Issue 12956: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition (sbvr-rtf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Clause 8.1.1 Concept: individual concept The Definition of 'individual concept' is: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing] The Note says: "each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds" "Corresponds to only one object" (in any possible world) is not at all the same thing as "corresponds to exactly one and the same object in all possible worlds". One of the definition and the Note should be corrected. I would prefer changing the definition to match the note. Note also that changing the definition means that "the President of the United States" is an 'individual concept' that denotes an office, but not a person. And the concept "the person who is President of the United States" is _not_ an 'individual concept'. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 21, 2008: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ilScanner-Watermark: 1225220647.83572@akwTJhr4cbM81iJdUWmGAQ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:04:06 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner-ID: m9LJ46Kn017794 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No SBVR Issue Title: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition Clause 8.1.1 Concept: individual concept The Definition of 'individual concept' is: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing] The Note says: "each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds" "Corresponds to only one object" (in any possible world) is not at all the same thing as "corresponds to exactly one and the same object in all possible worlds". One of the definition and the Note should be corrected. I would prefer changing the definition to match the note. Note also that changing the definition means that "the President of the United States" is an 'individual concept' that denotes an office, but not a person. And the concept "the person who is President of the United States" is _not_ an 'individual concept'. -- 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 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:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To; b=X600q3wxa6pmFg1+fHnHFE04c19ut/95iAj2ReA+2N3ZDE3ttJqx6r7UtN1kGzkDvkqqnGD/XpTazm9e7y+aiZw9LjzysCOhf3JKe2YeUj5eMvJ9yQs+OfC8yjGTDn8KOpHfYJJNvGMad3ua0+efV1weumT5eR54KV9yiAeSKT4= ; X-YMail-OSG: 94YoP2wVM1kU7YXiY7hLrmncMu2.IQ2iKZPjIORtbDZJDdFMFooq0a5UWjJH2znD5BSFETqHfI9Z0b9vtCXhAbPj77Nj84ephX6OdTOwmaUGSbUfbdYwszWDxJEr8_n2JkB6EfCCkzsLEd02SxUxGZ04BxFnWWptfAJA95jYdIm4iVbosmGACkoW8o0- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 12956 -- SBVR RTF issue - Proposed Resolution Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:28:37 -0800 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckzsqYPqDi7XvJcSn6Thg9H6nsTjAnbDPxA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:23 PM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 12956 -- SBVR RTF issue X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1225220647.83572@akwTJhr4cbM81iJdUWmGAQ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:04:06 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner-ID: m9LJ46Kn017794 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No SBVR Issue Title: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition Clause 8.1.1 Concept: individual concept The Definition of 'individual concept' is: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing] The Note says: "each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds" "Corresponds to only one object" (in any possible world) is not at all the same thing as "corresponds to exactly one and the same object in all possible worlds". One of the definition and the Note should be corrected. I would prefer changing the definition to match the note. Note also that changing the definition means that "the President of the United States" is an 'individual concept' that denotes an office, but not a person. And the concept "the person who is President of the United States" is _not_ an 'individual concept'. -- 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 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:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index; b=xmqNZYOSKUK9S0LaxbGGDoM12kK4PwAkl8naZO9O+9TuMwT7x40LYtT/bGStLnwf/2BjmETwOZMFsgjsxfL/4rWdLEslE5Zr3yMyJSjJfS8M/yb9CGwdAiueFKj2UWp1N7Fe2eoZ3iDXbJGZHSOz1zj8/JdAschGsgc9vVRCRD0= ; X-YMail-OSG: c95ZZEIVM1l4HCHqI8NZpsinea8buZ2PI0iKSJMdpRZAACbJJdUi5RiTRFOWu_9rBIG_ma7Il6j0drrKC4hwtyRUyyD_HGN6PrQmiN3OhjXFz50rrrW1fCyCl3uhj9H4F6SIilGZjlyUoyTh3tgXeHpi.SHKU.oXlsOsrHGWiyevnWYkThYt2lV1LYPbnwN4NLeoaZLDVmsjWK7eeeaEw2DyTg-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 12956 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:27 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckzsqYPqDi7XvJcSn6Thg9H6nsTjBOSM5RA The revised Issue 12956 Resolution from the December SBVR RTF face to face meeting is attached. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:23 PM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 12956 -- SBVR RTF issue X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1225220647.83572@akwTJhr4cbM81iJdUWmGAQ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:04:06 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner-ID: m9LJ46Kn017794 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No SBVR Issue Title: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition Clause 8.1.1 Concept: individual concept The Definition of 'individual concept' is: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing] The Note says: "each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds" "Corresponds to only one object" (in any possible world) is not at all the same thing as "corresponds to exactly one and the same object in all possible worlds". One of the definition and the Note should be corrected. I would prefer changing the definition to match the note. Note also that changing the definition means that "the President of the United States" is an 'individual concept' that denotes an office, but not a person. And the concept "the person who is President of the United States" is _not_ an 'individual concept'. -- 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 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 12956 Resolution 2009-01-29.doc Subject: RE: issue 12956 -- 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, 29 Jan 2009 11:53:22 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MLC04/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1 HF1|June 13, 2008) at 01/29/2009 11:53:25 If I understand the proposed resolution correctly, we will end up with a definition that reads: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing] plus a note that reads: While each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds, there can be multiple individual concepts that correspond to the same thing. ... plus a Necessity that reads: Each individual concept corresponds to at most one thing. It's not clear what "only" one object means in the definition, since "only" is not licensed to be used this way by Annex C. A reader could plausibly understand it to mean either (a) exactly one object, or (b) at most one object. The note fairly clearly supports interpretation (a) but the new Necessity supports interpretation (b). I don't object to the intent of the proposed resolution, but I do think that it creates more confusion. Can we take a holistic approach and get the definition, the note, and the new Necessity clearly aligned? -------------------------------- 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=Z3+VY9oS0njM3PgMC//pp2tQnP8i35hjzuO3KELPUAnfOm1vCxhgUxRBre/xL4DmTqXp7P7CBERgAj9HVvA4sxoVwHoI86IxqbQ4Jc/hDq56R4wa2ttou7jsaSrVmduv4zz+I1zWluXm/vhMOKbkwAeA05i5BH5FvIwKjxG0ts4= ; X-YMail-OSG: JlEnAqoVM1np1SF3wCEIt8h.Ocasrn_cQnuz9r0fEtt6OH9t_HPNVepQgMbZ9Mwlt4VeZth.2l3ea4l1GVUAGoeKtYE5.RzoTCX27TTx8_A84SPi4w0h8fC24XyjaNzjDQukQRgpxLfaViX3r7kzSuqN3N3jrhj_Q7GzxkiCdRJwwdlNXel9IjCFbc7ZgxKFPJCm43shTDlsVZ9QC1PO9tta_g-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 12956 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:41:33 -0000 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcmCMiZXnOtqVONgTSejh17lLrhtFwUOdrhQ Mark, In the attached update to the resolution to Issue 12956, I added an edit instruction to change the seventh word .exactly. in the existing note on .individual concept. to .at most. to make the note consistent with the agreed necessity. I believe this resolves the confusion you kindly pointed out. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 29 January 2009 16:53 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 12956 -- SBVR RTF issue If I understand the proposed resolution correctly, we will end up with a definition that reads: concept that corresponds to only one object [thing] plus a note that reads: While each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds, there can be multiple individual concepts that correspond to the same thing. ... plus a Necessity that reads: Each individual concept corresponds to at most one thing. It's not clear what "only" one object means in the definition, since "only" is not licensed to be used this way by Annex C. A reader could plausibly understand it to mean either (a) exactly one object, or (b) at most one object. The note fairly clearly supports interpretation (a) but the new Necessity supports interpretation (b). I don't object to the intent of the proposed resolution, but I do think that it creates more confusion. Can we take a holistic approach and get the definition, the note, and the new Necessity clearly aligned? -------------------------------- 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 12956 Resolution 2009-02-24.doc Subject: RE: issue 12956 -- 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, 24 Feb 2009 15:24:08 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MLC04/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1 HF8|December 19, 2008) at 02/24/2009 15:24:12 Thanks, Donald. I'm happy with this revised version. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694