Issue 14029: Conflation of Proposition with "Proposition + Performative " plus Disconnect between Concept and Proposition (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1: 1. a conflation of 'proposition' with "'performative' + 'proposition'" 2. a disconnect between 'concept' and its subcategories and 'proposition' and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing. Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'" - 'proposition' meaning that is true or false (the "semantic content" part in 'proposition' + performative') - 'proposition' + 'performative' (where the 'performative' part is the "communicative function") e.g.: o proposition + "deontic" performative = behavioral guidance o proposition + "alethic" performative = definitional rule o proposition + "taken to be true" performative = fact The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept 'fact' at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements -- which are really out of scope for a standard for "concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries". Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative "taken to be true") so that fact statements can be used as examples. Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories Clause 8.1 defines two concepts ('concept' and 'proposition') as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing: · general noun concept = open (existential) proposition · individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition · general verb concept = open (relational) proposition · individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition (this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs) Resolution: Remove the Conflation of 'Proposition' with "'Performative' + 'Proposition'" 1. Add the concept (definition) for "performative" and term it "communicative function" [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 "Language resource management -- Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) -- Part 2: Dialogue acts". 2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: "taken to be true", "true by definition", and behavioral guidance. 3. Add the concept (definition) for "performative' + proposition" and term it "dialogue act" [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2. 4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition. 5. Review all references to 'proposition' to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition). Remove the Disconnect between 'Concept' and its Subcategories and 'Proposition' and its Subcategories 1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories. 2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both 'concept' and 'proposition' as more general concepts for the subcategories. 3. Replace all current uses of 'individual concept' to 'individual noun concept'. Revised Text: …to follow, including redrawn diagram(s) Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 24, 2009: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== uditID: c0a8013c-ab15ebb00000711e-41-4a42bdee5312 From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: "'SBVR RTF'" Subject: New Issue -- "Conflation of Proposition with 'Proposition + Performative' plus Disconnect between Concept & Proposition" Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:59:35 -0600 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acn1J48Ms7a8IW3bQe63nDvvlctT1A== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQ+mV7k= See attachment. Issue nnnnn - Conflation of Proposition with 'Proposition + Performative' plus Disconnect between Concept & Proposition.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: nnnnn Title: Conflation of Proposition with .Proposition + Performative . plus Disconnect between Concept and Proposition Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: There two closely related flaws in SBVR Clause 8.1: 1. a conflation of .proposition. with ..performative. + .proposition.. 2. a disconnect between .concept. and its subcategories and .proposition. and its subcategories which are really one concept or two perspectives on the same thing. Conflation of .Proposition. with ..Performative. + .Proposition.. - .proposition. meaning that is true or false (the .semantic content. part in .proposition. + performative.) - .proposition. + .performative. (where the .performative. part is the .communicative function.) e.g.: o proposition + .deontic. performative = behavioral guidance o proposition + .alethic. performative = definitional rule o proposition + .taken to be true. performative = fact The core meanings are in the propositions which are then made into something else by combination with a particular performative. This is why there is no reason to include the concept .fact. at all in Clauses 8, 9 11 or 12 except to support the formulation of fact statements -- which are really out of scope for a standard for .concept(definition)-centric special purpose business language dictionaries plus guidance specifications in terms those definiton-centric dictionaries.. Examples of general concepts can be provided by using names and fact type forms of individual concepts without needing to turn the individual concepts into facts (by adding the performative .taken to be true.) so that fact statements can be used as examples. Disconnect between .Concept. and its Subcategories and .Proposition. and its Subcategories Clause 8.1 defines two concepts (.concept. and .proposition.) as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing: · general noun concept = open (existential) proposition · individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition · general verb concept = open (relational) proposition · individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition (this is the verb concept that corresponds to a given state of affairs) Resolution: Remove the Conflation of .Proposition. with ..Performative. + .Proposition.. 1. Add the concept (definition) for .performative. and term it .communicative function. [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 .Language resource management -- Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) -- Part 2: Dialogue acts.. 2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: .taken to be true., .true by definition., and behavioral guidance. 3. Add the concept (definition) for .performative. + proposition. and term it .dialogue act. [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2. 4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition. 5. Review all references to .proposition. to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition). Remove the Disconnect between .Concept. and its Subcategories and .Proposition. and its Subcategories 1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories. 2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both .concept. and .proposition. as more general concepts for the subcategories. 3. Replace all current uses of .individual concept. to .individual noun concept.. Revised Text: .to follow, including redrawn diagram(s) Disposition: Resolved From: Don Baisley To: Donald Chapin , "'SBVR RTF'" Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:28:34 -0700 Subject: RE: New Issue -- "Conflation of Proposition with 'Proposition + Performative' plus Disconnect between Concept & Proposition" Thread-Topic: New Issue -- "Conflation of Proposition with 'Proposition + Performative' plus Disconnect between Concept & Proposition" Thread-Index: Acn1J48Ms7a8IW3bQe63nDvvlctT1AAyKHkQ Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Hi Donald, I must be very confused by your proposed changes regarding propositions and performatives because they lead me to the following two conclusions which are both contrary to the current SBVR: 1. The meaning of the statement, .Every person must be kind., is not true and is not false. 