Issue 15402: No normative reference to ISO 6093 (sbvr-rtf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 6, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 Specification: SBVR Version: 1.0 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. -- 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 From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLPk9aUabrD8qcM0qMmwUbqUsef5Mx02fQ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 00:56:58 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.73] Attached is a proposed resolution to SBVR issue 15402 based on our discussion at the recent OMG meeting. Regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:59 PM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 Specification: SBVR Version: 1.0 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. -- 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 15402.doc From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLPk9aUabrD8qcM0qMmwUbqUsef5M96EgQ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:50:47 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.71] Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Mark had asked during our September meeting whether the ISO 6093 Number Namespace included names of individual concepts. I had quickly responded incorrectly that it did. Actually, that namespace includes designations of the numbers themselves. Each designation in the namespace connects a signifier to a number (e.g., the signifier .2. to the number 2). There are no designations of individual concepts in that namespace. An individual concept whose instance is a particular concept (whether a general concept, a number or any sort of concept) is the meaning of a definite description of the concept, which description can be made by identifying a designation of the concept. E.g. the meaning of the definite description, .the number that has the signifier .2. in the ISO 6093 Number Namespace., is an individual concept whose single instance is the number 2. The number 2 is not an individual concept. It.s a number. Regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:59 PM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 Specification: SBVR Version: 1.0 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. -- 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 154021.doc Subject: RE: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: 6240A0DE:C87CFACB-852577BA:006739D8; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP1 SHF20 February 10, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:04:02 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.2FP4|December 10, 2009) at 10/12/2010 15:04:05 I still think the proposed text added to 13.2.7 is too brief. I suspect (but am not sure) that this means the following. Whenever we give cryptic descriptions (as in the proposed text), we invite the probability that different vendors will guess differently about what it means. To refer to a number in the ISO 6093 namespace, create a number with a name (e.g. '9999999999') and omit the value. Then add a definition of the number as "the number that has the designation that has the signifier '9999999999' in the ISO 6093 Number Namespace". (Notice the double 'has' in the above. We don't have a fact type "meaning has signifier".). I suggest that we include an example of how an atomic formulation would refer to a number via the ISO 6093 namespace. The example could go in 13.2.7 or in 13.6.2 with a cross-reference from 13.2.7. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research phone: (914) 784-7002 or IBM tieline 863-7002 internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com Don Baisley ---10/12/2010 01:58:49 PM---Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Mark From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 10/12/2010 01:58 PM Subject: RE: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Mark had asked during our September meeting whether the ISO 6093 Number Namespace included names of individual concepts. I had quickly responded incorrectly that it did. Actually, that namespace includes designations of the numbers themselves. Each designation in the namespace connects a signifier to a number (e.g., the signifier â2â to the number 2). There are no designations of individual concepts in that namespace. An individual concept whose instance is a particular concept (whether a general concept, a number or any sort of concept) is the meaning of a definite description of the concept, which description can be made by identifying a designation of the concept. E.g. the meaning of the definite description, âthe number that has the signifier â2â in the ISO 6093 Number Namespaceâ, is an individual concept whose single instance is the number 2. The number 2 is not an individual concept. Itâs a number. Regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:59 PM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 Specification: SBVR Version: 1.0 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. -- 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 [attachment "Issue 15402.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] graycol236.gif Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:55:51 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Don Baisley CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o9CLtuJs001597 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1287525362.60613@G476ub3TfuGalVXB0lE0dQ X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Don Baisley wrote: Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Mark had asked during our September meeting whether the ISO 6093 Number Namespace included names of individual concepts. I had quickly responded incorrectly that it did. Actually, that namespace includes designations of the numbers themselves. Each designation in the namespace connects a signifier to a number (e.g., the signifier .2. to the number 2). There are no designations of individual concepts in that namespace. This assumes that the number 2 is a thing, and is not a concept. An individual concept whose instance is a particular concept (whether a general concept, a number or any sort of concept) is the meaning of a definite description of the concept, which description can be made by identifying a designation of the concept. E.g. the meaning of the definite description, .the number that has the signifier .2. in the ISO 6093 Number Namespace., is an individual concept whose single instance