Issue 15684: SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Rule Solutions, LLC (Mr. Ron Ross, rross(at)brsolutions.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 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 Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 5, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== hoo-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 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=5 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1004200000 definitions=main-1010050134 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2010-10-05_06:2010-10-05,2010-10-05,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Subject: Re: New SBVR issue "property" From: keri Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:19:10 -0700 Cc: "Ronald G. Ross" , SBVR RTF To: Don Baisley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Yes, interesting .... My SBVR sense of "property" comes from its use in the adopted-from-ISO notion of "characteristic": abstraction of a property of an object [thing] or of a set of objects So, there is it as part of the unary fact type notion ... yet we also use "property" when dealing with the binary fact type notion that (typically) uses "has". At Nielsen we used to see both faces of a property in their models -- e.g., sometimes as "car has color" (binary, with valid values of color defined) and other times as "car is red" (being red) and "car is blue" (being blue, etc.) as unary fact types/characteristics. I hope this new "property" issue helps get these rationalized. Keri On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Don Baisley wrote: .......... Introducing .property. into SBVR is interesting. I hope we don.t invent a new idea of .property.. I hope we take the notion from physics and not the one from computer programming. I don.t see how .property. specializes .association. in either case. Examples of properties: Some properties of a particular rental car: red three years old uses gasoline The abstractions of these properties are characteristics (per the definition of .characteristic. adopted from ISO). The characteristics are of different types (.characteristic types.) which could be called color, age and fuel type. Note that being three years old is the property illustrated in the example, not the fact type role .age. and not the fact type .car has age.. We need to keep our metalevels clear. Enjoy, Don Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:51:01 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: keri CC: SBVR RTF Subject: Re: New SBVR issue "property" X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: o95Kp5x5017151 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1286916666.97076@rY+GEBDc1d9jshDO0CL/sw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov keri wrote: Yes, interesting .... My SBVR sense of "property" comes from its use in the adopted-from-ISO notion of "characteristic": abstraction of a property of an object [thing] or of a set of objects So, there is it as part of the *unary* fact type notion ... yet we also use "property" when dealing with the *binary* fact type notion that (typically) uses "has". At Nielsen we used to see both faces of a property in their models -- e.g., sometimes as "car /has/ color" (binary, with valid values of color defined) and other times as "car /is red/" (/being red/) and "car /is blue/" (/being blue/, etc.) as unary fact types/characteristics. I hope this new "property" issue helps get these rationalized. This is precisely why you can't choose a word without there being someone who thinks it has a different meaning. Whether "property" is a unary or binary relationship is something the world will not agree on. We cannot define the term "property" to match all business usage, because like every other such effort, it results in not defining the term. If we are going to introduce the term, we have to define it. If we define so as to permit both interpretations Keri gives, it is a synonym for 'fact type'. And, as Keri points out, we already have the terms 'characteristic' and 'binary fact type' for the two concepts she offers. I intended the term "property" to be neither! I intended the term "property" to refer to a relative of a thing, not to the fact type that relates them, but rather to the related thing. So in '(car) /has color/ (color)', '/color/' refers to a thing related to the car, e.g., the color red. When a business person talks about 'color' being "a property of" a car, he is not talking about a fact type, he is talking about a thing that is related to the car in a particular way. But I can see this is already confused in Ron's examples. IMO, when 'the car' refers to my son's Corolla: - "red" is the referent of the 'property' "color" of John's car. "is red" is the characteristic that John's car satisfies; "'red' is the color of John's car" is the fact that corresponds to the fact type '(color) is the color of (car)''. It refers to an actuality. - "3 years" is the referent of the 'property' "age" of John's car. "is 3 years old" is the characteristic that John's car satisfies; "John's car is 3 years old" is the fact that corresponds to the fact type '(car) is (duration) old', which is a synonymous form for '(duration) is the age of (car)' or '(car) is (duration) of age'. It refers to an actuality. - "uses gasoline" is a characteristic that John's car satisfies. I suppose it may be seen as a 'property', but that takes us into the woods that Keri just surveyed. I do not see any value in going there. We have the term 'characteristic' for such concepts. I don't expect you all to agree with my use of "property", and it is pretty clear that Ron and Keri have somewhat different concepts associated with the term. -Ed Keri On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Don Baisley wrote: .......... Introducing .property. into SBVR is interesting. I hope we don.t invent a new idea of .property.. I hope we take the notion from physics and not the one from computer programming. I don.t see how .property. specializes .association. in either case. Examples of properties: Some properties of a particular rental car: red three years old uses gasoline The abstractions of these properties are characteristics (per the definition of .characteristic. adopted from ISO). The characteristics are of different types (.characteristic types.) which could be called color, age and fuel type. Note that being three years old is the property illustrated in the example, not the fact type role .age. and not the fact type .car has age.. We need to keep our metalevels clear. Enjoy, Don -- 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." X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 8cri0roVM1leDHmX3b3xkd2EzjAzXdpvrT5huHuq4h_l0Wv uNuDbvg5krDlkuo.ABgIeUr6dPQ_T0Sm3pFmEIi8OrVpPZGtwwnkIwKisZPB Hn.mQWxSxw2i2DuXr4b2LSalQmmxZu4x7czeW9wKJ.2kIdOtVE4tluec07OL VHK.0gdUi.IDBdd.M2FLjPxRm_1fH7w_2Bhl0ogmqJUm1IY.dYkx.ehDytdu .Q.nFJuz2x57X4_oYyOyHcQhveow4gER7 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:28:42 -0500 To: edbark@nist.gov, keri From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: New SBVR issue "property" Cc: SBVR RTF Comments inserted like this. At 03:51 PM 10/5/2010, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: keri wrote: Yes, interesting .... My SBVR sense of "property" comes from its use in the adopted-from-ISO notion of "characteristic": abstraction of a property of an object [thing] or of a set of objects So, there is it as part of the *unary* fact type notion ... yet we also use "property" when dealing with the *binary* fact type notion that (typically) uses "has". At Nielsen we used to see both faces of a property in their models -- e.g., sometimes as "car /has/ color" (binary, with valid values of color defined) and other times as "car /is red/" (/being red/) and "car /is blue/" (/being blue/, etc.) as unary fact types/characteristics. I hope this new "property" issue helps get these rationalized. This is precisely why you can't choose a word without there being someone who thinks it has a different meaning. Whether "property" is a unary or binary relationship is something the world will not agree on. We cannot define the term "property" to match all business usage, because like every other such effort, it results in not defining the term. If we are going to introduce the term, we have to define it. If we define so as to permit both interpretations Keri gives, it is a synonym for 'fact type'. And, as Keri points out, we already have the terms 'characteristic' and 'binary fact type' for the two concepts she offers. Indeed, we already have terms for those concepts. I intended the term "property" to be neither! I intended the term "property" to refer to a relative of a thing, not to the fact type that relates them, but rather to the related thing. So in '(car) /has color/ (color)', '/color/' refers to a thing related to the car, e.g., the color red. When a business person talks about 'color' being "a property of" a car, he is not talking about a fact type, he is talking about a thing that is related to the car in a particular way. But I can see this is already confused in Ron's You meant Don's, I believe. examples. IMO, when 'the car' refers to my son's Corolla: - "red" is the referent of the 'property' "color" of John's car. This is the missing notion in SBVR. "is red" is the characteristic that John's car satisfies; We have this notion. "'red' is the color of John's car" is the fact that corresponds to the fact type '(color) is the color of (car)''. It refers to an actuality. We have this notion. - "3 years" is the referent of the 'property' "age" of John's car. "is 3 years old" is the characteristic that John's car satisfies; "John's car is 3 years old" is the fact that corresponds to the fact type '(car) is (duration) old', which is a synonymous form for '(duration) is the age of (car)' or '(car) is (duration) of age'. It refers to an actuality. Ditto the above responses. - "uses gasoline" is a characteristic that John's car satisfies. I suppose it may be seen as a 'property', but that takes us into the woods that Keri just surveyed. I do not see any value in going there. We have the term 'characteristic' for such concepts. Agree. I don't expect you all to agree with my use of "property", and it is pretty clear that Ron and Keri have somewhat different concepts associated with