Issue 15950: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement (sbvr-rtf) Source: Ajilon (Mr. Graham Witt, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: The restriction of the definition of “business rule” to include only those rules that “the semantic community can opt to change or discard” is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of “rule statement” (“a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule”) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 14, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 431800.46565.bm@omp1058.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: s29.vIUVM1m9pRIr0LWCAB4ASA8vLyOnLLyQaINi6Vh5Y6t ovavxVyZHF6jab2l_ZnTIWgqLcyofSXZIz5oppT4tUFX6kotRhnHOu992InJ Z1sTQaf4_A2dOLlFghbpUUa7P4dT.5FmiwW29jYMYQHySa6ihKL.K4qJiZgV X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 431800.46565.bm@omp1058.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: s29.vIUVM1m9pRIr0LWCAB4ASA8vLyOnLLyQaINi6Vh5Y6t ovavxVyZHF6jab2l_ZnTIWgqLcyofSXZIz5oppT4tUFX6kotRhnHOu992InJ Z1sTQaf4_A2dOLlFghbpUUa7P4dT.5FmiwW29jYMYQHySa6ihKL.K4qJiZgV 2Bhpp.Sq8ddkj7ZAvakjO4mC78iKuewmBvIBBFpBpP3WE8vb1r1.WMyn3zzj 1sgtTOHnDNU4acFB.VqBcqq_UEC3_ZGwUpILfmHdYbF0tDfrKwLiXV2V9ZmX mSwrgb8rlxZGQHs_2yPmJAKZKxxE0RsNiMmnFLKEImzs- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:13:55 -0600 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue Graham, A business rule is a rule that is under business jurisdiction. All behavioral (operative) rules are under business jurisdiction. There are no behavioral rules that aren't under business jurisdiction. So all behavioral rules are business rules. Not all definitional (structural) rules are under business jurisdiction. For example, the "law" of gravity. The 'rules' of mathematics. That water "when pure [always] consists of an oxide of hydrogen H2O or (H2O)x in the proportion of 2 atoms of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen". SBVR doesn't require you to take those meanings as rules, but it allows you to do so if you so chose. (I do, because it works best for business.) If you do though, they're not business rules because your business has no choice about them. Does that clarify? (I'm not exactly clear what you had trouble with.) If so, perhaps you can suggest some improved clarification text? If not, try again? Ron At 09:49 AM 1/14/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of "business rule" to include only those rules that "the semantic community can opt to change or discard" is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of "rule statement" ("a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule") excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 183233.58711.bm@omp1039.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: rabONkQVM1nAHXx6zmOoD37tJ1zjh22Twh8KU1WQySnQyAd 03axBIrOYhzOlR8o0eZHIPusp5SlOzAaqvI34wY2TWkAxpHMWfiAUCtosGqy YMKqqtsHddRNKGwGUHK7ZEvrzcQKwu0fQrfhcch8vHfS7z_onUzmksX7cC5. FFSgdpEGE0yYJoxnSssRKoQgWpDvP1_hyLVOfAf517DLshANPxw_K3XDmdU0 AM_ZKL4MmStUdoKVgD3NPtLsoK1rddSQz8XiOew-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:21:31 -0600 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- [semantic community] SBVR RTF issue All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that problems with use of the term "semantic community" in the definition of "business rule" would fall under this issue. I have done a search of Clause 12, and here is what I found, along with my recommendations. There are 5 segments of text where "semantic community", "community" or "communities" appear. Only the first seems to me that it could be problematic. Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings uniting a semantic community that takes the elements of guidance as true RGR: This definition is problematic. Alethic elements of guidance might "unite" a semantic community (no real opinion), but I don't see deontic elements of guidance as (a) "uniting" anything, or (b) pertaining to semantic community at all (unless the semantic community just happens to be a society, organization or business). Recommendation: Delete the phrase starting: "uniting ...". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule , element of guidance Note: A rule RGR: There are 3 instances of "semantic community" in this note. Recommendation: All 3 instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ advice of contingency Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is 1 instance of "semantic community" in this note and 1 instance of "community". Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ advice of optionality Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is 1 instance of "semantic community" in this note and 1 instance of "community". Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section 12.5, page 178, the paragraph that reads: In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement, there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions. Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what characteristics are incorporated by concepts. RGR: There is 1 instance of "community" in this section and 1 instance of "communities". Recommendation: I have no strong feelings at present about whether these instances should be changed or stand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 09:49 AM 1/14/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of business rule to include only those rules that the semantic community can opt to change or discard is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of rule statement (a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 276130.80182.bm@omp1026.