Issue 15648: Scheduler reference should be made optional in utp::TestContext (uml-testing-profile-rtf) Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Marc-Florian Wendland, marc-florian.wendland(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Rational: Scheduler is a predefined interface defining operations used for controlling the tests and the test components. None of the operations of the Scheduler are available to the UML specifier. Issue: Section 6.3.1 Test Architecture, Subsection TestContext, Subsubsection Constraints states the following: --- A test context must contain exactly one property realizing the Scheduler interface --- A scheduler represents a pure tool concept and is not visible to any UML element in the test model. Implementing this interface in context of test model is not possible. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 27, 2010: received issue October 21, 2011: closed issue Discussion: Scheduler is not part of the profile (of any test specification model) and confuses reader. It is a dedicated tool concept and will be moved into the Annex. As a consequence the property of TestContext must be removed. Disposition: See issue 16163 for disposition End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 27 Sep 2010 17:47:33 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Marc-Florian Wendland Employer: Fraunhofer FOKUS mailFrom: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: UML Testing Porifle Section: 6.1.3 FormalNumber: formal/05-07-07 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2005 Doc_Month: July Doc_Day: 05 Page: 13 Title: Scheduler reference should be made optional in utp::TestContext Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: Rational: Scheduler is a predefined interface defining operations used for controlling the tests and the test components. None of the operations of the Scheduler are available to the UML specifier. Issue: Section 6.3.1 Test Architecture, Subsection TestContext, Subsubsection Constraints states the following: --- A test context must contain exactly one property realizing the Scheduler interface --- From: Don Baisley To: Donald Chapin , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution Thread-Topic: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution Thread-Index: AQHLl6TGLwPBtmT/dkWQDsAElkmqBZOadqig Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:57:14 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.78] I was asked to write down some examples of properties I gave over the phone in the recent SBVR RTF meeting. Example: Consider three statements: .Meeting 1 starts at 1PM., .Meeting 2 starts at 2PM., .Meeting 1 ends at 2PM.. These describe three distinguishable properties, which include the two qualities of Meeting 1 of starting at 1PM and ending at 2PM and the one quality of Meeting 2 of starting at 2PM. Each property should not be confused with the fact type role of the respective property association used to formulate the statement (which roles could be labeled .starting time. or .ending time.), because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the property is not the thing that fills role (it.s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property than ending at 2PM. Example: A property association need not be binary. The statement, .Meeting 1 starts on Tuesday at 1PM., describes a property of Meeting 1, its quality of starting on Tuesday at 1PM, but the statement is formulated based on the ternary property association .meeting starts on day of week at time of day.. Best regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:21 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution All . A small revision and clarification to my October 7th proposed resolution in the email below: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. (Already a separate Issue for this) Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Add a note to .is-property-of. fact type as follows: Asserting that each thing in the extension of a given general noun concept can have a property of a given kind of property in itself in the subject world is not an assertion that the .establishes thing as property. fact type role will be modeled as a property/attribute in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model. If things in the extension of the general noun concept that plays the .establishes thing as property. fact type role have properties themselves, the is-property-of fact type could be modeled in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model as an entity/class (for the general noun concept playing the .establishes thing as property. fact type role) plus a relationship/association. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 07 October 2010 13:10 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution All, Recommended revisions to the resolution proposed in the Issue: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 October 2010 19:59 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: auz7caoVM1kY9s2H9kLWGdWwD.PytwKfFXWMeMlR9g8crFG mJwzp8q4kKXoTa12G4O86TgPayJxGomSUaBhagCqZqYQG40k4UV8ASplTqUi ZRFdQPs9SyzuNc3Yw3kbw1bxPQ2zUDYkmYgFZM4kgZG2yav9cPe.x77JHMAN zbVPbNFClPdTLUm0GGtwRbTHKX7p5r4VMnLVt3.5kOGnZ7cjjARyhOZ0CEmv KrbU_0cI0E2YMBma1bwgBdrIfRUTk X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:10:42 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue: "property" Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Juergen, Please create a new SBVR issue as below. Thanks, Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Problem Statement: SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly. This omission should be corrected because "property" is a term used naturally by business people and business analysts. SBVR should own up to any term used commonly in the real world to form concepts and organize vocabulary. Resolution: Add the term "property" to Clause 11, defined as: Property: thing playing a role in a fact wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD property] Necessity: The fact must be for a binary fact type. Example: In 'George was born on 22 February 1732', '22 Feb 1732' plays the *role* "birthdate", but "birth date" is a *property* of the *person* 'George'. The role has a *range* (date); the property has an *owner* (person). Example: "ceiling" denotes a property of a room and a property of an aircraft, two different properties of two distinct things 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-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 620651.18019.bm@omp1010.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: PFBueH8VM1lD4yyYLw81rc4kB2rpvweuxorEMonlfJn5D0P lvghIb2B9WkRYIxQVSpGy_qHBV7t0PxlIYbGF9M_TCdAsNQcU_Ky9Vq45Noc avkZEMz6sDQhpMztI5Iib8NNkBK.0LU8yTvczO.eqTAnADTIz1qa3zxQ7yD6 fZo8DxdbRAoSW8Xkhl2j5ajptUMarzg3_94MJbMUdgHi4LsSelCEOdFTqncg YLucqMGyctQ_LvN30bO3jwrz6ZWpNdzDv5UAEj43pb8H6si4ORj053.COpvu fk4ojmRu3x3soG.Vn808vaH2.AmveQOrPPwyD1LopS6zy X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:37:15 -0600 To: Don Baisley , Donald Chapin , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution I get the examples and they're good, but some wording suggestions below, like this. Ron At 07:57 PM 12/10/2010, Don Baisley wrote: I was asked to write down some examples of properties I gave over the phone in the recent SBVR RTF meeting. Example: Consider three statements: .Meeting 1 starts at 1PM., .Meeting 2 starts at 2PM., .Meeting 1 ends at 2PM.. These describe three distinguishable properties, which include the two qualities I think it's confusing to bring in the new word "quality" to the example. Just stick with "property". of Meeting 1 of I don't understand the need for this second "of". (Doesn't read well.) starting at 1PM and ending at 2PM and the one quality Ditto. of Meeting 2 of Ditto. starting at 2PM. Each property should not be confused with the fact type role of the respective property association used to formulate the statement In Clause 11, I'd prefer not to say "formulate". What's a better "business" way to say this? (which roles could be labeled .starting time. or .ending time.), because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the property is not the thing that fills role (it.s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property than ending at 2PM. Example: A property association need not be binary. The statement, .Meeting 1 starts on Tuesday at 1PM., describes a property of Meeting 1, its quality of I would delete "its quality of". starting on Tuesday at 1PM, but the statement is formulated Ditto earlier. based on the ternary property association .meeting starts on day of week at time of day.. Best regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [ mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:21 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution All . A small revision and clarification to my October 7th proposed resolution in the email below: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. (Already a separate Issue for this) Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Add a note to .is-property-of. fact type as follows: Asserting that each thing in the extension of a given general noun concept can have a property of a given kind of property in itself in the subject world is not an assertion that the .establishes thing as property. fact type role will be modeled as a property/attribute in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model. If things in the extension of the general noun concept that plays the .establishes thing as property. fact type role have properties themselves, the is-property-of fact type could be modeled in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model as an entity/class (for the general noun concept playing the .establishes thing as property. fact type role) plus a relationship/association. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [ mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 07 October 2010 13:10 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution All, Recommended revisions to the resolution proposed in the Issue: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 October 2010 19:59 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: auz7caoVM1kY9s2H9kLWGdWwD.PytwKfFXWMeMlR9g8crFG mJwzp8q4kKXoTa12G4O86TgPayJxGomSUaBhagCqZqYQG40k4UV8ASplTqUi ZRFdQPs9SyzuNc3Yw3kbw1bxPQ2zUDYkmYgFZM4kgZG2yav9cPe.x77JHMAN zbVPbNFClPdTLUm0GGtwRbTHKX7p5r4VMnLVt3.5kOGnZ7cjjARyhOZ0CEmv KrbU_0cI0E2YMBma1bwgBdrIfRUTk X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:10:42 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue: "property" Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Juergen, Please create a new SBVR issue as below. Thanks, Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Problem Statement: SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly. This omission should be corrected because "property" is a term used naturally by business people and business analysts. SBVR should own up to any term used commonly in the real world to form concepts and organize vocabulary. Resolution: Add the term "property" to Clause 11, defined as: Property: thing playing a role in a fact wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD property] Necessity: The fact must be for a binary fact type. Example: In 'George was born on 22 February 1732', '22 Feb 1732' plays the *role* "birthdate", but "birth date" is a *property* of the *person* 'George'. The role has a *range* (date); the property has an *owner* (person). Example: "ceiling" denotes a property of a room and a property of an aircraft, two different properties of two distinct things 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 From: Don Baisley To: "Ronald G. Ross" , Donald Chapin , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution Thread-Topic: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution Thread-Index: AQHLmVotjRVLLPAcS0SJjUU9Q5/sFpObjbVQ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:37:01 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Ron, How.s this: Example: Consider three statements: .Meeting 1 starts at 1PM., .Meeting 2 starts at 2PM., .Meeting 1 ends at 2PM.. These describe three distinguishable properties: starting at 1PM, ending at 2PM and starting at 2PM. Each property should not be confused with the fact type role of the respective property association (which roles could be labeled .starting time. or .ending time.), because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the property is not the thing that fills role (it.s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property than ending at 2PM. Example: A property association need not be binary. Consider the ternary property association .meeting starts on day of week at time of day.. The statement .Meeting 1 starts on Tuesday at 1PM. describes Meeting 1.s property of starting on Tuesday at 1PM. Regards, Don From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:37 AM To: Don Baisley; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution I get the examples and they're good, but some wording suggestions below, like this. Ron At 07:57 PM 12/10/2010, Don Baisley wrote: I was asked to write down some examples of properties I gave over the phone in the recent SBVR RTF meeting. Example: Consider three statements: .Meeting 1 starts at 1PM., .Meeting 2 starts at 2PM., .Meeting 1 ends at 2PM.. These describe three distinguishable properties, which include the two qualities I think it's confusing to bring in the new word "quality" to the example. Just stick with "property". of Meeting 1 of I don't understand the need for this second "of". (Doesn't read well.) starting at 1PM and ending at 2PM and the one quality Ditto. of Meeting 2 of Ditto. starting at 2PM. Each property should not be confused with the fact type role of the respective property association used to formulate the statement In Clause 11, I'd prefer not to say "formulate". What's a better "business" way to say this? (which roles could be labeled .starting time. or .ending time.), because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the property is not the thing that fills role (it.s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property than ending at 2PM. Example: A property association need not be binary. The statement, .Meeting 1 starts on Tuesday at 1PM., describes a property of Meeting 1, its quality of I would delete "its quality of". starting on Tuesday at 1PM, but the statement is formulated Ditto earlier. based on the ternary property association .meeting starts on day of week at time of day.. Best regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [ mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:21 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution All . A small revision and clarification to my October 7th proposed resolution in the email below: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. (Already a separate Issue for this) Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Add a note to .is-property-of. fact type as follows: Asserting that each thing in the extension of a given general noun concept can have a property of a given kind of property in itself in the subject world is not an assertion that the .establishes thing as property. fact type role will be modeled as a property/attribute in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model. If things in the extension of the general noun concept that plays the .establishes thing as property. fact type role have properties themselves, the is-property-of fact type could be modeled in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model as an entity/class (for the general noun concept playing the .establishes thing as property. fact type role) plus a relationship/association. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [ mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 07 October 2010 13:10 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution All, Recommended revisions to the resolution proposed in the Issue: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 October 2010 19:59 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: auz7caoVM1kY9s2H9kLWGdWwD.PytwKfFXWMeMlR9g8crFG mJwzp8q4kKXoTa12G4O86TgPayJxGomSUaBhagCqZqYQG40k4UV8ASplTqUi ZRFdQPs9SyzuNc3Yw3kbw1bxPQ2zUDYkmYgFZM4kgZG2yav9cPe.x77JHMAN zbVPbNFClPdTLUm0GGtwRbTHKX7p5r4VMnLVt3.5kOGnZ7cjjARyhOZ0CEmv KrbU_0cI0E2YMBma1bwgBdrIfRUTk X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:10:42 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue: "property" Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Juergen, Please create a new SBVR issue as below. Thanks, Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Problem Statement: SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly. This omission should be corrected because "property" is a term used naturally by business people and business analysts. SBVR should own up to any term used commonly in the real world to form concepts and organize vocabulary. Resolution: Add the term "property" to Clause 11, defined as: Property: thing playing a role in a fact wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD property] Necessity: The fact must be for a binary fact type. Example: In 'George was born on 22 February 1732', '22 Feb 1732' plays the *role* "birthdate", but "birth date" is a *property* of the *person* 'George'. The role has a *range* (date); the property has an *owner* (person). Example: "ceiling" denotes a property of a room and a property of an aircraft, two different properties of two distinct things 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-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 636959.21737.bm@omp1024.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: yt5aX3kVM1nyzgFyAUVSQy9lj0ryAErGe34_fN2ZWNuyRDc aNG1Q69Zkp_LarGWONAyHEQw8ysaF5kq6nYgcv2xtfCB_X25EeualwVMXG3i HAUTu8Zq9rJgWQEmqEAXi2xw5tj9m5XAW6nN.V32UHAmY8yxbfxrhpW5mCvc _38v9nVL2P6LMPd1kCogneNCZMM05MX8SWz0X9dl2aVwG5cnuYIhynp1SWBr OGfau0mLnGZQiRccvYfZslsnh8RU.5JvfK00ZMqEJR2HPvvaSwaEMCs_eVze iSwlb9cQL210.j6VrirWObl55MOVhxtpjZ.uPG0wJEQUT X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:16:49 -0600 To: Don Baisley , Donald Chapin , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution Yes, much better I think. Now how about an additional sentence at the end of the first paragraph distinguishing property from characteristic using the example? Ron At 12:37 PM 12/11/2010, Don Baisley wrote: Ron, How.s this: Example: Consider three statements: .Meeting 1 starts at 1PM., .Meeting 2 starts at 2PM., .Meeting 1 ends at 2PM.. These describe three distinguishable properties: starting at 1PM, ending at 2PM and starting at 2PM. Each property should not be confused with the fact type role of the respective property association (which roles could be labeled .starting time. or .ending time.), because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the property is not the thing that fills role (it.s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property than ending at 2PM. Example: A property association need not be binary. Consider the ternary property association .meeting starts on day of week at time of day.. The statement .Meeting 1 starts on Tuesday at 1PM. describes Meeting 1.s property of starting on Tuesday at 1PM. Regards, Don From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:37 AM To: Don Baisley; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution I get the examples and they're good, but some wording suggestions below, like this. Ron At 07:57 PM 12/10/2010, Don Baisley wrote: I was asked to write down some examples of properties I gave over the phone in the recent SBVR RTF meeting. Example: Consider three statements: .Meeting 1 starts at 1PM., .Meeting 2 starts at 2PM., .Meeting 1 ends at 2PM.. These describe three distinguishable properties, which include the two qualities I think it's confusing to bring in the new word "quality" to the example. Just stick with "property". of Meeting 1 of I don't understand the need for this second "of". (Doesn't read well.) starting at 1PM and ending at 2PM and the one quality Ditto. of Meeting 2 of Ditto. starting at 2PM. Each property should not be confused with the fact type role of the respective property association used to formulate the statement In Clause 11, I'd prefer not to say "formulate". What's a better "business" way to say this? (which roles could be labeled .starting time. or .ending time.), because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the property is not the thing that fills role (it.s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property than ending at 2PM. Example: A property association need not be binary. The statement, .Meeting 1 starts on Tuesday at 1PM., describes a property of Meeting 1, its quality of I would delete "its quality of". starting on Tuesday at 1PM, but the statement is formulated Ditto earlier. based on the ternary property association .meeting starts on day of week at