the term. I'm going to be optimistic and say that we've never had such a clear discussion and walk-through of examples for the issue. (Continue below.) On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Don Baisley wrote: .......... Introducing property into SBVR is interesting. I hope we don invent a new idea of property. I hope we take the notion from physics and not the one from computer programming. I don see how property specializes association in either case. No, property obviously doesn't. But "property association" (the term currently on the table in 11.1.5) might. However, if we have "property", then for 11.1.5, I don't think there's any need for either "property association" or the current term "is-property-of" ... for the same reason there is no need for "is-role-of". ("is role of" can already be 'understood' by SBVR). Examples of properties: Some properties of a particular rental car: red three years old uses gasoline The abstractions of these properties are characteristics (per the definition of characteristic adopted from ISO). The characteristics are of different types (characteristic types) which could be called color, age and fuel type. Note that being three years old is the property illustrated in the example, No, "three years old" is the property in the example. Ron not the fact type role ageand not the fact type car has age We need to keep our metalevels clear. Enjoy, Don -- 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, 06 Oct 2010 12:05:27 -0400 From: Edward Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: "Ronald G. Ross" CC: SBVR RTF Subject: Re: New SBVR issue "property" X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov Minor correction. I think Ron and I agree. Ronald G. Ross wrote: *Comments inserted like this. *At 03:51 PM 10/5/2010, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: keri wrote: Yes, interesting .... My SBVR sense of "property" comes from its use in the adopted-from-ISO notion of "characteristic": abstraction of a property of an object [thing] or of a set of objects So, there is it as part of the *unary* fact type notion ... yet we also use "property" when dealing with the *binary* fact type notion that (typically) uses "has". At Nielsen we used to see both faces of a property in their models -- e.g., sometimes as "car /has/ color" (binary, with valid values of color defined) and other times as "car /is red/" (/being red/) and "car /is blue/" (/being blue/, etc.) as unary fact types/characteristics. I hope this new "property" issue helps get these rationalized. This is precisely why you can't choose a word without there being someone who thinks it has a different meaning. Whether "property" is a unary or binary relationship is something the world will not agree on. We cannot define the term "property" to match all business usage, because like every other such effort, it results in not defining the term. If we are going to introduce the term, we have to define it. If we define so as to permit both interpretations Keri gives, it is a synonym for 'fact type'. And, as Keri points out, we already have the terms 'characteristic' and 'binary fact type' for the two concepts she offers. *Indeed, we already have terms for those concepts. * I intended the term "property" to be neither! I intended the term "property" to refer to a relative of a thing, not to the fact type that relates them, but rather to the related thing. So in '(car) /has color/ (color)', '/color/' refers to a thing related to the car, e.g., the color red. When a business person talks about 'color' being "a property of" a car, he is not talking about a fact type, he is talking about a thing that is related to the car in a particular way. But I can see this is already confused in Ron's *You meant Don's, I believe. * Oops, sorry, yes, I did mean Don's. examples. IMO, when 'the car' refers to my son's Corolla: - "red" is the referent of the 'property' "color" of John's car. *This is the missing notion in SBVR. * Agree. * * "is red" is the characteristic that John's car satisfies; *We have this notion. * "'red' is the color of John's car" is the fact that corresponds to the fact type '(color) is the color of (car)''. It refers to an actuality. *We have this notion. * - "3 years" is the referent of the 'property' "age" of John's car. "is 3 years old" is the characteristic that John's car satisfies; "John's car is 3 years old" is the fact that corresponds to the fact type '(car) is (duration) old', which is a synonymous form for '(duration) is the age of (car)' or '(car) is (duration) of age'. It refers to an actuality. *Ditto the above responses. * - "uses gasoline" is a characteristic that John's car satisfies. I suppose it may be seen as a 'property', but that takes us into the woods that Keri just surveyed. I do not see any value in going there. We have the term 'characteristic' for such concepts. *Agree. * I don't expect you all to agree with my use of "property", and it is pretty clear that Ron and Keri have somewhat different concepts associated with the term. *I'm going to be optimistic and say that we've never had such a clear discussion and walk-through of examples for the issue. (Continue