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: TJDEoTsVM1mpf80tMhR1cvyj.PPe.gVfhbCE4sMyjrw83hQ nRCl8klxKocJAu29gBs18GDDGO.zyK6EFDZmTfen4jBu32FtzZMaSS9bSduK dhFM0FLjzKbbRAkW9LEyvVSpoIuwsQoOYcemBdIcyLEr4wG3Z25A0uVHA0vT AHcc07Sc8ptjONZaWlMcv2lwl7sv1vDmTuQ_LrDvXvC8p6kFBjIu56YcpteX gIK2SYtjjIYOSL6z.jI14dkwy7Vi5KZS9.zYWiw-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:31:04 -0600 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 [adopting regulations] -- SBVR RTF issue All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that Clause 12 saying something about regulations being adopted by default would fall under this issue. My recommendation is that a note be added to the entry for "element of guidance" as follows (first draft): Note: A regulation created by a governmental body or other agency that is being adopted by default by an organization or business entity is treated as an element of guidance for that organization or business entity. Ron At 09:49 AM 1/14/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of "business rule" to include only those rules that "the semantic community can opt to change or discard" is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of "rule statement" ("a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule") excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-01-30_08:2011-01-28,2011-01-30,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1101300121 Subject: Re: issue 15950 [adopting regulations] -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:37:55 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) After sleeping on it, I'm not sure that I agree that it works quite as simply as "adoption" of some law into the organization to become a business rule. Would some external regulation/law simply slip smoothly from the law bookshelf into being an internal element of guidance for a given organization? I think not. Having worked through some examples since our meeting, that external law/reg. looks like it could become some element of business policy, but I cannot see how an untranslated law could ever be 'practicable' -- in the sense that every employee of the organization would be able to tell that they were in compliance from moment to moment. Also, not all laws/regs. are relevant to all employees of an organization, so there's another kind of rendering that happens to translate laws/regs. into practicable guidance for the appropriate employees. We have, for example, in Hawaii an "anti-stacking" law for restaurants/bars. If you read the law it is open to some interpretation about exactly how 'behavior' should be guided by that law. (In a recent court case, the fine was levied against the restaurant for not properly instructing their employees on the law, rather than the violation being the 'bad behavior' of the server per se.) Last week, our server said that he has been instructed by PF Changs not to put a second drink down on the table without first removing the (empty) glass from the first drink. That is very specific, practicable guidance. And that is NOT what is written in the law. So, PF Changs did not simply "adopt" the law; someone in Corporate turned their understanding of the law into practicable guidance for the relevant employee type. (For example, the hostess who seats customers doesn't need to worry about that law.) Keri On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that Clause 12 saying something about regulations being adopted by default would fall under this issue. My recommendation is that a note be added to the entry for "element of guidance" as follows (first draft): Note: A regulation created by a governmental body or other agency that is being adopted by default by an organization or business entity is treated as an element of guidance for that organization or business entity. Ron At 09:49 AM 1/14/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of "business rule" to include only those rules that "the semantic community can opt to change or discard" is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of "rule statement" ("a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule") excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 564912.6891.bm@omp1040.mail.ac4.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: fWnhpssVM1kRRGV69EltkNVJ7S71ChCee8VHw5VlyxDhyW8 dmy89NtD8atIpRwJdErhVexF0_55KXZPYn_u71IErK48ktnB4kUJRm9Zf0QH iycZILec6zr2hKIL1n189obmm4jy9T91B5pWzH9ZRKLk3XpItu4qBR7a_SJ4 t_xLpA9ZCQHoEkQ0kAzDb4cUzjAp4w0WIRqpiamWrvNXklg2TPIxMFqidLG9 ZDVZBw3nYTb9dvIwQ5fZ3bXrQTLTDZBI41XvHaOGQi.JzW7co X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:24:05 -0600 To: keri From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 [adopting regulations] -- SBVR RTF issue Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org At 04:37 PM 1/30/2011, keri wrote: After sleeping on it, I'm not sure that I agree that it works quite as simply as "adoption" of some law into the organization to become a business rule. Would some external regulation/law simply slip smoothly from the law bookshelf into being an internal element of guidance for a given organization? I think not. Having worked through some examples since our meeting, that external law/reg. looks like it could become some element of business policy, but I cannot see how an untranslated law could ever be 'practicable' -- in the sense that every employee of the organization would be able to tell that they were in compliance from moment to moment. Also, not all laws/regs. are relevant to all employees of an organization, so there's another kind of rendering that happens to translate laws/regs. into practicable guidance for the appropriate employees. I know regulations are seldom practicable (and some might represent advices), that's why I suggested the note for element of guidance, rather than business rule. However, I'm probably