time of day.. Best regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [ mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:21 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution All . A small revision and clarification to my October 7th proposed resolution in the email below: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. (Already a separate Issue for this) Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Add a note to .is-property-of. fact type as follows: Asserting that each thing in the extension of a given general noun concept can have a property of a given kind of property in itself in the subject world is not an assertion that the .establishes thing as property. fact type role will be modeled as a property/attribute in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model. If things in the extension of the general noun concept that plays the .establishes thing as property. fact type role have properties themselves, the is-property-of fact type could be modeled in a entity/class attribute/property paradigm model as an entity/class (for the general noun concept playing the .establishes thing as property. fact type role) plus a relationship/association. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Chapin [ mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 07 October 2010 13:10 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution All, Recommended revisions to the resolution proposed in the Issue: Revise definition a little: thing playing a role in a fact an actuality wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact actuality and not as being external to it. Since only concepts, elements of guidance, their representations, and the expressions used by the representations go into SBVR models (see SBVR Issue 10577) and we need some vocabulary that doesn.t have content in an SBVR model in order to talk about the subject area, add a Clause 8 unary fact type, meaning is included in SBVR metamodel. Remove the necessity. If it goes anywhere it should be of the .is property of. fact type. Improve the .George. example to something that is intrinsic to George himself; e.g. hair color Add a new Clause 8 unary fact type, fact type role establishes thing as property, to removed the ambiguity from fact types that are .is property of. fact types and be specific as to the instances of which role are properties of the instances of the other role. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 07 October 2010 19:59 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: auz7caoVM1kY9s2H9kLWGdWwD.PytwKfFXWMeMlR9g8crFG mJwzp8q4kKXoTa12G4O86TgPayJxGomSUaBhagCqZqYQG40k4UV8ASplTqUi ZRFdQPs9SyzuNc3Yw3kbw1bxPQ2zUDYkmYgFZM4kgZG2yav9cPe.x77JHMAN zbVPbNFClPdTLUm0GGtwRbTHKX7p5r4VMnLVt3.5kOGnZ7cjjARyhOZ0CEmv KrbU_0cI0E2YMBma1bwgBdrIfRUTk X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:10:42 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue: "property" Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Juergen, Please create a new SBVR issue as below. Thanks, Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Problem Statement: SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly. This omission should be corrected because "property" is a term used naturally by business people and business analysts. SBVR should own up to any term used commonly in the real world to form concepts and organize vocabulary. Resolution: Add the term "property" to Clause 11, defined as: Property: thing playing a role in a fact wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD property] Necessity: The fact must be for a binary fact type. Example: In 'George was born on 22 February 1732', '22 Feb 1732' plays the *role* "birthdate", but "birth date" is a *property* of the *person* 'George'. The role has a *range* (date); the property has an *owner* (person). Example: "ceiling" denotes a property of a room and a property of an aircraft, two different properties of two distinct things 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-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 420933.9038.bm@omp1050.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: thS3BHoVM1nLImtFPqkyj5gue4z5mLU2pq6mmHQCvSi0gq7 hR3KA2LtH0EmvrR7I7_9aMx3E9ajrizH0QxQGTVXdsvpzqMlUh9V37yqg6cR pR_YT272EUxo7tdMhyWxKfN6KuEEuOGjiSJQdCZinGPh1za1NObl4ALZadEO NzJbfWVtuHpAycaKs6k6NeJVh8T14W8wnFcVLtfzPnxGUeUYfb194p8IHdH7 rSBDly84Uebi3tXUwVsaj3sd8bcjjdkC3rVLW928XrhfTRsSgUkvUG82Yqzm 1VfOqUrmtDh1E1di34bpHgrX5ZhtPYYYqV_nfd8ScuzRG X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:40:19 -0600 To: Mark H Linehan , sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: Issue 15684 -- SBVR RTF issue: "property" -- Recommended Revisions to Proposed Resolution -- Change to October 7th Recommended Resolution Don, Can you just come up with a ternary example that doesn't involve time? For SBVR we didn't mean to get into this. Ron At 07:09 AM 12/13/2010, Mark H Linehan wrote: I disagree with the third example. In the Date-Time Vocabulary effort, we would think of "Tuesday at 1pm" as one of many possible alternative representations, such as "1pm on Tuesday", "1:00 pm December 14, 2010", "December 14, 2010 13:00", etc. So we would think the third example uses a binary fact type of the form " starts at