Issue 12589: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" (sbvr-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, mlinehan(at)us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a city branch ...." Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 28, 2008: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: issue: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 07/28/2008 12:18:24 Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a city branch ...." -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 Subject: RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:43:34 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 07/31/2008 09:43:34 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m6VDioOV022244 Regarding point 1: both "characteristic type" and "categorization type" seem to be ways to "establish concept systems". One "serves as a criterion of subdivision ....[of concepts]", while the other talks about "... meaningful-to-the-business categories of another concept". One has a Necessity that says "each instance ... is a concept type", while the other has a definition about "concept whose instances ...." When you deconstruct them, they seem to be talking about the same idea. Regarding point 2: on page 137, there is an example that says "The extension of the characteristic type 'color' includes the characteristics 'thing is blue', 'thing is red', 'thing is green', etc." Now substitute 'branch type' and 'city branch', etc., into the example. You would have "thing is city branch", etc. What's the difference? When would one define a concept as a "characteristic type" versus a "categorization type"? Regarding point 3: Don is certainly correct. But the fact that defining "branch type" as *either* a "branch type" or a "characteristic type" licenses the same "Structured English" should give us a clue that these are really the same idea. A couple more points: A) There is a note under "categorization type" that says "A categorization type is either partial or complete. ..." I think the same point applies to a "characteristic type". B) A "characteristic" can be "essential", "necessary", "implied", "delimiting" and/or "incorporated". Don't all these aspects also apply to instances of "categorization type"? For example in EU-Rent, an "organization unit" must necessarily have "organizational function" type "branch" in order to be further categorized as kinds of branches. C) It appears that one could define a "categorization scheme" based on a "characteristic type" such as "color". Recasting "branch type" as a "characteristic type", we could have: branch type: characteristic type that classifies a "branch" based on "hours of operation" and "car storage capacity" [and whether it is an EU-Rent location] (part in brackets missing from Annex E) agency type: "branch type" that does not have an EU-Rent location and has minimal car storage and has on-demand operation airport branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent location and has large car storage and has 24x7 business hours city branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent location and has moderate car storage and has long business hours agency: "branch" that is an "agency type" airport branch: "branch" that is an "airport branch type" city branch: "branch" that is a "city branch type" Branches by Type: segmentation that is for the concept "branch" and subdivides "branches" based on "branch type". Necessity: Branches by Type contains the characteristic types "agency type", and "airport branch type", and "city branch type" My point is that "characteristic type" and "categorization type" seem to have the same function. -------------------------------- 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 Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, 07/31/2008 02:12 "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" AM cc Subject RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Perhaps I have missed something, but I don..t understand this issue. 1. The concept ..Characteristic type.. comes from ISO 1087-1. Its incorporated characteristics do not include all of the characteristics incorporated into the concept ..categorization type.., so it cannot possibly specialize the concept ..categorization type... 2. The instances of ..branch type.. are object types, not characteristics, so it would be an error to call ..branch type.. a characteristic type. 3. ..city branch.. specializes ..branch.., so the statement ..if there exists a branch that is a city branch ..... means the same thing as ..if there exists a city branch ....., or more plainly, ..if a city branch exists...... I don..t understand how it could be that any of these statements is not already ..enabled.. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:16 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: issue: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 07/28/2008 12:18:24 Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a city branch ...." -------------------------------- 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 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=KHpXyVWLAAAA:8 a=hBPufCWENMSH5puCUfgA:9 a=mhYDJ60WhmFovF_8vI50xfI7O6wA:4 a=frGiPHrGPy0A:10 a=-zspGdomsggA:10 a=gFGq0ozTCKgA:10 a=ZA5awsyJ4CEA:10 a=h0qIDEOx4MwA:10 a=WP4_USCxRkkA:10 a=gi0PWCVxevcA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:11:02 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri To: Mark H Linehan , SBVR RTF Thread-Topic: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Acjz+ZMT0dgKPl/sEd2nSAARJM+Cgg== X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m71HCwrH008455 I thought the question was whether 'concept type' and 'categorization type' are synonyms (terms for the same concept). Keri On 7/31/08 6:43 AM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > Regarding point 1: both "characteristic type" and "categorization type" > seem to be ways to "establish concept systems". One "serves as a > criterion of subdivision ....[of concepts]", while the other talks about > "... meaningful-to-the-business categories of another concept". One has a > Necessity that says "each instance ... is a concept type", while the other > has a definition about "concept whose instances ...." When you > deconstruct them, they seem to be talking about the same idea. > > Regarding point 2: on page 137, there is an example that says "The > extension of the characteristic type 'color' includes the characteristics > 'thing is blue', 'thing is red', 'thing is green', etc." Now substitute > 'branch type' and 'city branch', etc., into the example. You would have > "thing is city branch", etc. What's the difference? When would one > define a concept as a "characteristic type" versus a "categorization type"? > > Regarding point 3: Don is certainly correct. But the fact that defining > "branch type" as *either* a "branch type" or a "characteristic type" > licenses the same "Structured English" should give us a clue that these are > really the same idea. > > A couple more points: > > A) There is a note under "categorization type" that says "A categorization > type is either partial or complete. ..." I think the same point applies > to a "characteristic type". > > B) A "characteristic" can be "essential", "necessary", "implied", > "delimiting" and/or "incorporated". Don't all these aspects also apply to > instances of "categorization type"? For example in EU-Rent, an > "organization unit" must necessarily have "organizational function" type > "branch" in order to be further categorized as kinds of branches. > > C) It appears that one could define a "categorization scheme" based on a > "characteristic type" such as "color". Recasting "branch type" as a > "characteristic type", we could have: > > branch type: characteristic type that classifies a "branch" based on "hours > of operation" and "car storage capacity" [and whether it is an EU-Rent > location] (part in brackets missing from Annex E) > > agency type: "branch type" that does not have an EU-Rent location and has > minimal car storage and has on-demand operation > airport branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent > location and has large car storage and has 24x7 business hours > city branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent location > and has moderate car storage and has long business hours > > agency: "branch" that is an "agency type" > airport branch: "branch" that is an "airport branch type" > city branch: "branch" that is a "city branch type" > > Branches by Type: segmentation that is for the concept "branch" and > subdivides "branches" based on "branch type". > Necessity: Branches by Type contains the characteristic types "agency > type", and "airport branch type", and "city branch type" > > My point is that "characteristic type" and "categorization type" seem to > have the same function. > -------------------------------- > 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 > osoft.com> To > Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, > 07/31/2008 02:12 "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" > AM > cc > > Subject > RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I have missed something, but I dont understand this issue. > > 1. The concept .Characteristic type comes from ISO 1087-1. > Its incorporated characteristics do not include all of the > characteristics incorporated into the concept .categorization type, > so it cannot possibly specialize the concept .categorization type. > 2. The instances of .branch type are object types, not > characteristics, so it would be an error to call .branch type a > characteristic type. > 3. .city branch specializes .branch, so the statement if > there exists a branch that is a city branch .... means the same > thing as if there exists a city branch ...., or more plainly, if a > city branch exists..... I dont understand how it could be that any > of these statements is not already enabled. > > Best regards, > Don > > > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:16 AM > To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Subject: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > Subject: issue: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" > To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org > X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 > From: Mark H Linehan > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0400 > X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build > V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at > 07/28/2008 12:18:24 > > > Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that > "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that > "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. > > Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic > type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a > city branch ...." > -------------------------------- > 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 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:46:44 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 08/01/2008 13:46:42 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m71HmMXc017141 They are clearly not synonyms in SBVR as it stands today. I think that they have the same function, and thus it is confusing to have both. -------------------------------- 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 To 08/01/2008 01:11 Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, PM SBVR RTF cc Subject Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue I thought the question was whether 'concept type' and 'categorization type' are synonyms (terms for the same concept). Keri On 7/31/08 6:43 AM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > Regarding point 1: both "characteristic type" and "categorization type" > seem to be ways to "establish concept systems". One "serves as a > criterion of subdivision ....[of concepts]", while the other talks about > "... meaningful-to-the-business categories of another concept". One has a > Necessity that says "each instance ... is a concept type", while the other > has a definition about "concept whose instances ...." When you > deconstruct them, they seem to be talking about the same idea. > > Regarding point 2: on page 137, there is an example that says "The > extension of the characteristic type 'color' includes the characteristics > 'thing is blue', 'thing is red', 'thing is green', etc." Now substitute > 'branch type' and 'city branch', etc., into the example. You would have > "thing is city branch", etc. What's the difference? When would one > define a concept as a "characteristic type" versus a "categorization type"? > > Regarding point 3: Don is certainly correct. But the fact that defining > "branch type" as *either* a "branch type" or a "characteristic type" > licenses the same "Structured English" should give us a clue that these are > really the same idea. > > A couple more points: > > A) There is a note under "categorization type" that says "A categorization > type is either partial or complete. ..." I think the same point applies > to a "characteristic type". > > B) A "characteristic" can be "essential", "necessary", "implied", > "delimiting" and/or "incorporated". Don't all these aspects also apply to > instances of "categorization type"? For example in EU-Rent, an > "organization unit" must necessarily have "organizational function" type > "branch" in order to be further categorized as kinds of branches. > > C) It appears that one could define a "categorization scheme" based on a > "characteristic type" such as "color". Recasting "branch type" as a > "characteristic type", we could have: > > branch type: characteristic type that classifies a "branch" based on "hours > of operation" and "car storage capacity" [and whether it is an EU-Rent > location] (part in brackets missing from Annex E) > > agency type: "branch type" that does not have an EU-Rent location and has > minimal car storage and has on-demand operation > airport branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent > location and has large car storage and has 24x7 business hours > city branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent location > and has moderate car storage and has long business hours > > agency: "branch" that is an "agency type" > airport branch: "branch" that is an "airport branch type" > city branch: "branch" that is a "city branch type" > > Branches by Type: segmentation that is for the concept "branch" and > subdivides "branches" based on "branch type". > Necessity: Branches by Type contains the characteristic types "agency > type", and "airport branch type", and "city branch type" > > My point is that "characteristic type" and "categorization type" seem to > have the same function. > -------------------------------- > 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 > osoft.com> To > Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, > 07/31/2008 02:12 "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" > AM > cc > > Subject > RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I have missed something, but I don¹t understand this issue. > > 1. The concept .Characteristic type¹ comes from ISO 1087-1. > Its incorporated characteristics do not include all of the > characteristics incorporated into the concept .categorization type¹, > so it cannot possibly specialize the concept .categorization type¹. > 2. The instances of .branch type¹ are object types, not > characteristics, so it would be an error to call .branch type¹ a > characteristic type. > 3. .city branch¹ specializes .branch¹, so the statement ³if > there exists a branch that is a city branch ....² means the same > thing as ³if there exists a city branch ....², or more plainly, ³if a > city branch exists....