good with the note being for business policy (until such time government bodies start delivering practicable guidance ... ha!). Ron We have, for example, in Hawaii an "anti-stacking" law for restaurants/bars. If you read the law it is open to some interpretation about exactly how 'behavior' should be guided by that law. (In a recent court case, the fine was levied against the restaurant for not properly instructing their employees on the law, rather than the violation being the 'bad behavior' of the server per se.) Last week, our server said that he has been instructed by PF Changs not to put a second drink down on the table without first removing the (empty) glass from the first drink. That is very specific, practicable guidance. And that is NOT what is written in the law. So, PF Changs did not simply "adopt" the law; someone in Corporate turned their understanding of the law into practicable guidance for the relevant employee type. (For example, the hostess who seats customers doesn't need to worry about that law.) Keri On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that Clause 12 saying something about regulations being adopted by default would fall under this issue. My recommendation is that a note be added to the entry for "element of guidance" as follows (first draft): Note: A regulation created by a governmental body or other agency that is being adopted by default by an organization or business entity is treated as an element of guidance for that organization or business entity. Ron At 09:49 AM 1/14/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of "business rule" to include only those rules that "the semantic community can opt to change or discard" is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of "rule statement" ("a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule") excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-17_07:2011-02-17,2011-02-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1102170136 From: keri Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:15:55 -1000 To: Donald Chapin , sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> From: webmaster@omg.org >> Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 >> To: >> Subject: Issue/Bug Report >> >> ******************************************************************************* >> Name: Graham Witt >> Employer: Ajilon >> mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au >> Terms_Agreement: I agree >> Specification: SBVR >> Section: various >> FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 >> Version: 1.0 >> Doc_Year: 2008 >> Doc_Month: January >> Doc_Day: 02 >> Page: various >> Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement >> Nature: Revision >> Severity: Significant >> CODE: 3TMw8 >> B1: Report Issue >> >> Description: >> >> The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. >> The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri Issue 15950.doc On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 208967.92556.bm@omp1015.mail.ac4.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: DHNxsl0VM1nzvU8E.D3MoeGTWcz3dEbWi5uDUYp9FF1d_8c lcWCrI68LimybfG._cILW_8GCe5nmMlY5Gq9q_zTrGVhEHNdyjsjCm5iAgwr CJgROScOttXi0rwnQ1Tvi7Q32gBwBL6ooPh2q88A2uFhZ2UnRs6U2bG_eMWM 514gH1OSd2cJVw9RmG.Dfs_DPEsqQS1Z33XubDjoJA.raOQlMMs1962GOHER uYnaypYF2OYdLS6UE7io3mqg1XAH7LJ_ihoRCrg-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:32:33 -0600 To: keri , Donald Chapin , sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that problems with use of the term "semantic community" in the definition of "business rule" would fall under this issue. I see that Keri's proposed resolution does address that. However, a full resolution requires addressing all uses of the term in Clause 12, not just this one use. Otherwise, there will be inconsistency. A while back I did a search of Clause 12 and found 5 segments of text where "semantic community", "community" or "communities" appear. I will resend that message, which also includes my recommendations for each case. Ron At 01:15 PM 2/17/2011, keri wrote: Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> From: webmaster@omg.org >> Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 >> To: >> Subject: Issue/Bug Report >> >> ******************************************************************************* >> Name: Graham Witt >> Employer: Ajilon >> mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au >> Terms_Agreement: I agree >> Specification: SBVR >> Section: various >> FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 >> Version: 1.0 >> Doc_Year: 2008 >> Doc_Month: January >> Doc_Day: 02 >> Page: various >> Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement >> Nature: Revision >> Severity: Significant >> CODE: 3TMw8 >> B1: Report Issue >> >> Description: >> >> The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. >> The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 825969.24723.bm@omp1051.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: iUdx7Y4VM1kv2wfbqzJ_M43L_VcsMxRnKDqwqCiyofTYHRi 5LJQs4ggn4Aj_tGQYX_hKED2VZYOJkMaAvZ6tGvP7ezxaIimeHTv479dCtKS VuHjXC54jMJJJq7O7ymZhUs4IQZvLWXzbazDXL0pml2ySFb9hKkdqqUQM4GW niTI7La0g654CaA1CgUl5HsCCAiWnqLrJCP476RCp21QKTHIUsanykNmAueu V5_LjRTTT6jbycUryB0PqTqWOo69uZqFj_JLF4w-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:34:20 -0600 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- [semantic community] SBVR RTF issue [*resend*] All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that problems with use of the term "semantic community" in the definition of "business rule" would fall under this issue. I have done a search of Clause 12, and here is what I found, along with my recommendations. There are 5 segments of text where "semantic community", "community" or "communities" appear. Only the first seems to me that it could be problematic. Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings uniting a semantic community that takes the elements of guidance as true RGR: This definition is problematic. Alethic elements of guidance might "unite" a semantic community (no real opinion), but I don't see deontic elements of guidance as (a) "uniting" anything, or (b) pertaining to semantic community at all (unless the semantic community just happens to be a society, organization or business). Recommendation: Delete the phrase starting: "uniting ...". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule , element of guidance Note: A rules being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the companys perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. RGR: There are 3 instances of "semantic community" in this note. Recommendation: All 3 instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ advice of contingency Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is 1 instance of "semantic community" in this note and 1 instance of "community". Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ advice of optionality Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is 1 instance of "semantic community" in this note and 1 instance of "community". Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section 12.5, page 178, the paragraph that reads: In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement, there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions. Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what characteristics are incorporated by concepts. RGR: There is 1 instance of "community" in this section and 1 instance of "communities". Recommendation: I have no strong feelings at present about whether these instances should be changed or stand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 09:49 AM 1/14/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of business rule to include only those rules that the semantic community can opt to change or discard is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of rule statement (a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-17_08:2011-02-17,2011-02-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1102170197 Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:48:54 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: "Ronald G. Ross" , Donald Chapin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Ron, Thanks for doing this additional work. All, I think that this broader question does NOT fall within the scope that I agreed to write up to answer what Graham asked. So, if someone feels strongly about the broader question (for all of Clause 12) then I recommend that it be logged as its own issue and use Ron's work as its starter. ~ Keri On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that problems with use of the term "semantic community" in the definition of "business rule" would fall under this issue. I see that Keri's proposed resolution does address that. However, a full resolution requires addressing all uses of the term in Clause 12, not just this one use. Otherwise, there will be inconsistency. A while back I did a search of Clause 12 and found 5 segments of text where "semantic community", "community" or "communities" appear. I will resend that message, which also includes my recommendations for each case. Ron At 01:15 PM 2/17/2011, keri wrote: Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> From: webmaster@omg.org >> Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 >> To: >> Subject: Issue/Bug Report >> >> ******************************************************************************* >> Name: Graham Witt >> Employer: Ajilon >> mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au >> Terms_Agreement: I agree >> Specification: SBVR >> Section: various >> FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 >> Version: 1.0 >> Doc_Year: 2008 >> Doc_Month: January >> Doc_Day: 02 >> Page: various >> Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement >> Nature: Revision >> Severity: Significant >> CODE: 3TMw8 >> B1: Report Issue >> >> Description: >> >> The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. >> The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 595106.4016.bm@omp1037.mail.ac4.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 2fEccGIVM1mh7.oJJ_NhM1DT_jQC5x5S4pmtFkPAJgowz7G 3jsoG0dfgapdYhNOt0RLQBusCd5haXo1aE2XYbN3jfvyopVfhyGvCzYcQJTU upGsId.DK1YUaMx6mENKas4hbjRLDMRBGN7zpcDPkWFtiR7JuENg82AYW03V tW2xJh5.U1C2w83uFtye_fXVLRrZYufApLFefBumNUD4v9KwKoYGo0eN_7De 1S7VSfBCa_KwmVTMzszEmQ3v76IG5XXArcvA2HRmAb6e8blSeAmYtZWxy97g a.dgYAbLjZGMP86RDG1bVA6WkMFAGsi_xKdGuKqesttI- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:53:19 -0600 To: keri , Donald Chapin From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Donald, Please advise ... Ron At 05:48 PM 2/17/2011, keri wrote: Ron, Thanks for doing this additional work. All, I think that this broader question does NOT fall within the scope that I agreed to write up to answer what Graham asked. So, if someone feels strongly about the broader question (for all of Clause 12) then I recommend that it be logged as its own issue and use Ron's work as its starter. ~ Keri On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: All, At the last meeting, it was agreed that problems with use of the term "semantic community" in the definition of "business rule" would fall under this issue. I see that Keri's proposed resolution does address that. However, a full resolution requires addressing all uses of the term in Clause 12, not just this one use. Otherwise, there will be inconsistency. A while back