Issue 15972: Example of quantity vs. quantification (sbvr-rtf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins: "'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.' In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300." This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification. "At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 litres of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities -- the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read: "EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kilolitres." In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept -- an amount of time. "300 kilolitres" is also an individual concept -- a 'quantity value'. If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance -- a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns -- petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl -- but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example. In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example -- that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage -- would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 19, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:39:30 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org Subject: SBVR Issue: Example of quantity vs. quantification X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p0JLdZPS015371 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1296077977.06387@bjDSAeX4Fizn/il0mJGjYw X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov OMG Spec: SBVR Version: 1.0 Title: Example of quantity vs. quantification Clause: 9.2.8 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Problem statement: In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins: "'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.' In this example, .petrol. is a mention of the concept .petrol. which is used in the .type. role of a fact type .quantity is of type.. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300." This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification. "At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 litres of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities -- the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read: "EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kilolitres." In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept -- an amount of time. "300 kilolitres" is also an individual concept -- a 'quantity value'. If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance -- a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns -- petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl -- but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example. In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example -- that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage -- would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example. -- 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 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,351,1291622400"; d="scan'208,217";a="20328453" Subject: RE: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:56:38 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Acu4In938ObcS0tPS9mKpBCw3tRbCgAhoAXg Priority: Non-Urgent From: "Paul Vincent" To: Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2011 13:56:35.0361 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9D24110:01CBB8A9] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.500.1024-17904.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--39.106100-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Isn.t this also a .not very good example., as the business rule intent is .opaque. to me... "'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.. Is the intent here: - EU-Rent always has a stock of at least 300kl of petrol - EU-Rent has a minimum petrol storage capacity of 300 kl Or maybe this is a goal (rather than a rule): - EU-Rent aims to maintain a stock level of at least 300kl of petrol at any time On the other hand I could just be misunderstanding the example J Paul Vincent From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 19 January 2011 21:46 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue OMG Spec: SBVR Version: 1.0 Title: Example of quantity vs. quantification Clause: 9.2.8 Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Problem statement: In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins: "'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.' In this example, .petrol. is a mention of the concept .petrol. which is used in the .type. role of a fact type .quantity is of type.. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300." This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification. "At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 litres of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities -- the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read: "EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kilolitres." In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept -- an amount of time. "300 kilolitres" is also an individual concept -- a 'quantity value'. If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance -- a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns -- petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl -- but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example. In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example -- that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage -- would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example. -- 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 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Proposed Resolution Thread-Topic: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Proposed Resolution Thread-Index: AQHLyw4o8HbO7AtHQEqLP4SycnAZMw== Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:39:57 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] I have attached a proposed resolution for issue 15972. Best regards, Don SBVR Issue 15972.doc Disposition: New OMG Issue No: 15972 Title: Example of quantity vs. quantification Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins: .EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.. In this example, .petrol. is a mention of the concept .petrol. which is used in the .type. role of a fact type .quantity is of type.. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300. This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification. "At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 liters of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities -- the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read: .EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kiloliters.. In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept -- an amount of time. "300 kiloliters" is also an individual concept -- a 'quantity value'. If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance -- a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns -- petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl -- but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example. In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example -- that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage -- would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example. Resolution: The example is replaced by a straightforward example of mentioning a concept. Revised Text: REPLACE the first two examples under .noun concept nominalization. in clause 9.2.8, on page 71 with the following single example. Note that this resolution overwrites revisions specified in the resolution of issue 15837. .moped. is a vehicle type Example: ..SUV. is a vehicle type.. In this example, the noun concept .SUV. is mentioned as a concept rather than used to refer to SUVs. The statement is formulated by an existential quantification. . The existential quantification introduces a unitary variable. . . The unitary variable ranges over the concept .noun concept.. . . The unitary variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization. . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the unitary variable. . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on one projection variable. . . . . . The projection variable ranges over the noun concept .SUV.. . The existential quantification scopes over an instantiation formulation. . . The instantiation formulation considers the concept .vehicle type.. . . The instantiation formulation binds to the unitary variable. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: Subject: FW: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Proposed Resolution Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:25:33 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: AQHLyw4o8HbO7AtHQEqLP4SycnAZM5QaM+Rw X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4D6E535D.0062, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4D6E5386.00DF,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Ed, This resolution to Issue 15972 was reviewed at last week.s SBVR RTF telecom. Since this is your Issue, I was asked to make sure you were satisfied that the replaced example resolves the Issue and doesn.t introduce any new problems before I put it to ballot. Could you let us know one way or the other? Many Thanks, Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Baisley [mailto:Don.Baisley@microsoft.com] Sent: 12 February 2011 23:40 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 15972 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Proposed Resolution I have attached a proposed resolution for issue 15972. Best regards, Don SBVR Issue 159721.doc Disposition: New OMG Issue No: 15972 Title: Example of quantity vs. quantification Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins: .EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.. In this example, .petrol. is a mention of the concept .petrol. which is used in the .type. role of a fact type .quantity is of type.. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300. This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification. "At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification. It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has. (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 liters of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities -- the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol). In SBVR SE, this statement should read: .EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kiloliters.. In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept -- an amount of time. "300 kiloliters" is also an individual concept -- a 'quantity value'. If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance -- a 'quantity'. But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship. In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns -- petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl -- but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example. In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing. The point of the example -- that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage -- would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities. Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example. Resolution: The example is replaced by a straightforward example of mentioning a concept. Revised Text: REPLACE the first two examples under .noun concept nominalization. in clause 9.2.8, on page 71 with the following single example. Note that this resolution overwrites revisions specified in the resolution of issue 15837. Example: ..SUV. is a vehicle type.. In this example, the noun concept .SUV. is mentioned as a concept rather than used to refer to SUVs. The statement is formulated by an existential quantification. . The existential quantification introduces a unitary variable. . . The unitary variable ranges over the concept .noun concept.. . . The unitary variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization. . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the unitary variable. . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on one projection variable. . . . . . The projection variable ranges over the noun concept .SUV.. . The existential quantification scopes over an instantiation formulation. . . The instantiation formulation considers the concept .vehicle type.. . . The instantiation formulation binds to the unitary variable. Disposition: Resolved To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: Re: [SBVR-RTF-1] -- VOTE - Ballot 5 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Thursday, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) X-KeepSent: C942BE10:E86CEF1B-852578FF:0044733A; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:33:27 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 09/02/2011 10:33:28, Serialize complete at 09/02/2011 10:33:28 I have three concerns about the proposed resolution for issue 15972: 1. The new example, " 'SUV' is a vehicle type" has exactly the same form as the example under "instantiation formulation" in clause 9.2.3, "EU-Rent is a car rental company.