below.) * On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Don Baisley wrote: .......... Introducing .property. into SBVR is interesting. I hope we don.t invent a new idea of .property.. I hope we take the notion from physics and not the one from computer programming. I don.t see how .property. specializes .association. in either case. *No, property obviously doesn't. * I agree. "property" is closer to "owned association end" when the owner is a "class" (object type), rather than an "association" (fact type). The ends owned by the fact type are "fact type roles"; the end owned by the class is a derivative of the fact type role, and models the "property" concept. In UML, one can view a class-owned association end as being both a fact type role and a property, but UML actually says that it can be one or the other, but not both -- an association end only gets to have one owner. In UML, the "multiplicity" goes with the "property" concept, not with the "role participation" concept (unliike ORM). So an association end marked 1..1 means that each instance of the owner class has "exactly 1" instance of the "property" that is modeled by the owned association end. SBVR clause 13 creates UML/MOF attributes of the owner class to match the "properties" of the class that are used in the reference schemes (because it maps all fact type roles to association ends that are owned by the association). These "property" attributes are derived from the association ends, in just the way that properties are related to fact type roles. *But "property association" (the term currently on the table in 11.1.5) might. However, if we have "property", then for 11.1.5, I don't think there's any need for either "property association" or the current term "is-property-of" ... * I'm not so sure about this. The way the definition of 'is-property-of fact type' is phrased in 11.1.5 suggests that it is categorizing the fact types from which properties are derived as 'is-property-of fact type'. Those fact types correspond to the actualities of things possessing the derived property. I might argue, however, that whether a fact type is the basis for a property is a viewpoint decision. The actualities are not intrinsically property possessions. The fact type becomes an 'is-property-of fact type' when you introduce a synonymous form for it that has the 'X has P' form or the 'X is the/a P of Y' form, or the 'X has Y as a P' form (from RABBIT). OTOH, all models are viewpoint models. If you introduce such a form, you are clearly categorizing the fact type as an 'is-property-of fact type' in your business vocabulary -- the intended property term P is embedded directly in the form. Example: (person) is born on (date) is not an is-property-of fact type, if that is the only form. But (date) is the birthdate of (person) is a synonymous form that introduces the property term "birthdate" (owned by person). If you introduce that form, you are making the fact type an 'is-property-of fact type' in your vocabulary. *for the same reason there is no need for "is-role-of". ("is role of" can already be 'understood' by SBVR). * It seems to me there is only one 'is-role-of' fact type, and it has several fact type forms. But they all come down to '(thing) plays role (role) in (situation)'. I suppose that the intent here is that a fact type in which (role) and/or (situation) are constants and therefore look like part of the verb signifier is an 'is-role-of fact type'. And in that case, I don't see what SBVR construct obviates this category. As I think upon it, I realize that I gave three general forms of the "only" is-property-of fact type above: 'X is a/the P of Y', etc., i.e. '(range: object type) is the (property) of (owner: object type)'. And those are also individualized by substituting a constant property-term for (property) in the verb signifier. So Ron is right; there is some parallel here. But I don't see that the fact type categorizations are obviated by having the delimiting concepts. * * Examples of properties: Some properties of a particular rental car: red three years old uses gasoline The abstractions of these properties are characteristics (per the definition of .characteristic. adopted from ISO). The characteristics are of different types (.characteristic types.) which could be called color, age and fuel type. Note that being three years old is the property illustrated in the example, *No, "three years old" is the property in the example. * Close. "three years" is the referent of the property "age" ("old-ness") for the vehicle in question. '(duration) is the age of (thing)' and '(thing) is (duration) old' are just different forms of the same fact type. The property "age", applied to a 'thing', refers to exactly one 'duration'. "being three years old" is the characteristic. Applied to a 'thing', it refers to at most one actuality. (A logician would say: Applied to a thing, it produces either 'true' or 'false'.) -Ed * Ron * not the fact type role .age. and not the fact type .car has age.. We need to keep our metalevels clear. Enjoy, Don -- 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." -- 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: 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