is the number 2. The number 2 is not an individual concept. It.s a number. ISO 6093 specifies a "representation" of the number 2, which is not said in SBVR to be a concept. ISO 6093 does not specify a 'signifier', and, as Mark points out, the SBVR form would have to be 'the number that has a designation that has the signifier "2"', except that that would require 'number' to be a concept type, and 2 to be a concept. (There is merit in that view.) The concept "thing has name" in SBVR appears to address this case. The SBVR model is "database think": 'name' is a "property" of 'thing', and the individual concept that refers to the thing is phrased: 'the number that has the name "2"'. That individual concept doesn't have a designation; it only has a formulation. So, SBVR doesn't use designation at all in this case, it uses 'thing has name'. The definition of 'thing has name' says things about designations and individual concepts, which we could ignore or rewrite, mostly because it is simply wrong. The expression that plays the role 'name' is used to refer to the thing; it has nothing to do with conceptualization. "Don Baisley" refers to a person, not to a concept. The big problem here is that SBVR has no concept 'thing has representation', and there is no relationship between 'vocabulary' and 'thing has name'. We do not view proper names as part of a vocabulary, or as representations, even though we say that ISO 6093 does. If we make the distinction Don is (correctly, I think) making, it is not clear how we can incorporate the ISO 6093 vocabulary, or any of the other external vocabularies, into SBVR clause 7. None of those vocabularies associates a signifier with an individual concept. These "vocabularies" only contain 'thing has name' facts. In actual fact, I don't have a problem with saying that 2 is a concept -- I think numbers are intrinsically conceptual -- but I do have a problem with saying that English is a concept, and "en" is a standard representation of a language, not of a concept. So the general problem cannot be solved by (This is not the issue in 15402. That issue only says that no text requires the use of ISO 6093.) -Ed Regards, Don *From:* Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:59 PM *To:* issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org *Subject:* issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer > Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF > Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 Specification: SBVR Version: 1.0 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. -- 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 *[] -- 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." Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:42:39 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Don Baisley CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o9CMgiB5005456 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1287528165.05804@AhJeWfOJkGbafGLMuYJylg X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Don Baisley wrote: Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Don's writeup proposes the following text addition to 13.2.7. *The concepts ._text_., ._integer_. and ._number_. are SBVR noun concepts, so their instances can be represented like instances of other noun concepts (see 13.2.2 MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts) without using the .value. attributes shown above. * That is, an instance of 'number' can be represented by a model element of type SBVR:number that has some invented MOF object-identifier, and whatever properties a SBVR:number has. So, being an instance of SBVR:thing, it can have an association to an SBVR:text expression via 'thing has name'. Thus we can associate the number 2 with the text expression "2" via 'thing has name'. There is no association between an instance of 'number' and a designation, since 'number' is not a concept type, and only concepts have designations. Thus the following is clearly wrong: *A specific number can be identified by a designation. The _ISO 6093 Number Namespace_ includes designations of all integers and of numbers with decimal places.* This should be corrected and made clearly normative, as follows: * ISO 6093 specifies text representations of all integers and numbers. If the value mechanism above is not used, each number shall be represented by a 'number' or 'integer' element and a link to a 'text' element via the 'thing has name' association, and the expression that is the value of the text element shall be a representation of the number that conforms to ISO 6093. *This is a normative specification that is clear and complete. It avoids the question of whether ISO 6093 is or is not a collection of designations, which has nothing to do with the normative requirement for the structure of the Text value. -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." Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:19:17 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR Issue 15402 General observation X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o9DHJMCI003807 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1287595167.84872@D/kvmPX4JFeLcx6GiASu+A X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Clause 3 declares all of the following to be normative references: . Berners-Lee, T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter. IETF RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, August 1998. . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 639-2. Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages, Part 2: Alpha-3 Code. Library of Congress, 2002. . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : 1087-1. Terminology work . Vocabulary . Part 1: Theory and Application . Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, v2.0 . MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1 . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 6093. Information processing - Representation of numerical values in character strings for information interchange. 1985. . OMG UML 2 Infrastructure, v2.1.1 . The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1999. . The New Oxford Dictionary of English. . The Oxford Dictionary of English. . Unicode 4.0.0 specification : Glossary Of these the specification contains Normative References to: . Berners-Lee, T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter. IETF RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, August 1998. . Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, v2.0 . MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1 . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 6093. Information processing - Representation of numerical values in character strings for information interchange. 1985. The specification contains Definitive references to: . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : 1087-1. Terminology work . Vocabulary . Part 1: Theory and Application . The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1999. . The New Oxford Dictionary of English. . The Oxford Dictionary of English. . Unicode 4.0.0 specification : Glossary A definitive reference is a publication from which only definitions of terms used in the standard are taken. I recommend that we sort these out in a subclause of clause 3. They do not have the property that you must have the referenced standard in order to comply with this one, or that the provisions of this standard will be implicitly changed if they change. The specification contains only informative references to: . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 639-2. Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages, Part 2: Alpha-3 Code. Library of Congress, 2002. . OMG UML 2 Infrastructure, v2.1.1 (which is explicitly referenced by MOF, but not by SBVR) These only belong in the bibilography of the specification. It is common for the same to be true of Definitive reference works, because those specifications make no requirements for conformance. The resolution of 15402 should fix this. Otherwise, we will have a new version of this issue when this specification is sent to ISO. -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." From: Don Baisley To: "edbark@nist.gov" , SBVR RTF Subject: RE: SBVR Issue 15402 General observation Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue 15402 General observation Thread-Index: AQHLavsTAvRZLY1ooECp+RbJc1fFOZM/JFhQ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:46:50 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.71] Hi Ed, Would you please send the editing instructions for the change you want to make to clause 3? Note that the ISO 639-2 (English) namespace is referenced in clause 13.6.1 using its URI. Thanks, Don From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:19 AM To: SBVR RTF Subject: SBVR Issue 15402 General observation Clause 3 declares all of the following to be normative references: . Berners-Lee, T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter. IETF RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, August 1998. . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 639-2. Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages, Part 2: Alpha-3 Code. Library of Congress, 2002. . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : 1087-1. Terminology work . Vocabulary . Part 1: Theory and Application . Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, v2.0 . MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1 . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 6093. Information processing - Representation of numerical values in character strings for information interchange. 1985. . OMG UML 2 Infrastructure, v2.1.1 . The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1999. . The New Oxford Dictionary of English. . The Oxford Dictionary of English. . Unicode 4.0.0 specification : Glossary Of these the specification contains Normative References to: . Berners-Lee, T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter. IETF RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, August 1998. . Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, v2.0 . MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1 . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 6093. Information processing - Representation of numerical values in character strings for information interchange. 1985. The specification contains Definitive references to: . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : 1087-1. Terminology work . Vocabulary . Part 1: Theory and Application . The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1999. . The New Oxford Dictionary of English. . The Oxford Dictionary of English. . Unicode 4.0.0 specification : Glossary A definitive reference is a publication from which only definitions of terms used in the standard are taken. I recommend that we sort these out in a subclause of clause 3. They do not have the property that you must have the referenced standard in order to comply with this one, or that the provisions of this standard will be implicitly changed if they change. The specification contains only informative references to: . International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 639-2. Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages, Part 2: Alpha-3 Code. Library of Congress, 2002. . OMG UML 2 Infrastructure, v2.1.1 (which is explicitly referenced by MOF, but not by SBVR) These only belong in the bibilography of the specification. It is common for the same to be true of Definitive reference works, because those specifications make no requirements for conformance. The resolution of 15402 should fix this. Otherwise, we will have a new version of this issue when this specification is sent to ISO. -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." Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:15:20 -0400 From: Edward Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Don Baisley CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov Don Baisley wrote: SBVR 8.7 makes clear that numbers are concepts. E.g., the number 2 is a concept. No. It doesn't. The SBVR convention for indicating that the instances of a concept are concepts is to label the concept: Concept Type: concept type. That specification does not appear in the 8.7 entry for 'number' or its generalization 'quantity'. I agree that it may be appropriate to add that specification to 8.7. Identifying a number using a designation in a namespace is just like identifying any other kind of concept, which is exemplified many times in 13.6. Yes, as long as numbers are declared to be concepts. I considered a number to be a res, because SBVR doesn't say it is a concept. I can see how not knowing that numbers are concepts would lead to confusion about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. I can see how not specifying the required usage of ISO 6093 would lead to confusion, regardless of whether it is a 'namespace'. That is why