â Yet the formulations are very different. The new example in 15972 surrounds an instantiation formulation with an existential quantification, a noun concept nominalization, and a projection. Even if the new example is legitimate, we should not confuse tool developers by showing two different ways to formulate very different SE statements. 2. The new example assumes there is a concept "SUV" and nominalizes it to create another noun concept that is the same. This makes no sense to me. One should only nominalize a concept that has some distinguishing characteristic from the concepts that it is based upon. 3. A minor typographical issue: The text " 'moped' is a vehicle type", just before the "Example" caption, does not belong in the resolution. I have two concerns about the proposed resolution for issue 16020: 1. The distinction between "unitary concept" and "individual concept" is unclear. Both are noun concepts that "always have at most one instance". A "unitary concept" can be either an "individual concept" or an "object type", but an "object type" that has at most one instance IS an "individual concept". I think what's going on here is that a unitary concept is "changeable" (in the sense meant by "unitary concept changes"), whereas an "individual concept" never changes. But that distinction is not made in the definitions. Going further, the idea that a concept is "changeable" implies that some concepts have what I will call "values". The example from the resolution is "rental's pickup branch". Apparently the "pickup branch of a rental" is a value that can change, even though there is always at most one instance of a pickup branch for each rental. Contrast that with the individual constant "California", which identifies a particular state and is not associated with any kind of "value". 2. The Note under "unitary concept" reads "The meaning of a singular definite description is a unitary concept". This contradicts the second Necessity under "definite description" in 11.1.3, which reads "Each definite description is the definition of an individual concept. " Regarding issues 16172 and 16309: I don't think we should adopt these at this time. The resolutions to these issues are tightly bound up with other related issues about "state of affairs" (such as 14849) that are in ongoing discussion. Adopting these resolutions now may mean we have to revise them later. Better to address all the related issues in the same ballot so that they can be considered as a coherent "package". Regarding issue 16172 particularly, I am concerned about the proposed example, where it says "Consider two unitary concepts, the first defined as "state of affairs that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable" and the second defined as "actuality that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable". 1. Why is the first unitary concept not defined as "concept (rather than 'state of affairs') that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable"? (If we had "whether" as a keyword, I would suggest "whether the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable".) 2. Why is the second one a "unitary concept" at all? An "actuality" is not changeable. Regarding issue 16309, instead of objectifying a "state of affairs", why not use noun concept nominalization to nominalize a proposition? For example, in the second example under "objectification" in 9.2.7, nominalize a noun concept based on the projection of the proposition "EU-Rent reviews each corporate account". The remainder of the example could use a fact type "noun concept occurs at place". This fact type would be applicable to various noun concepts, such as "accident occurs at place". In this model, an "actuality" would be an instance of such a noun concept. Minor comments: * Resolution for issue 15635: the captions all start with "Enforcement Level", which surely is a typographic error. * Resolution for issue 15952: the replacement example states that President Clinton was born in Alabama, but in fact he was born in Arkansas. The example should be corrected. IBM votes as given below. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 09/01/2011 10:25 AM Subject: [SBVR-RTF-1] -- VOTE - Ballot 5 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Thursday, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To SBVR-RTF-1 Voting Members -- 88solutions Manfred Koethe Adaptive Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions LLC Ronald Ross Business Semantics Ltd Donald Chapin CA Inc. Andrea Westerinen Collibra Damien Trog Deere & Company Duane Clarkson e-Business Management Sect. Davide Storelli eStep Associates Cheryl Estep Fujitsu Ltd Hiroshi Miyazaki Hewlett-Packard Company Jishnu Mukerji Inferware John Hall International Business Machines Mark Linehan KDM Analytics Nick Mansourov KnowGravity Inc Markus Schacher MEGA International Antoine Lonjon Microsoft Don Baisley NIST Ed Barkmeyer PNA Group Sjir Nijssen Rule ML Initiative Said Tabet Sandia National Laboratories David Cuyler Sandpiper Software, Inc Elisa Kendall TIBCO Paul Vincent Unisys Corporation Sumeet Malhotra Please vote by reply to SBVR-RTF@omg.org for each of the following recommended SBVR RTF-1 Issue Dispositions by THURSDAY, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) REMINDER: It is necessary to vote to continue your membership on the SBVR-RTF-1. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Issue Dispositions for the Issues listed below are in the attached file, and on the server at (ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-rtf/FilesForVoting/SBVRIssueDispositions-Ballot5.doc) -------------------------------------------------------------------- âRESOLVEDâ ISSUES Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15450 "Fact Type Role Designation" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15635 "Placeholder concepts model SBVR Structured English syntax" _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15684 "Need a Definition for 'property'" _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15947 "Inconsistency in is-role-of and is-category-of fact types" _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15950 "Inappropriate definitions of business rule, rule statement" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15951 "example definitions (of "Australian")" _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15952 "'example elementary fact type" _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15972 "Example of quantity vs. quantification" ____ Yes _X___ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16020 "Individual Concept and Change" ____ Yes _X___ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16101 " Explicitness of Representation " _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16171 "Something Missing in Definition of Expression" _X___ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16172 "Clarify difference between EXISTS and OCCURS" ____ Yes _X___ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16309 "Clarify objectification" ____ Yes _X___ No ____ Abstain âNO CHANGEâ ISSUES Disposition: No CHANGE for Issue 15948 "is-property-of fact types" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: NO CHANGE for Issue 15949 "Assortment Fact Types" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Many Thanks, Donald & Cheryl [attachment "SBVRIssueDispositions-Ballot5.