2. The general concept .dog. is either true or false . apparently it is true right now as long as some dog exists. This sort of change would be a giant flip-flop. I must be missing something. This seems like a very radical change. Regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:00 PM To: issues@omg.org Cc: 'SBVR RTF' Subject: New Issue -- "Conflation of Proposition with 'Proposition + Performative' plus Disconnect between Concept & Proposition" See attachment. Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:53:09 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) To: SBVR RTF Subject: Re: SBVR issue 14029 -- conflation of proposition and performative X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n67LrEla016735 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1247608398.7492@qyut5yrfCDd/PBPjcXDn1Q X-Spam-Status: No This issue raises a significant point of semantics, but it seems to be primarily about adopting another model of the same concept space. And it is very confusing. (1) According to Issue 14029: "Clause 8.1 defines two concepts (.concept. and .proposition.) as if they were completely separate things when in fact they are at most two perspectives on the same thing: . general noun concept = open (existential) proposition . individual noun concept = closed (existential) proposition . general verb concept = open (relational) proposition . individual verb concept = closed (relational) proposition" I have no idea what definition of 'proposition' is being used in the above, but it seems to be neither the formal logic definition nor the SBVR definition/intent. In fact, I think it designates the concept known in SBVR as 'meaning'. And the terms 'existential' and 'relational' seem to me to be simply wrong. The distinction between a 'concept' and a 'proposition', as the categories of 'meaning' defined in SBVR, is exactly that a 'concept' is "open" -- it is a body of characteristics of one or more unspecified things -- while a 'proposition' is "closed" -- it is a characteristic of exactly one state of affairs involving one or more specific things. Now, ISO 24617 may have different terms for those concepts, or different concepts for these terms, but the these concepts are valid and distinguishable, and there is no harm in the choices of terms used for them in SBVR. It is true that the SBVR definitions do not so clearly reflect this dichotomy. (2) The two terms "proposition" and "performative" are undefined. From some of the wording used in the references to the ISO work, I have the impression that they are being used to mean the "illocutionary force" and the "locutionary force" ideas in speech act theory ("discourse acts"). The "illocutionary force" is the "proposition" -- the characterization of a state of affairs. The "locutionary force" is what is being said about that state of affairs, e.g., that it is so (fact, assertion), that it is always so (necessity, assertion), that it should be so (obligation), whether it is so (interrogatory), etc. SBVR has not "conflated" these ideas at all. It has different fact types for the interesting locutionary forces, except perhaps 'interrogatory', in their relationships to 'proposition'. So what is it we are being asked to change? What is it that SBVR doesn't capture? For the proposed changes: Remove the Conflation of .Proposition. with ..Performative. + .Proposition.. 1. Add the concept (definition) for .performative. and term it .communicative function. [3.7] as per ISO/CD 24617-2 .Language resource management -- Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) -- Part 2: Dialogue acts.. Why? 2. Add the three performative (communicative function) individual concepts used in SBVR: .taken to be true., .true by definition., and behavioral guidance. We have those concepts as fact types in 8.1.2: proposition is true proposition is necessarily true proposition is obligated to be true 3. Add the concept (definition) for .performative. + proposition. and term it .dialogue act. [3.2], as per ISO/CD 24617-2. OK, but if you really want a speech act theory model, you need much more than that. Why go there? 4. Show fact, behavioral guidance, and definitional guidance as concept type dialogue act with their respective performative (communicative function) instances instead of their current definition as subcategories of proposition. 'fact' is an SBVR concept defined in clause 8 to be a category of proposition. I agree that we should discuss changing this. 'behavioral guidance' and 'definitional guidance' aren't SBVR concepts, and aren't defined to be categories of 'proposition'. They don't require repair. SBVR defines 'statement of guidance' as a kind of 'statement', which is clearly correct. We could discuss whether 'statement' should be a 'dialogue act'. 5. Review all references to .proposition. to determine whether the intended reference is to semantic content or to a discourse act (proposition + performative); e. g. statement expresses dialogue act (not proposition). All the references to 'proposition' appear to be to the meaning without regard to "locutionary force". The exception is in the definition of 'fact'. There may be others in notes, etc. Remove the Disconnect between .Concept. and its Subcategories and .Proposition. and its Subcategories See above. I prefer to remove the disconnect between this issue and SBVR. 1. Add open/closed proposition categories, and existential/relational proposition categories. Four more concepts we can't define. No. 2. Fix the subcategories of concept to fit the above, and have both .concept. and .proposition. as more general concepts for the subcategories. No. But we might improve the definitions of 'concept' and 'proposition' to make the open/closed aspect clearer and thus create an identifiable dichotomy. Back to grammar school: A proposition is a complete thought (closed); a concept is an incomplete thought (open, wanting things to fill the roles). The current definitions are unrelated: concept: a unit of knowledge created by a combination of characteristics. proposition: a meaning that 'is true' or 'is false'. 3. Replace all current uses of .individual concept. to .individual noun concept.. Wouldn't it be simpler just to modify the definition to begin "noun concept that ..."? I agree that there are 'individual verb concepts', but depending on which of the two conflicting definitions we use, an individual verb concept is either: - a fact type to which there is at most one corresponding actuality, or - a proposition -- an occurrence of a fact type in which all the roles have been filled by specific things, i.e., a state of affairs. Summary: As I said, I agree there are significant points in this issue, but most of the proposed text is just another version of the Clause 10 stuff, a different formal theory for which SBVR has corresponding concepts. The trick is to sort out the actual concerns in SBVR, to wit: - the definition of 'proposition' - the definition of 'concept' - the definition of 'fact' - the definition of 'individual concept' - the definitions of the "discourse act fact types" in 8.1.2 (necessity and possibility are defined in terms that beg the question) I think most of these need repair if we want to clarify their relationship to formal theory, but I don't think we need to introduce another theory, except possibly in Notes. So let us use this issue to repair those definitions, and not get wrapped around the terminology of ISO 24617. SBVR doesn't lack the concepts, and it does not conflate them. It just doesn't define them clearly. -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."