I proposed text specifying the explicit usage requirement. Languages, on the other hand, are not concepts. They are identified using names (the fact type 'name references thing'). Which is apparently just a short form for: 'designation of some individual concept that corresponds to thing'. I didn't realize that. It is entirely different from the formal logic notion of an identifier for a thing in the Universe of Discourse, which SBVR does not have. A name is itself identifiable, like other designations, by a signifier and a namespace. This is all shown by example in 13.6.1. Yes, I see. It takes only 5 or 6 lines of XML to describe the integer 2. I did not realize that, in SBVR, a proper name is a designation for a concept. So 13.6.1 invents an individual concept, so that it can name the instance. Cute. (And this is somehow better than just having 'thing has designation' instead of 'concept has designation'. Ah, well.) Let me revise what I said about the proposed text: A specific number can be identified by a designation. The ISO 6093 Number Namespace includes designations of all integers and of numbers with decimal places.* This does not say anything normative. I propose to replace it with: A specific number that is not represented using the value form shall be identified using a designation. The text of the signifier for each such designation shall be a representation of the number that conforms to ISO 6093 (which specifies text representations of integers and decimal numbers). That is normative text. -Ed Enjoy, Don -----Original Message----- From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@nist.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:56 PM To: Don Baisley Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Don Baisley wrote: Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Mark had asked during our September meeting whether the ISO 6093 Number Namespace included names of individual concepts. I had quickly responded incorrectly that it did. Actually, that namespace includes designations of the numbers themselves. Each designation in the namespace connects a signifier to a number (e.g., the signifier "2" to the number 2). There are no designations of individual concepts in that namespace. This assumes that the number 2 is a thing, and is not a concept. An individual concept whose instance is a particular concept (whether a general concept, a number or any sort of concept) is the meaning of a definite description of the concept, which description can be made by identifying a designation of the concept. E.g. the meaning of the definite description, "the number that has the signifier "2" in the ISO 6093 Number Namespace", is an individual concept whose single instance is the number 2. The number 2 is not an individual concept. It's a number. ISO 6093 specifies a "representation" of the number 2, which is not said in SBVR to be a concept. ISO 6093 does not specify a 'signifier', and, as Mark points out, the SBVR form would have to be 'the number that has a designation that has the signifier "2"', except that that would require 'number' to be a concept type, and 2 to be a concept. (There is merit in that view.) The concept "thing has name" in SBVR appears to address this case. The SBVR model is "database think": 'name' is a "property" of 'thing', and the individual concept that refers to the thing is phrased: 'the number that has the name "2"'. That individual concept doesn't have a designation; it only has a formulation. So, SBVR doesn't use designation at all in this case, it uses 'thing has name'. The definition of 'thing has name' says things about designations and individual concepts, which we could ignore or rewrite, mostly because it is simply wrong. The expression that plays the role 'name' is used to refer to the thing; it has nothing to do with conceptualization. "Don Baisley" refers to a person, not to a concept. The big problem here is that SBVR has no concept 'thing has representation', and there is no relationship between 'vocabulary' and 'thing has name'. We do not view proper names as part of a vocabulary, or as representations, even though we say that ISO 6093 does. If we make the distinction Don is (correctly, I think) making, it is not clear how we can incorporate the ISO 6093 vocabulary, or any of the other external vocabularies, into SBVR clause 7. None of those vocabularies associates a signifier with an individual concept. These "vocabularies" only contain 'thing has name' facts. In actual fact, I don't have a problem with saying that 2 is a concept -- I think numbers are intrinsically conceptual -- but I do have a problem with saying that English is a concept, and "en" is a standard representation of a language, not of a concept. So the general problem cannot be solved by (This is not the issue in 15402. That issue only says that no text requires the use of ISO 6093.) -Ed Regards, Don *From:* Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:59 PM *To:* issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org *Subject:* issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer > Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org CC: SBVR RTF > Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 Specification: SBVR Version: 1.0 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended). Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number". So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. -- 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 *[] -- 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." From: Don Baisley To: "edbark@nist.gov" CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLPk9aUabrD8qcM0qMmwUbqUsef5M96EgQgADA6oD//5OxEA== Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:52:16 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.71] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o9CMYXWV022350 SBVR 8.7 makes clear that numbers are concepts. E.g., the number 2 is a concept. Identifying a number using a designation in a namespace is just like identifying any other kind of concept, which is exemplified many times in 13.6. I can see how not knowing that numbers are concepts would lead to confusion about the ISO 6093 Number Namespace. Languages, on the other hand, are not concepts. They are identified using names (the fact type 'name references thing'). A name is itself identifiable, like other designations, by a signifier and a namespace. This is all shown by example in 13.6.1. Enjoy, Don -----Original Message----- From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@nist.