². I don¹t understand how it could be that any > of these statements is not already ³enabled². > > Best regards, > Don > > > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:16 AM > To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Subject: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > Subject: issue: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" > To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org > X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 > From: Mark H Linehan > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0400 > X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build > V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at > 07/28/2008 12:18:24 > > > Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that > "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that > "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. > > Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic > type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a > city branch ...." > -------------------------------- > 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 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=IlqmJitBZVMP2MCSaEQA:9 a=-HWyR4x3gGrA5dvEs-o0VfTZj_oA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 a=Pe-FwntRUwxpXbViAeoA:7 a=AfwVjjkROwJwGTWnqm89yjM74u0A:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:33:02 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri To: Mark H Linehan , SBVR RTF Thread-Topic: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Acj0DWlkp+v2pmAAEd2nSAARJM+Cgg== On 8/1/08 10:46 AM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > They are clearly not synonyms in SBVR as it stands today. > > I think that they have the same function, and thus it is confusing to have > both. Sorry. Yes, I meant that they were intended to mean the same thing and, indeed, are not currently synonyms in SBVR today. Wouldn't that be the fix to accomplish what you are asking for in this Issue -- i.e., making 'concept type' (Clause 8) and 'categorization type' (Clause 11) be synonyms? Keri Subject: Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:50:08 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 08/01/2008 16:50:06 Hmm, when I read your last mail, I didn't notice that you were referencing "concept type" and "categorization type". So, thinking further: SBVR is not clear about the relationship among three terms: "concept type", "characteristic type", and "categorization type". I'm not sure whether there are one or two underlying ideas here -- but I'm fairly sure that there are not three ideas. Here are the ones I think I read into the text: 1. Abstract concept that categorizes another concept. 2. Concrete concept that "serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems". Notice that the difference between #1 and #2 is "abstract" versus "concrete". I think I see this difference from looking at the EU-Rent examples of "categorization type" (#1) and "characteristic type" (#2): For example, "branch type" categorizes "branch". "branch type" appears in the model only as an abstract idea. For example, "rental state" is a "characteristic type" that seems to be instantiated in the model. I think if you were to examine a "rental" you would see a "rental state" inside it. Whereas, if you were to examine a "branch", you would see no "branch type". Instead, the "branch" itself would be an "airport branch" or a "city branch" or whatever. So I am inclined to agree that maybe a "concept type" is a "categorization type". -------------------------------- 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 To 08/01/2008 03:33 Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, PM SBVR RTF cc Subject Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue On 8/1/08 10:46 AM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > They are clearly not synonyms in SBVR as it stands today. > > I think that they have the same function, and thus it is confusing to have > both. Sorry. Yes, I meant that they were intended to mean the same thing and, indeed, are not currently synonyms in SBVR today. Wouldn't that be the fix to accomplish what you are asking for in this Issue -- i.e., making 'concept type' (Clause 8) and 'categorization type' (Clause 11) be synonyms? Keri X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=5BXThOgO6HTHbhy1sXsA:9 a=i0nXZNxN4e7vANnpxgphQ4LWPokA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 a=xZlkIIZgrMtH0WtmKQIA:7 a=SSU7bujfZ4aflcDcqgbkhw9qteYA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 a=74c-qZKsKR9t4YK0ahAA:9 a=FC7KL-EPwDDvXyzLJmn82UckZ4UA:4 a=bC4pTEGzVWIA:10 a=KQqxNPgzF0kA:10 a=OjrT7Q5ZmcVCbYEQ:18 a=K-DAntc29kwZU9ucZnYA:9 a=nKIWfXbFVVovUijcv7jQHeefZM4A:4 a=preoszViZ_QBe5RR:18 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:50:34 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri To: Mark H Linehan , SBVR RTF Thread-Topic: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Acj1kW25rDQKymGEEd2XTwARJM+Cgg== On 8/1/08 1:50 PM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > Hmm, when I read your last mail, I didn't notice that you were referencing > "concept type" and "categorization type". So, thinking further: > SBVR is not clear about the relationship among three terms: "concept type", > "characteristic type", and "categorization type". > > I'm not sure whether there are one or two underlying ideas here -- but I'm > fairly sure that there are not three ideas. Agreed. And the fix I suggest would be to unify 'concept type' and 'categorization type' (make them synonyms), which is what I think we intended. For example, take a look at the wording of Annex H.6.2, where you will note that "(concept type)" is used parenthetically in the discussion of 'categorization type'. > Here are the ones > I think I read into the text: > > 1. Abstract concept that categorizes another concept. > 2. Concrete concept that "serves as a criterion of subdivision when > establishing concept systems". > > Notice that the difference between #1 and #2 is "abstract" versus > "concrete". ... Hmm... Actually that isn't the intended distinction between categorization type (concept type) and characteristic type. Note the Note under the entry 'categorization type'. It indicates that any categorization type is either partial (i.e., 'concrete') or complete (i.e., 'abstract'). The actual distinction between categorization type (concept type) and characteristic type is that the latter is a specialization of the former . its instances are characteristics. Here is a set of 'before' and 'after' versions of Fig. 11.2 that would be a starting point for the Resolution. Keri Subject: Re: issue 12589 -- 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, 4 Aug 2008 08:15:32 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 08/04/2008 09:01:55 Keri, I don't think the "partial" versus "complete" distinction has anything to do with "abstract" versus "concrete". The note is explicit that a categorization type "Iis complete if it necessarily categorizes everything of the general concept that it is for." In Java, an "abstract class" is like SBVR's "concept type". So I was suggesting that both "categorization type" and "characteristic type" are "concept types". You are suggesting the alternative, that both of these are kinds of "concept". That's ok with me. But a further question, should they be kinds of "concept" or "object type"? -------------------------------- 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 To 08/03/2008 01:50 Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, PM SBVR RTF cc Subject Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue On 8/1/08 1:50 PM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > Hmm, when I read your last mail, I didn't notice that you were referencing > "concept type" and "categorization type". So, thinking further: > SBVR is not clear about the relationship among three terms: "concept type", > "characteristic type", and "categorization type". > > I'm not sure whether there are one or two underlying ideas here -- but I'm > fairly sure that there are not three ideas. Agreed. And the fix I suggest would be to unify 'concept type' and 'categorization type' (make them synonyms), which is what I think we intended. For example, take a look at the wording of Annex H.6.2, where you will note that "(concept type)" is used parenthetically in the discussion of 'categorization type'. > Here are the ones > I think I read into the text: > > 1. Abstract concept that categorizes another concept. > 2. Concrete concept that "serves as a criterion of subdivision when > establishing concept systems". > > Notice that the difference between #1 and #2 is "abstract" versus > "concrete". ... Hmm... Actually that isn't the intended distinction between categorization type (concept type) and characteristic type. Note the Note under the entry 'categorization type'. It indicates that any categorization type is either partial (i.e., 'concrete') or complete (i.e., 'abstract'). The actual distinction between categorization type (concept type) and characteristic type is that the latter is a specialization of the former . its instances are characteristics.. Here is a set of 'before' and 'after' versions of Fig. 11.2 that would be a starting point for the Resolution. Keri (Embedded image moved to file: pic01072.jpg) (Embedded image moved to file: pic30408.jpg) pic01072.jpg pic30408.jpg X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=R26dQcpI0jtfTJDXwGQA:9 a=ijmcmEoD0zkU5T8BLlwA:7 a=bCFGTchlwtbJV_KrCigzHLVP7BcA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 a=hNm7nVZ1y1JtC7gISeYA:9 a=FiYhgW4IS4YzWi3OdhMA:7 a=RFpENIpjD3rDVMgMqoMwY8tkRPIA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:55:18 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri To: Mark H Linehan , SBVR RTF Thread-Topic: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Acj2Sn3hvKdojmI9Ed2tOQARJM+Cgg== On 8/4/08 5:15 AM, "Mark H Linehan" wrote: > Keri, > > I don't think the "partial" versus "complete" distinction has anything to > do with "abstract" versus "concrete". The note is explicit that a > categorization type "Iis complete if it necessarily categorizes everything > of the general concept that it is for." I could share how we (in our IDEF1x/IDEFobject) work explained this (partial.complete/total vis--vis OO's abstract.concrete), but that would be a bit off track for this Issue. During the SBVR work I don't recall that we attempted to make direct alignments with Java concepts. > In Java, an "abstract class" is like SBVR's "concept type". It appears that, by trying to find OO's 'abstract class' in some SBVR notion, you are missing the point of what 'concept type' actually is. Forget 'abstract class' that's not relevant here. Take another look at H.6.2. > So I was > suggesting that both "categorization type" and "characteristic type" are > "concept types". You are suggesting the alternative, that both of these > are kinds of "concept". That is not quite what I was saying. I was suggesting that 'concept type' and 'categorization type' are the same thing. And that 'characteristic type' is a special case of 'concept type'. So, yes, everything is 'concept type', in one way or another. > That's ok with me. But a further question, should > they be kinds of "concept" or "object type"? 'concept type' is currently a kind of (category of) 'object type' ('general concept'). I wasn't suggesting any change to this. Subject: More on issue 12589 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:43:28 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 09/01/2008 18:59:04 Looking closely at "characteristic type" on page 136, we see a definition that reads "category of [the concept] ..characteristic.. which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems ". This definition is "Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.5) [..type of characteristics..] ", however note that the word "category" is not defined in ISO 1087-1 yet the word "category" is not styled as an SBVR term. So it is unclear how the word "category" should be read. Presuming that "category" means "subtype", this definition says that "characteristic type" is a subtype of 'characteristic'. On the face of it, this conflicts with "General Concept: concept type". In summary, the definition of "characteristic type" is confusing and unclear and possibly broken. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=UIUFDc1rfcXN4TN7x3G5abvU32zu2AgjGuujxaUNMQ0z6a6txATcBkobuuwdarJLOCkPdBsLkIldgIAzj7OlB8yJhf/JJEP6xvkPBRyJvkICYdMtPbO0A7RojQ1xLaWX6Bnn1oi8QpDZ1/pnKt3XRxA/sEDpMC4m1geLRPzgweI= ; X-YMail-OSG: vGTNI14VM1lxEmMvDM_e7vS01UZz_eB7On81NqdzdQr61wYXS5St..FQVQSL5zZncTLUxwBivy0D4gXqqWKN2qaXF5YymM5tsR6xHnU.0DteJDuKhV5YiWIbiucxdaS2GDQRt9JW0LxKF6tMWCB6lpaf X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: More on issue 12589 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:01:23 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckMhlxFpKX/Qi7SSAGQCIvmzat48wBV57vw Mark, I think the reason the definition of .characteristic type. could sound confusing is that .characteristic type. is a meta concept i.e. a concept type -- a special kind of .terminology / SBVR. concept. The purpose of a .characteristic type. concept is to define the set of characteristics from which any one can be a delimiting characteristic of the one of the category concepts of the more general concept such that a cohesive concept system is defined for the .characteristic type. concept. SBVR concepts that have the concept type .characteristic type. are categories (more specific concepts, subcategory concepts, specialization concepts) of the concept .characteristic.. All instances of the concept .characteristic. are characterisitcs. For in example, in a given body of shared meanings it is defined that things can be one of three characteristics: .made of wood., .made of steel., or .made of plastic.. The characteristic type for characterizing things in this dimension would be the concept .made of. that had these three characteristics as its instances. The concept .made of. is a category of the concept .characteristic. having only the characteristics (out of all the characteristics in the body of shared meanings): .made of wood., .made of steel., or .made of plastic. in its extension. The apparent conflict between the stated more general concept .concept type. and the embedded-in-the-definition more general concept .category of characteristic. is simply understood as multiple inheritance, which is both supported and used in the SBVR specification. The more general concepts in this definition are .concept type. and .category of [the concept] .characteristic.. and the delimiting characteristic is .which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems.. The wording is exactly from ISO 1087-1. It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers. The next version of ISO 704, which is in its final stage, will state this explicitly and precisely. In the realm of meaning, characteristics perform the same function that adjectives and adjective phrases perform in the realm of expression. I don.t know why .category of. is not styled as its use in the ISO definition is 100% consistent with the definition of .category. in SBVR. I think it should be. Possibly the fix to what you raise in the email below is to add a note similar to this email and style the .category of.. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:43 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: More on issue 12589 Looking closely at "characteristic type" on page 136, we see a definition that reads "category of [the concept] .characteristic. which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems ". This definition is "Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.5) [.type of characteristics.] ", however note that the word "category" is not defined in ISO 1087-1 yet the word "category" is not styled as an SBVR term. So it is unclear how the word "category" should be read. Presuming that "category" means "subtype", this definition says that "characteristic type" is a subtype of 'characteristic'. On the face of it, this conflicts with "General Concept: concept type". In summary, the definition of "characteristic type" is confusing and unclear and possibly broken. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Subject: RE: More on issue 12589 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:33:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 09/03/2008 13:33:23 Donald, Thanks for your explanation. I assume you agree that the characteristic type for the example you give below could be named "material type" or something else, not just "made of". I certainly agree with styling "category of". If multiple-inheritance is really what is intended, then I would suggest that it be indicated explicitly. One way would be to make the "General Concept:" caption read "concept type, category of [concept] 'characteristic'" -- i.e. list both supertypes. Also consider changing the definition to read "concept type that is a category of ...." Otherwise, people are entitled to read a contradiction and swear at SBVR. In the example you give, apparently "made of" is a subtype of (not an instance of) "characteristic type". That would make "made of" also a subtype of "concept type" and of "characteristic". Then "made of wood", "made of steel", etc., are instances of (not subtypes of) "made of" and thus are also instances of both "concept type" and "characteristic". Is this what you mean? If so, I think it should be spelled-out in a note. Also, I think the existing Example should be rewritten to read something like "'Color' defined as a kind of characteristic type. with an extension containing the characteristics 'color is blue', 'color is green', etc." The current wording permits a reading that "color" is an instance of "characteristic type" rather than a subtype of "characteristic type". The EU-Rent example gives "rental state" and "advance rental state" as "Concept Type: characteristic type". This implies to me that "rental state" and "advance rental state" are instances of (not subtypes of) "characteristic type". If my discussion above is correct, then "rental state" and "advance rental state" should be "General Concept: characteristic type". Furthermore, EU-Rent states that characteristics such as "rental is open" are "Concept Type: rental state" which makes sense only if we have "rental" as "General Concept: characteristic type". You said "It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers." I don't recognize the term "qualifiers" from either 1087 or SBVR, so I don't know exactly what you mean. But I certainly understand that -- given the characteristic "made of steel" -- it would be natural to talk about "the steel thing". As I understand it, a characteristic type such as "made of" implicitly categorizes ("is a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems") the concept to which it is applied. So we automatically have "steel thing" and "wood thing" as subtypes of "thing". I am interested in reading the new version of 704. Is it available, somewhere? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com "Donald Chapin" "Donald Chapin" 09/03/2008 12:01 PM Please respond to To Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: More on issue 12589 Mark, I think the reason the definition of ..characteristic type.. could sound confusing is that ..characteristic type.. is a meta concept i.e. a concept type -- a special kind of ..terminology / SBVR. concept. The purpose of a ..characteristic type.. concept is to define the set of characteristics from which any one can be a delimiting characteristic of the one of the category concepts of the more general concept such that a cohesive concept system is defined for the ..characteristic type.. concept. SBVR concepts that have the concept type ..characteristic type. are categories (more specific concepts, subcategory concepts, specialization concepts) of the concept ..characteristic... All instances of the concept ..characteristic.. are characterisitcs. For in example, in a given body of shared meanings it is defined that things can be one of three characteristics: ..made of wood., ..made of steel., or ..made of plastic.. The characteristic type for characterizing things in this dimension would be the concept ..made of.. that had these three characteristics as its instances. The concept ..made of.. is a category of the concept ..characteristic.. having only the characteristics (out of all the characteristics in the body of shared meanings): ..made of wood., ..made of steel., or ..made of plastic. in its extension. The apparent conflict between the stated more general concept ..concept type. and the embedded-in-the-definition more general concept ..category of characteristic. is simply understood as multiple inheritance, which is both supported and used in the SBVR specification. The more general concepts in this definition are ..concept type. and ..category of [the concept] ..characteristic... and the delimiting characteristic is ..which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems.. The wording is exactly from ISO 1087-1. It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers. The next version of ISO 704, which is in its final stage, will state this explicitly and precisely. In the realm of meaning, characteristics perform the same function that adjectives and adjective phrases perform in the realm of expression. I don..t know why ..category of. is not styled as its use in the ISO definition is 100% consistent with the definition of ..category.. in SBVR. I think it should be. Possibly the fix to what you raise in the email below is to add a note similar to this email and style the ..category of.. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:43 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: More on issue 12589 Looking closely at "characteristic type" on page 136, we see a definition that reads "category of [the concept] ..characteristic.. which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems ". This definition is "Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.5) [..type of characteristics..] ", however note that the word "category" is not defined in ISO 1087-1 yet the word "category" is not styled as an SBVR term. So it is unclear how the word "category" should be read. Presuming that "category" means "subtype", this definition says that "characteristic type" is a subtype of 'characteristic'. On the face of it, this conflicts with "General Concept: concept type". In summary, the definition of "characteristic type" is confusing and unclear and possibly broken. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com pic13192.gif Subject: RE: More on issue 12589 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:10:49 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 09/03/2008 15:10:49 Donald, Thanks for your explanation. I assume you agree that the characteristic type for the example you give below could be named "material type" or something else, not just "made of". I certainly agree with styling "category of". If multiple-inheritance is really what is intended, then I would suggest that it be indicated explicitly. One way would be to make the "General Concept:" caption read "concept type, category of [concept] 'characteristic'" -- i.e. list both supertypes. Also consider changing the definition to read "concept type that is a category of ...." Otherwise, people are entitled to read a contradiction and swear at SBVR. In the example you give, apparently "made of" is a subtype of (not an instance of) "characteristic type". That would make "made of" also a subtype of "concept type" and of "characteristic". Then "made of wood", "made of steel", etc., are instances of (not subtypes of) "made of" and thus are also instances of both "concept type" and "characteristic". Is this what you mean? If so, I think it should be spelled-out in a note. Also, I think the existing Example should be rewritten to read something like "'Color' defined as a kind of characteristic type. with an extension containing the characteristics 'color is blue', 'color is green', etc." The current wording permits a reading that "color" is an instance of "characteristic type" rather than a subtype of "characteristic type". The EU-Rent example gives "rental state" and "advance rental state" as "Concept Type: characteristic type". This implies to me that "rental state" and "advance rental state" are instances of (not subtypes of) "characteristic type". If my discussion above is correct, then "rental state" and "advance rental state" should be "General Concept: characteristic type". Furthermore, EU-Rent states that characteristics such as "rental is open" are "Concept Type: rental state" which makes sense only if we have "rental" as "General Concept: characteristic type". You said "It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers." I don't recognize the term "qualifiers" from either 1087 or SBVR, so I don't know exactly what you mean. But I certainly understand that -- given the characteristic "made of steel" -- it would be natural to talk about "the steel thing". As I understand it, a characteristic type such as "made of" implicitly categorizes ("is a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems") the concept to which it is applied. So we automatically have "steel thing" and "wood thing" as subtypes of "thing". I am interested in reading the new version of 704. Is it available, somewhere? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com "Donald Chapin" "Donald Chapin" 09/03/2008 12:01 PM Please respond to To Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: More on issue 12589 Mark, I think the reason the definition of ..characteristic type.. could sound confusing is that ..characteristic type.. is a meta concept i.e. a concept type -- a special kind of ..terminology / SBVR. concept. The purpose of a ..characteristic type.. concept is to define the set of characteristics from which any one can be a delimiting characteristic of the one of the category concepts of the more general concept such that a cohesive concept system is defined for the ..characteristic type.. concept. SBVR concepts that have the concept type ..characteristic type. are categories (more specific concepts, subcategory concepts, specialization concepts) of the concept ..characteristic... All instances of the concept ..characteristic.. are characterisitcs. For in example, in a given body of shared meanings it is defined that things can be one of three characteristics: ..made of wood., ..made of steel., or ..made of plastic.. The characteristic type for characterizing things in this dimension would be the concept ..made of.. that had these three characteristics as its instances. The concept ..made of.. is a category of the concept ..characteristic.. having only the characteristics (out of all the characteristics in the body of shared meanings): ..made of wood., ..made of steel., or ..made of plastic. in its extension. The apparent conflict between the stated more general concept ..concept type. and the embedded-in-the-definition more general concept ..category of characteristic. is simply understood as multiple inheritance, which is both supported and used in the SBVR specification. The more general concepts in this definition are ..concept type. and ..category of [the concept] ..characteristic... and the delimiting characteristic is ..which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems.. The wording is exactly from ISO 1087-1. It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers. The next version of ISO 704, which is in its final stage, will state this explicitly and precisely. In the realm of meaning, characteristics perform the same function that adjectives and adjective phrases perform in the realm of expression. I don..t know why ..category of. is not styled as its use in the ISO definition is 100% consistent with the definition of ..category.. in SBVR. I think it should be. Possibly the fix to what you raise in the email below is to add a note similar to this email and style the ..category of.. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:43 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: More on issue 12589 Looking closely at "characteristic type" on page 136, we see a definition that reads "category of [the concept] ..characteristic.. which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems ". This definition is "Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.5) [..type of characteristics..] ", however note that the word "category" is not defined in ISO 1087-1 yet the word "category" is not styled as an SBVR term. So it is unclear how the word "category" should be read. Presuming that "category" means "subtype", this definition says that "characteristic type" is a subtype of 'characteristic'. On the face of it, this conflicts with "General Concept: concept type". In summary, the definition of "characteristic type" is confusing and unclear and possibly broken. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=CTtvVluoNjvWvVb1xy4ss08Q9grA0OYM7oZBFlJIL8ZVL9c+tmwTBr7GFD3ERtsvoz3xWjVa6da0q1u4T/DhgxlX83zvs1o8ayxCOovYgYXKnLRZJkSZA1mkzqhnaw+VxOt+lZZgnLygVC9qaBS+qNoYo87OnUgKuw2JKo/fviQ= ; X-YMail-OSG: lC4D.pUVM1lOs4db5uUvt63RJ9wgP.OhBPqvApocjCLLahiqq8c4d4.tUognAwYDB5RPwMJHhA7F4dhv6C1OI5KUqi6N_rEk9CtPSUFTkkS5TJJhmnNWJiOz0CvGDNVfM_1ufi4DiNGsTG3_iN6wFSvjVRh4Lp5Vb7GAmJPDLxhZq7A0YOaEOweo9R4- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: More on issue 12589 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:22:22 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckN66X7rF56WFp0TtCn/ZCF0kx/LAsm5HUA Mark, I just found this email which was misfiled on my PC. Please see my responses in line below. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:33 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: More on issue 12589 Donald, Thanks for your explanation. I assume you agree that the characteristic type for the example you give below could be named "material type" or something else, not just "made of". Yes. .Made of. comes from the ISO 1087-1 example. I certainly agree with styling "category of". .Category. is the more general concept and should be styled. If multiple-inheritance is really what is intended, then I would suggest that it be indicated explicitly. One way would be to make the "General Concept:" caption read "concept type, category of [concept] 'characteristic'" -- i.e. list both supertypes. Also consider changing the definition to read "concept type that is a category of ...." Otherwise, people are entitled to read a contradiction and swear at SBVR. When I first responded to you in my email below, I was concentrating on the correct interpretation of what was written in the .characteristic type. entry. Your following the logic of that correct interpretation (multi-inheritance) in this email, now makes me aware that there is a problem with the .General Concept: concept type. subentry for .characteristic type.. This should be, as it is in all other cases in Clauses 7-12, .Concept Type: concept type. and not .General Concept: concept type.. AS AN ASIDE: While Annex C does not address more than one .more general concept. under .C.3.5 General Concept., there are several places in the SBVR specifications where the .General Concept. caption is used and there is a more general concept at the beginning of the definition (see .facet., .categorization fact type., .contextualization fact type., .contextualization fact type., .contextualized concept., .situational role., and .business rule.). Under .situational role. there are two entries for the caption .General Concept.: object type, role where object type is also an explicit more general concept at the beginning of the definition. The same is true in the entry for .business rule.. If there is more than one more general concept specified, it has always been the understanding of the SBVR team (to the best of my knowledge) that this indicates a multiple inheritance. I agree that making the multiple more general concepts explicit by adding the more general concept at the beginning of definitions as a second more general concept to the .General Concept. caption might clarify any such entry. In a separate Issue we might also want to add a short paragraph to .C.3.5 General Concept. stating the convention for more than one more general concept for a given concept. In the example you give, apparently "made of" is a subtype of (not an instance of) "characteristic type". In the example .made of. IS a characteristic type, -- and therefore it is an instance of .characteristic type., and a category of .characteristic.. That would make which one "made of" also a subtype of "concept type" and of "characteristic". When you say .which one .made of.., are you talking about the characteristics that are grouped by the characteristic type .made of.; e.g. .thing made of wood.? If so, the answer is no. The subentry on .characteristic type. .General Concept: concept type. is what is incorrect (see above). Changing that to .Concept Type: concept type. correctly specifies that the