tools, but somehow that viewpoint was never relevant. Business people would never use "rule set", of course, while "res is sensory manifestation of signifier" they say all the time. This leaves some questions: What IS the intent of a "rulebook"? 'rulebook' is the only SBVR concept for "representation" of a 'body of shared guidance'. Otherwise those bodies only exist in the hive mind. How does a "rulebook" relate to a "vocabulary" or a "terminological dictionary"? 'terminological dictionary' is one or more representations of a 'body of shared meaning', for one or more speech communities, all in one box. It is close to, but not clearly the same as, the sections of SBVR that are misidentified as "vocabularies". It differs from a rulebook by not including whatever distinguishes a body of shared guidance from a body of shared meaning, to wit "statements of guidance". A 'vocabulary' is a collection of designations and fact type forms, expressions associated with 'concepts'. But it contains no other representations or formulations of concepts. (It is just the sum or stock of words, because the primary use of SBVR vocabularies is for spelling bees.) If you want formulations, you want a conceptual schema (although that is not clear). If you want definitions, you want a terminological dictionary, although that can include more than one vocabulary as well. So the contents of Clause 8 is clearly not a 'vocabulary'. It may be that clause 8 is a terminological dictionary. There is no SBVR term for "representation of a body of shared meaning". 'conceptual schema' might be one, but it apparently restricts what can be contained in one, and how it can be expressed, although it is unclear on that point. It may or may not have been intended to be restrictive, depending on whose intent you are talking about. And the conformance clauses were not actually allowed to require anything in this regard. I suggest we change the title of SBVR to "Semantics of Business Conceptual Schemas and Rules", and start a new RFP for "Exchange of Business Vocabularies". Or we could stop protecting our sacred cows, which provide neither beef nor milk to business, and clean up this mess. -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." X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:29:04 -0600 To: edbark@nist.gov, Mark H Linehan From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Issue 12543 resolution Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org At 02:20 PM 10/31/2008, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: Mark H Linehan wrote: Looking at clause 11, I can see that a rule set is just a set that contains rules. It's wonderful how you have to look at the clause 11 implementation to understand SBVR concepts.... There is no SBVR concept 'ruleset' or 'rule set'. That was deemed to be a term for IT captures of rules. No, I don't think that's quite right. It was deemed 'rule set' to have to do with the organization of rules, rather than the semantics, and therefore was out of scope. We had to draw the line somewhere. The semantics were hard enough. So it is used only in an example in Clause 13. Of course, the only thing SBVR standardizes is interchanges of ?vocabularies? and rules among IT tools, but somehow that viewpoint was never relevant. Business people would never use "rule set", of course, while "res is sensory manifestation of signifier" they say all the time. Good one! Yes, although I'd like to say clause 11 is the business-facing vocabulary for concepts and facts, that's not quite accurate, is it? Or you could say it's a superset(?). Ron This leaves some questions: What IS the intent of a "rulebook"? 'rulebook' is the only SBVR concept for "representation" of a 'body of shared guidance'. Otherwise those bodies only exist in the hive mind. How does a "rulebook" relate to a "vocabulary" or a "terminological dictionary"? 'terminological dictionary' is one or more representations of a 'body of shared meaning', for one or more speech communities, all in one box. It is close to, but not clearly the same as, the sections of SBVR that are misidentified as "vocabularies". It differs from a rulebook by not including whatever distinguishes a body of shared guidance from a body of shared meaning, to wit "statements of guidance". A 'vocabulary' is a collection of designations and fact type forms, expressions associated with 'concepts'. But it contains no other representations or formulations of concepts. (It is just the sum or stock of words, because the primary use of SBVR vocabularies is for spelling bees.) If you want formulations, you want a conceptual schema (although that is not clear). If you want definitions, you want a terminological dictionary, although that can include more than one vocabulary as well. So the contents of Clause 8 is clearly not a 'vocabulary'. It may be that clause 8 is a terminological dictionary. There is no SBVR term for "representation of a body of shared meaning". 'conceptual schema' might be one, but it apparently restricts what can be contained in one, and how it can be expressed, although it is unclear on that point. It may or may not have been intended to be restrictive, depending on whose intent you are talking about. And the conformance clauses were not actually allowed to require anything in this regard. I suggest we change the title of SBVR to "Semantics of Business Conceptual Schemas and Rules", and start a new RFP for "Exchange of Business Vocabularies". Or we could stop protecting our sacred cows, which provide neither beef nor milk to business, and clean up this mess. -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." To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 12543 proposed resolution X-KeepSent: 08F8F1B6:8CC046C3-852576F1:00517831; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2 HF623 January 16, 2009 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:51:25 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.2FP4|December 10, 2009) at 03/25/2010 10:51:26 I've attached a proposed resolution per today's discussion of issue 12543. Keri, please note that figure 11.7 should be updated to match. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 784-7002 or IBM tieline 863-7002 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Issue 12543.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 12543 Title: A rulebook should have a URI Source: Mark H. Linehan, IBM Research, mlinehan@us.ibm.com Summary: SBVR currently specifies that the following concepts can have URIs. This enables unambiguous .Internet identity. for instances of these concepts. · Namespaces (8.3.5) . and, indirectly, vocabularies · Communities (11.1.1) · Terminological dictionaries (11.1.1.3) Rulebooks (11.2.2.4) should also have the possibility of URIs, so that tools and users can unambiguously reference groups of rules. Resolution: Add .rulebook has URI. in clause 11.2.2.4. Revised Text: Insert at the end of clause 11.2.2.4: rulebook has URI Definition: the URI uniquely identifies the rulebook Necessity: Each URI is the URI of at most one rulebook. Revise figure 11.7 accordingly. Disposition: Resolved the Internet.