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:56 PM To: Don Baisley Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue Don Baisley wrote: > > Attached is a proposed resolution to issue 15402, which is about the > ISO 6093 Number Namespace. > > > > Mark had asked during our September meeting whether the ISO 6093 > Number Namespace included names of individual concepts. I had quickly > responded incorrectly that it did. Actually, that namespace includes > designations of the numbers themselves. Each designation in the > namespace connects a signifier to a number (e.g., the signifier "2" to > the number 2). There are no designations of individual concepts in > that namespace. > This assumes that the number 2 is a thing, and is not a concept. > An individual concept whose instance is a particular concept (whether > a general concept, a number or any sort of concept) is the meaning of > a definite description of the concept, which description can be made > by identifying a designation of the concept. E.g. the meaning of the > definite description, "the number that has the signifier "2" in the > ISO 6093 Number Namespace", is an individual concept whose single > instance is the number 2. The number 2 is not an individual concept. > It's a number. > ISO 6093 specifies a "representation" of the number 2, which is not said in SBVR to be a concept. ISO 6093 does not specify a 'signifier', and, as Mark points out, the SBVR form would have to be 'the number that has a designation that has the signifier "2"', except that that would require 'number' to be a concept type, and 2 to be a concept. (There is merit in that view.) The concept "thing has name" in SBVR appears to address this case. The SBVR model is "database think": 'name' is a "property" of 'thing', and the individual concept that refers to the thing is phrased: 'the number that has the name "2"'. That individual concept doesn't have a designation; it only has a formulation. So, SBVR doesn't use designation at all in this case, it uses 'thing has name'. The definition of 'thing has name' says things about designations and individual concepts, which we could ignore or rewrite, mostly because it is simply wrong. The expression that plays the role 'name' is used to refer to the thing; it has nothing to do with conceptualization. "Don Baisley" refers to a person, not to a concept. The big problem here is that SBVR has no concept 'thing has representation', and there is no relationship between 'vocabulary' and 'thing has name'. We do not view proper names as part of a vocabulary, or as representations, even though we say that ISO 6093 does. If we make the distinction Don is (correctly, I think) making, it is not clear how we can incorporate the ISO 6093 vocabulary, or any of the other external vocabularies, into SBVR clause 7. None of those vocabularies associates a signifier with an individual concept. These "vocabularies" only contain 'thing has name' facts. In actual fact, I don't have a problem with saying that 2 is a concept -- I think numbers are intrinsically conceptual -- but I do have a problem with saying that English is a concept, and "en" is a standard representation of a language, not of a concept. So the general problem cannot be solved by (This is not the issue in 15402. That issue only says that no text requires the use of ISO 6093.) -Ed > > > > Regards, > > Don > > > > > > *From:* Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:59 PM > *To:* issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org > *Subject:* issue 15402 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > > > > Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:56:30 -0400 > From: Ed Barkmeyer > > Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov > Organization: NIST > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) > To: issues@omg.org > CC: SBVR RTF > > Subject: SBVR issue: No normative reference to ISO 6093 > X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact > postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more > information > X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o76FuZf0024413 > X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean > X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: > X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov > X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: > 1281714996.80412@PNsAhYr99NtcgAqwfMbOZw > > X-Spam-Status: No > X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean > X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov > > Title: No normative reference to ISO 6093 > Specification: SBVR > Version: 1.0 > Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov > > Summary: > > SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values > in character strings) as a Normative Reference. SBVR 7.1.2 defines > the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace > derived from a clause of ISO 6093. But there is no normative > reference to the use of this namespace anywhere. > > Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of > designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the > ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation > Vocabulary. Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this > normatively (if that is intended). > > Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale > section. Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to > be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent > 'number'. XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer > to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 > Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly > without reference to ISO 6093. Nothing specifies the representation > of instances of class "number". > > So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', > SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO > 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said > to be a specialization of 'number'. In practice, both standards > specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 > and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for > interpreting the precision of decimal fractions. The issue is > completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification. > > -- > 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 > > *[] > > > -- 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."