characteristic type .made of. in an instance of .characteristic type. and that the instances of .made of. are characteristics. If you were talking about something other than things like .thing made of wood. when you said .which one .made of.., I need to know exactly what you meant by that phrase before I can answer your question. Then "made of wood", "made of steel", etc., are instances of (not subtypes of) "made of" Yes and thus are also instances of both "concept type" and "characteristic". No, instances only of .characteristic., and not of .concept type. . because of the .Concept Type: concept type. fix. Is this what you mean? If so, I think it should be spelled-out in a note. Agreed . as fixed. Also, I think the existing Example should be rewritten to read something like "'Color' defined as a kind of characteristic type. with an extension containing the characteristics 'color is blue', 'color is green', etc." The current wording permits a reading that "color" is an instance of "characteristic type" rather than a subtype of "characteristic type". The SBVR Structured English .the characteristic type .color.. is the same syntax that is used with all instances of a .concept type. concept; e.g. .the fact type .body of shared meanings includes body of shared concepts.. In the example .color. is an instance, and not a category, of .characteristic type. -- by virtue of the corrected .characteristic type. subentry: .Concept Type: concept type.. .Color. is also a category of .characteristic.. So the example is right. The EU-Rent example gives "rental state" and "advance rental state" as "Concept Type: characteristic type". This implies to me that "rental state" and "advance rental state" are instances of (not subtypes of) "characteristic type". That is correct. If my discussion above is correct, then "rental state" and "advance rental state" should be "General Concept: characteristic type". Yes, they are correct as is. Furthermore, EU-Rent states that characteristics such as "rental is open" are "Concept Type: rental state" That is correct which makes sense only if we have "rental" as "General Concept: characteristic type". No that.s not the way characteristics (unary fact types in SBVR) work. The characteristic is represented by the whole fact type form .rental is open.. Characteristic types are just sets (groupings, categories) of .characteristics.. The nature of the elements in the internal structure of the unary fact type has nothing to do with its .characteristic-ness.. You said "It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers." I don't recognize the term "qualifiers" from either 1087 or SBVR, so I don't know exactly what you mean. By .qualifier. I mean what it means in natural language as follows (which is also the way it is used in the new version of ISO 704): Qualifier b. a word (as an adjective) or word group that limits or modifies the meaning of another word (as a noun) or word group [MWCD] 2 Grammar a word or phrase, especially an adjective, used to attribute a quality to another word, especially a noun. (in systemic grammar) a word or phrase added after a noun to qualify its meaning. [NODE] But I certainly understand that -- given the characteristic "made of steel" -- it would be natural to talk about "the steel thing". As I understand it, a characteristic type such as "made of" implicitly categorizes ("is a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems") the concept to which it is applied. So we automatically have "steel thing" and "wood thing" as subtypes of "thing". Yes, but only in the simple case of where there is only one characteristic type involved in the categorization scheme / categorization type. This simple case is not typical. I am interested in reading the new version of 704. Is it available, somewhere? The version that incorporates the final decisions made in Moscow in August will be available early in January. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com "Donald Chapin" "Donald Chapin" 09/03/2008 12:01 PM Please respond to To Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: More on issue 12589 Mark, I think the reason the definition of .characteristic type. could sound confusing is that .characteristic type. is a meta concept i.e. a concept type -- a special kind of .terminology / SBVR. concept. The purpose of a .characteristic type. concept is to define the set of characteristics from which any one can be a delimiting characteristic of the one of the category concepts of the more general concept such that a cohesive concept system is defined for the .characteristic type. concept. SBVR concepts that have the concept type .characteristic type. are categories (more specific concepts, subcategory concepts, specialization concepts) of the concept .characteristic.. All instances of the concept .characteristic. are characterisitcs. For in example, in a given body of shared meanings it is defined that things can be one of three characteristics: .made of wood., .made of steel., or .made of plastic.. The characteristic type for characterizing things in this dimension would be the concept .made of. that had these three characteristics as its instances. The concept .made of. is a category of the concept .characteristic. having only the characteristics (out of all the characteristics in the body of shared meanings): .made of wood., .made of steel., or .made of plastic. in its extension. The apparent conflict between the stated more general concept .concept type. and the embedded-in-the-definition more general concept .category of characteristic. is simply understood as multiple inheritance, which is both supported and used in the SBVR specification. The more general concepts in this definition are .concept type. and .category of [the concept] .characteristic.. and the delimiting characteristic is .which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems.. The wording is exactly from ISO 1087-1. It is important to remember that characteristics are qualifiers. The next version of ISO 704, which is in its final stage, will state this explicitly and precisely. In the realm of meaning, characteristics perform the same function that adjectives and adjective phrases perform in the realm of expression. I don.t know why .category of. is not styled as its use in the ISO definition is 100% consistent with the definition of .category. in SBVR. I think it should be. Possibly the fix to what you raise in the email below is to add a note similar to this email and style the .category of.. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:43 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: More on issue 12589 Looking closely at "characteristic type" on page 136, we see a definition that reads "category of [the concept] .characteristic. which serves as a criterion of subdivision when establishing concept systems ". This definition is "Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.5) [.type of characteristics.] ", however note that the word "category" is not defined in ISO 1087-1 yet the word "category" is not styled as an SBVR term. So it is unclear how the word "category" should be read. Presuming that "category" means "subtype", this definition says that "characteristic type" is a subtype of 'characteristic'. On the face of it, this conflicts with "General Concept: concept type". In summary, the definition of "characteristic type" is confusing and unclear and possibly broken. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=lWQmYlG8BRRwP2wlPyusMd0gGHgV8x+53Olcxw3oDRLreIEzqerAgG4jmSIHqo+rIqixrMPL6KO29BiNFs8RiWqYBPEgRONFrSMJ09LnkVbu9FePsxdC9rOXqOmvHp4Y8elJ1hYtqRi+xqmRfA+BRCZiB40+8c7cIg3Jcu1gtuA= ; X-YMail-OSG: 6Ln0YHQVM1kfmfg1q7fMd255sb2PG.gucK.tUDtuelgxssxTqodhSuzIqmF_6uMSaCKK70LUOMiXTU62ny0gEtn8M6wnBgOMzZyni_O9k3CVdXl6s5yK0ZoIbxHq58ty_TIpw_YvE8FG4yiKfpHB0NsgOA4sjlO17cgN5chvZ2RZD9UPN9bhmA22kmg- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:24:19 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcjzE6d9oq6R9dppRkSRyezxk3rhthHj5h7Q Mark, Please see responses in line below: Donald On Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:44 PM Mark Linehan wrote: ... > Regarding point 2: on page 137, there is an example that says "The > extension of the characteristic type 'color' includes the characteristics > 'thing is blue', 'thing is red', 'thing is green', etc." Now substitute > 'branch type' and 'city branch', etc., into the example. You would have > "thing is city branch", etc. What's the difference? 