I did a search of Clause 12 and found 5 segments of text where "semantic community", "community" or "communities" appear. I will resend that message, which also includes my recommendations for each case. Ron At 01:15 PM 2/17/2011, keri wrote: Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> From: webmaster@omg.org >> Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 >> To: >> Subject: Issue/Bug Report >> >> ******************************************************************************* >> Name: Graham Witt >> Employer: Ajilon >> mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au >> Terms_Agreement: I agree >> Specification: SBVR >> Section: various >> FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 >> Version: 1.0 >> Doc_Year: 2008 >> Doc_Month: January >> Doc_Day: 02 >> Page: various >> Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement >> Nature: Revision >> Severity: Significant >> CODE: 3TMw8 >> B1: Report Issue >> >> Description: >> >> The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. >> The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Resolution write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-17_08:2011-02-17,2011-02-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1102170198 From: keri Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- [semantic community] SBVR RTF issue [*resend*] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:57:06 -1000 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) FWIW, this does not exactly match what I wrote up in the re-wording of the Note for 'business rule'. Please see the Resolution write-up and, if there are problems, then let's discuss.... Personally, I'm not drawn to the triple-barreled phrase: "society, organization or business entity" . I find it distractingly wordy and implying a precision not intended in a Note like this. (For example, the reader might be asking what other kinds of grouping have been omitted in the call-out.) Pick one good-enough general term and go with it. If "organization" isn't it then use "entity" or something else. But just one term, please. ~ Keri On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule , element of guidance Note: A rules being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the companys perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. RGR: There are 3 instances of "semantic community" in this note. Recommendation: All 3 instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 818202.13521.bm@omp1019.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: JkWunBIVM1kj1jvvMTtj4c8kcGwoHLAg94si06JyQh8Z_81 Q6L6UpgqocsDYS7NsOUksZ98Gj0nyCNePthlc1Q545SgQcOYxtSbf.X.ZuQo LWfrmZBid1y_uuzuVqzfcjVsEpp5r5PETeJ3KqPQu9_TwNx2WVfVuhUqMfse GtgJqOeOmNxVfnNara8_S52Kz5Hct5gb82xL9FqAebSDbiBfnSIhAdvhiyBH hGNwQY0ebHs5aQDqJrpx13QukQeWItjTTpBfwa20AbgkQGhNBPHJ1BpwTxin X8vZxztNr4RysYjbOJeDCdQEXdnB8v8Ffm4jPujBYHQkbeL9ZSXdSk0IJSg- - X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:49:12 -0600 To: keri , sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- [semantic community] SBVR RTF issue [*resend*] At 05:57 PM 2/17/2011, keri wrote: FWIW, this does not exactly match what I wrote up in the re-wording of the Note for 'business rule'. Please see the Resolution write-up and, if there are problems, then let's discuss.... Perhaps that's why it needed to be on the same issue. But read on ... Personally, I'm not drawn to the triple-barreled phrase: "society, organization or business entity" . I find it distractingly wordy and implying a precision not intended in a Note like this. (For example, the reader might be asking what other kinds of grouping have been omitted in the call-out.) Pick one good-enough general term and go with it. If "organization" isn't it then use "entity" or something else. But just one term, please. It's replacing "semantic community". So I was trying to think up *all the kinds of human-created groups of people who can make up and enforce elements of guidance*. I came up with: * societies (including tribes like the Navajo, secret clubs at Harvard, etc.) * organizations (including government bodies, professional groups like the AMA, etc.) * business entities Can you think of any other examples? It's important not to exclude *any* human-created group which could make rules. (I emphasize "human-created groups" to distinguish what SBVR addresses as opposed to classical expert systems, which attempt to mimic the intelligent behavior of individuals. Big difference.) Is there any single word in English that clearly expresses the range of *human-created groups" who could make and enforce rules? * "Entity" is clearly off target (doesn't even have to be human). * "Business Entity" certainly isn't always the case. * "Organization" is better, but I doubt it covers 'societies'. What is the English term for *any* group of people that can make rules for itself? That's the word we need to replace "semantic community" in Clause 12. We were very careful about "semantic community" in Clause 11, so we need to be equally careful about the corresponding term for Clause 12. I suppose we could call it "rule-governed community"?? ... then have a good list of e.g.'s. In fact, that might represent an important missing concept for Clause 12. Why doesn't Clause 12 have a term corresponding to "semantic community"? I wouldn't mind *that* being an issue. Without rule-governed communities there would be no business rules, duh! Ron P.S. I'm thinking out loud, but it seems to me "rule-governed community" could either be: * A category of "semantic community". * A role name in a new fact type "element of guidance governs [rule-governed community] community" ... semantic community? speech community? ... rulebook? ~ Keri