'City branch' is a noun concept. 'thing is city branch. is a characteristic (unary fact type) where .city branch. is part of the logical predicate not a fact type role. They are totally different concepts in SBVR. > When would one > define a concept as a "characteristic type" versus a "categorization > type"? One creates a characteristic type when one want to group similar characteristics which are always represented in the form of .xxxxxx yyyyyyyyyy. One creates a categorization type or a categorization scheme when one wants to group categories of a given concept into a group of those that divide up the instances of the more general concept in particular one way or dimension. ... > A couple more points: > > A) There is a note under "categorization type" that says "A categorization > type is either partial or complete. ..." I think the same point applies > to a "characteristic type". Characteristic types in an SBVR Vocabulary are simply what they are defined to be. They have no connotation of a container that is partially full. > B) A "characteristic" can be "essential", "necessary", "implied", > "delimiting" and/or "incorporated". Don't all these aspects also apply to > instances of "categorization type"? For example in EU-Rent, an > "organization unit" must necessarily have "organizational function" type > "branch" in order to be further categorized as kinds of branches. No. All these .aspects. are uses or roles that characteristics play when they are used. The characteristic type simply groups some characteristics as specified by its definition regardless of how they are used. > C) It appears that one could define a "categorization scheme" based on a > "characteristic type" such as "color". Yes, in the simplest case, but that doesn't make the categorization scheme the same thing as the characteristic type e.g. "color" that it is based on (makes use of). The categorization scheme is a container that contains categories. The instances of a categorization type are, or are in one-to-one correspondence to, categories. The instances of a characteristic type are characteristics. These are, by definition, three different SBVR concepts (metamodel elements). Recasting "branch type" as a > "characteristic type", we could have: > > branch type: characteristic type that classifies a "branch" based on > "hours > of operation" and "car storage capacity" [and whether it is an EU-Rent > location] (part in brackets missing from Annex E) Characteristic types don't classify anything. They merely group similar characteristics. There is no SBVR metamodel element .characteristic type classifies xxxxxxxx(anything).. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > agency type: "branch type" that does not have an EU-Rent location and has > minimal car storage and has on-demand operation > airport branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent > location and has large car storage and has 24x7 business hours > city branch type: "branch type" of a "branch" that has an EU-Rent location > and has moderate car storage and has long business hours > > agency: "branch" that is an "agency type" > airport branch: "branch" that is an "airport branch type" > city branch: "branch" that is a "city branch type" > > Branches by Type: segmentation that is for the concept "branch" and > subdivides "branches" based on "branch type". > Necessity: Branches by Type contains the characteristic types > "agency > type", and "airport branch type", and "city branch type" > > My point is that "characteristic type" and "categorization type" seem to > have the same function. > -------------------------------- > 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 > osoft.com> To > Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, > 07/31/2008 02:12 "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" > AM > cc > > Subject > RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I have missed something, but I don.t understand this issue. > > 1. The concept .Characteristic type. comes from ISO 1087-1. > Its incorporated characteristics do not include all of the > characteristics incorporated into the concept .categorization type., > so it cannot possibly specialize the concept .categorization type.. > 2. The instances of .branch type. are object types, not > characteristics, so it would be an error to call .branch type. a > characteristic type. > 3. .city branch. specializes .branch., so the statement .if > there exists a branch that is a city branch ..... means the same > thing as .if there exists a city branch ....., or more plainly, .if > a > city branch exists...... I don.t understand how it could be that > any > of these statements is not already .enabled.. > > Best regards, > Don > > > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:16 AM > To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Subject: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > Subject: issue: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" > To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org > X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 > From: Mark H Linehan > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0400 > X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build > V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at > 07/28/2008 12:18:24 > > > Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that > "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that > "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. > > Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic > type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a > city branch ...." > -------------------------------- > 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 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-reply-to:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=bGCxGrLdVz4cbK14VRn6ms181wXn7c//+rTY6htXq4DRSl1H9WlLDdf4pEN922ejKPSewUOyPbrVxhDLzyliW/AQlU8aiBT7RWQQBXBlHADLLDV/kAjMJFlICPtC3eRdXZBdVXJ0kTokcR6yZiQze64z+6Xq69aWALbMzHawOkE= ; X-YMail-OSG: WJGktjoVM1n9YJBBTqB8xt3bvmIRF0qNes73MXqmsET20JIw5EY_mB.O74fFr0RecYx9q_BXyZWuXNT5EgWrn9cJJNftXafmBPcglo513d4s51qcuF.umTC.9xvDIdMr9pCFAdcjqzWyNOHWPi5YS9ziXn12dAkhUJ_3cwWmAvnxKbOoxxXv1oaYWVzcPtaLSMAL9RE- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Write-up of Resolution Agreement Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:27:53 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acjxp4Jrl5jF9e2/Tdm6q8KGofuJlykwsSig Attached is the write-up of the resolution to Issue 12589 agreed at the SBVR RTF face-to-face meeting in Santa Clara. Keri has kindly written it up for me, as I have not been able to find the sheet of paper with my notes for this Issue resolution. Thanks, Keri. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 29 July 2008 19:16 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: issue: "characteristic type" should be a "category type" To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 07/28/2008 12:18:24 Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that "characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type". I suggest that "General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate. Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a city branch ...." -------------------------------- 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 Issue 12589 Resolution(v.2).doc Issue 12589 Fig11.2.eps Subject: RE: issue 12589 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Write-up of Resolution Agreement To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:18:40 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MLC04/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1 HF8|December 19, 2008) at 02/24/2009 15:18:43 I think this does match what we discussed, and I am ok with the proposed resolution. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com