On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule , element of guidance Note: A rules being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the companys perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. RGR: There are 3 instances of "semantic community" in this note. Recommendation: All 3 instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-18_01:2011-02-18,2011-02-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1102170226 From: keri Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- [semantic community] SBVR RTF issue [*resend*] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:07:14 -1000 To: "Ronald G. Ross" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) If this is where Issue 15950 is heading then I recommend that the only change 15950 make is to the final sentence of the Note . to read: "See subclause A.2.3 and the discussion of regulation as a kind of external influencer in the Business Motivation Model [BMM]." (Or words to that effect) In my follow-up discussions with Graham there was nothing in his concern that had to do with any confusion about "semantic community" needing to have some more general (or specific) terminology applied in the Note for 'business rule'. His only point was that he saw the law/regulation as directly BEING the business rule, rather than the business rule being something that the develops in response to that external influencer. The proper (limited) resolution of Graham's original concern is simply amend the Note to refer to the BMM as an authoritative source for further clarification. Whether or not some more specific form of 'community' is needed for Clause 12 is not what Graham was asking about, and I suggest that that question be made its own topic of discussion. ~ Keri On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: At 05:57 PM 2/17/2011, keri wrote: FWIW, this does not exactly match what I wrote up in the re-wording of the Note for 'business rule'. Please see the Resolution write-up and, if there are problems, then let's discuss.... Perhaps that's why it needed to be on the same issue. But read on ... Personally, I'm not drawn to the triple-barreled phrase: "society, organization or business entity" . I find it distractingly wordy and implying a precision not intended in a Note like this. (For example, the reader might be asking what other kinds of grouping have been omitted in the call-out.) Pick one good-enough general term and go with it. If "organization" isn't it then use "entity" or something else. But just one term, please. It's replacing "semantic community". So I was trying to think up *all the kinds of human-created groups of people who can make up and enforce elements of guidance*. I came up with: * societies (including tribes like the Navajo, secret clubs at Harvard, etc.) * organizations (including government bodies, professional groups like the AMA, etc.) * business entities Can you think of any other examples? It's important not to exclude *any* human-created group which could make rules. (I emphasize "human-created groups" to distinguish what SBVR addresses as opposed to classical expert systems, which attempt to mimic the intelligent behavior of individuals. Big difference.) Is there any single word in English that clearly expresses the range of *human-created groups" who could make and enforce rules? * "Entity" is clearly off target (doesn't even have to be human). * "Business Entity" certainly isn't always the case. * "Organization" is better, but I doubt it covers 'societies'. What is the English term for *any* group of people that can make rules for itself? That's the word we need to replace "semantic community" in Clause 12. We were very careful about "semantic community" in Clause 11, so we need to be equally careful about the corresponding term for Clause 12. I suppose we could call it "rule-governed community"?? ... then have a good list of e.g.'s. In fact, that might represent an important missing concept for Clause 12. Why doesn't Clause 12 have a term corresponding to "semantic community"? I wouldn't mind *that* being an issue. Without rule-governed communities there would be no business rules, duh! Ron P.S. I'm thinking out loud, but it seems to me "rule-governed community" could either be: * A category of "semantic community". * A role name in a new fact type "element of guidance governs [rule-governed community] community" ... semantic community? speech community? ... rulebook? ~ Keri On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule , element of guidance Note: A rules being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the companys perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. RGR: There are 3 instances of "semantic community" in this note. Recommendation: All 3 instances should be replaced by "society, organization or business entity". X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-02-24_08:2011-02-24,2011-02-24,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1102240075 From: keri Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:04:31 -1000 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Donald Chapin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Revised Resolution (v2) write-up attached. ~ Keri On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> From: webmaster@omg.org >> Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 >> To: >> Subject: Issue/Bug Report >> >> ******************************************************************************* >> Name: Graham Witt >> Employer: Ajilon >> mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au >> Terms_Agreement: I agree >> Specification: SBVR >> Section: various >> FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 >> Version: 1.0 >> Doc_Year: 2008 >> Doc_Month: January >> Doc_Day: 02 >> Page: various >> Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement >> Nature: Revision >> Severity: Significant >> CODE: 3TMw8 >> B1: Report Issue >> >> Description: >> >> The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. >> The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Revised Resolution (v2) write-up attached. ~ Keri Issue 15950 v2.doc On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-03_09:2011-03-04,2011-03-03,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103030172 From: keri Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:37:08 -1000 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) All, As a follow-up to todays discussion, I thought you might be interested in the three examples that Graham provided as part of his argument that there are operative rules outside of what an organization itself defines . i.e., things not "under its jurisdiction." There were intended to illustrate cases where law/regulation is something that is included in an organization's set of business rules. ~ Keri Graham's 3 scenarios: Scenario 1 ---------- Each Australian state government has enacted legislation as to the conduct of (and in particular the information to be provided to parties to) real property transactions. The government department responsible for accepting and registering real property transaction instruments is governed by the information requirements stated in that legislation and has no choice in the matter. Each information requirement specified in the legislation is to be adhered to without modification. By the SBVR definition each such rule is not a business rule from the perspective of that government department since that department cannot opt to discard or change the rule. At the same time each such rule is an operative rather than structural rule since it can be violated by a negligent conveyancer or by a member of the public who has opted to self-conveyance but has not read or understood the legislation. The previous response to this by the SBVR community suggested that there were two separate items, the legislation and the rule governing the department, but the department has rejected that (and I support them) since they do not have the option of modifying the rules implicit in the legislation and certainly have no need or desire to create a duplicate "business rule" for each appropriate clause in the legislation. Scenario 2 ---------- The Australian federal government has enacted legislation (to avoid money-laundering, financing terrorism etc.) as to the information to be provided by applicants to financial institutions for new accounts. As above, each bank is governed by that legislation, and has no choice in the matter, nor any need to replicate the rules as if they might be changed. Yet these are operative rules: a party applying for a new account may fail to provide enough correct information. I am sure this applies in the US too. Scenario 3 ---------- The airline industry worldwide (including in the US) is bound by numerous items of legislation governing identification of passengers, inspection of bags, passenger and aircrew behaviour, etc. etc. Again, the legislation is the rule (indeed I am sure I have seen clauses of the relevant legislation displayed verbatim on placards at US airports and on US-registered aircraft). Again, the rules are operative. Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 05:20:12 +0000 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 To: keri CC: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Donald Chapin Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Hello all, As agreed at the last teleconference, my suggestion for the revised text in the resolution. Instead of: See subclause A.2.3 and the discussion of regulation as a kind of external influencer in the Business Motivation Model [BMM] Use See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. Regards, John On 24/02/2011 19:04, keri wrote: Revised Resolution (v2) write-up attached. ~ Keri --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2011 00:22:19 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Graham Witt Employer: Ajilon mailFrom: graham.witt@ajilon.com.au Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SBVR Section: various FormalNumber: formal/2008-01-02 Version: 1.0 Doc_Year: 2008 Doc_Month: January Doc_Day: 02 Page: various Title: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: The restriction of the definition of .business rule. to include only those rules that .the semantic community can opt to change or discard. is inappropriate. The SBVR definition of .rule statement. (.a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule.) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason. Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:19:19 +0000 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 CC: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Donald Chapin Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Hello all, In today's teleconference I was asked to add an example of directive acting as regulation. Please see updated text below (example added at the end): See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they would have to comply with it in an acceptable way - although their assessments of its impact on their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different. Regards, John X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-23_08:2011-03-23,2011-03-23,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103230099 Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:34:58 -1000 Cc: Donald Chapin To: John Hall , sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) ~ Keri On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:19 AM, John Hall wrote: > Hello all, > > In today's teleconference I was asked to add an example of directive acting as regulation. Please see updated text below (example added at the end): > See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). > There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they would have to comply with it in an acceptable way - although their assessments of its impact on their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different. > Regards, > > John Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) ~ Keri Issue 15952 v31.doc On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:19 AM, John Hall wrote: Hello all, In today's teleconference I was asked to add an example of directive acting as regulation. Please see updated text below (example added at the end): See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they would have to comply with it in an acceptable way - although their assessments of its impact on their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different. Regards, John Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: EA6A01FC:AD5F9B42-8525785D:00452016; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:35:59 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1|November 29, 2010) at 03/24/2011 08:36:02 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER Seems like there is a mixup between the issue # in the subject line, and as addressed in John's note, and the attached resolution which is for a different issue. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research keri ---03/23/2011 02:37:27 PM---Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) From: keri To: John Hall , sbvr-rtf@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin Date: 03/23/2011 02:37 PM Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) ~ Keri (See attached file: Issue 15952 v3.doc) On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:19 AM, John Hall wrote: Hello all, In today's teleconference I was asked to add an example of directive acting as regulation. Please see updated text below (example added at the end): See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they would have to comply with it in an acceptable way - although their assessments of its impact on their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different. Regards, John Issue 15952 v32.doc X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-24_02:2011-03-23,2011-03-24,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103240047 Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 03:07:49 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: Mark H Linehan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Oops. Try this. - Keri On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Mark H Linehan wrote: > Seems like there is a mixup between the issue # in the subject line, and as addressed in John's note, and the attached resolution which is for a different issue. > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation > IBM Research > > keri ---03/23/2011 02:37:27 PM---Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) > > From: keri > To: John Hall , sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Cc: Donald Chapin > Date: 03/23/2011 02:37 PM > Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue > > > > Thanks, John. > > The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) > > ~ Keri > (See attached file: Issue 15952 v3.doc) > On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:19 AM, John Hall wrote: > Hello all, > > In today's teleconference I was asked to add an example of directive acting as regulation. Please see updated text below (example added at the end): > See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). > There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they would have to comply with it in an acceptable way - although their assessments of its impact on their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different. > Regards, > > John > > Oops. Try this. - Keri Issue 15950 v3.doc On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Mark H Linehan wrote: Seems like there is a mixup between the issue # in the subject line, and as addressed in John's note, and the attached resolution which is for a different issue. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research keri ---03/23/2011 02:37:27 PM---Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) From: keri To: John Hall , sbvr-rtf@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin Date: 03/23/2011 02:37 PM Subject: Re: issue 15950 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, John. The updated Resolution write-up is attached. (Issue 15952 v3.doc) ~ Keri (See attached file: Issue 15952 v3.doc) On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:19 AM, John Hall wrote: Hello all, In today's teleconference I was asked to add an example of directive acting as regulation. Please see updated text below (example added at the end): See subclause A.2.3 and the OMG's Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the concepts business policy and business rule with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stakeholders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or changed, the courses of action that were adopted and the desired results (which can be compared with actual results if they are available). There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation, that a directive from an authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they would have to comply with it in an acceptable way - although their assessments of its impact on their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different. Regards, John