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:59:36 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Mark H Linehan CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: [SBVR-RTF-1] -- VOTE - Ballot 5 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Thursday, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p86Jxf0V029360 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1315943985.14493@FKUrZZ1IMglkqzU8AY+P1Q X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Mark H Linehan wrote: Regarding 15972, Don said: > In Markâs first point he noted that the two example statements below > are much alike: > s1: âSUVâ is a vehicle type. > s2: EU-Rent is a car rental company. > They are different in exactly the ways in which they are used to > demonstrate two different types of formulations. s1 includes a > nominalization of a concept. Note that in s1 âSUVâ is not used to > refer to SUVs, but is a mention of the âSUVâ concept, a particular > vehicle type. In contrast, in s2 âEU-Rentâ is used to refer to a > company, not to a concept. According to SBVR, of course, you cannot refer to a company, you can only refer to an individual concept of a company. I have two further comments: (a) the distinction between the two examples apparently depends upon the way " 'SUV' " is quoted. This is way too subtle without some comment or explanation. (b) The issue resolution text reads "ââSUVâ is a vehicle type.â In this example, the noun concept âSUVâ is mentioned as a concept rather than used to refer to SUVs." But in fact 'SUV' is a quoted string, not "mentioned as a noun concept". The example should be modified to say "The concept 'SUV' is a vehicle type." There is no way in the world that a tool would know whether a quoted string such as 'SUV' is intended as a mention of a concept or as a simple text. Mark's point is well taken. What is really meant by the above is: s1: The concept whose signifier is "SUV" is an instance of vehicle type. s2: The company whose name is "EU-Rent" is an instance of car rental company. These subjects are both definite descriptions of individual things and are unambiguous. And they can both be represented by instantiation formulations. All the rest is the non-standard and not formally defined syntax of SBVR SE. > 16020 > Markâs first point is about the distinction between the concept > âunitary conceptâ and the concept âindividual conceptâ. SBVR > adopted âindividual conceptâ from ISO 1087. An individual concept > refers to the same individual in all possible worlds. A unitary > concept always refers to one thing in any possible world, but not > necessarily the same thing across all worlds. This contrast is > explained in the text added by the resolution. The difference is > clearly seen in temporal concepts like âthe futureâ, âtodayâ, etc. > which always refer to one thing, but not the same thing in all > possible worlds. Note that the Date-Time submission correctly > defines âtodayâ as a general concept, not an individual concept. I see a note under "individual concept" that reads "Individual concepts are unitary concepts whose extensions are necessarily invariant across all possible worlds." This can be read to imply (but it does not actually say) that "the extension of a unitary concept may vary across possible worlds". SBVR has this habit of implying things and then making the assumption that readers will draw the same implication. I think this is a terrible habit. It's the way to make different vendors read the specification differently and reach different conclusions. It's the way to make casual readers believe that SBVR doesn't make sense, and cause them to abandon the specification as not useful. Let's put a note under "unitary concept" that clarifies this point. > 16172 > Mark asks why an example in the entry for âactualityâ defines a > concept as âstate of affairs that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is > profitableâ rather than as âconcept that EU-Rent London-Heathrow > Branch is profitableâ. The point of the example is to distinguish > the concept âactualityâ from its more general concept âstate of > affairsâ, not to contrast actualities with concepts. We should use a better example, one that involves a state of affairs that is not better defined as a concept. I agree with this. But my position on such SBVR issues is irrelevant. > > Second, Mark asks why the example concept defined as âactuality that > EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitableâ is a unitary concept. > He apparently considers it to be an individual concept. To say that > it is an individual concept would be a claim that EU-Rent is > profitable in all possible worlds if in any. Such a claim would not > make sense and is not the intent of the example. The same state of > affairs exists in all possible worlds, but it is not an actuality in > all of them, especially given the high tax rates in some possible worlds Ah, this makes clear that "actuality" is with respect to a possible world. That point is missing from SBVR. Well, if the text of SBVR makes clear that 'actuality' is with respect to a possible world (which indeed it should), then either: - the definition of is actual demands that a particular 'possible world' has been selected as the basis for determining 'actual', or - 'is actual' is a binary fact type: 'situation is actual in possible world', that has been erroneously represented as a characteristic. IMO, it is a bit late to have this discussion AFTER the ballot is issued. You are voting on the text as written in the ballot, with perhaps minor editorial fixes. Any technical or clarifying change to the text demands that the issue be re-balloted. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Donald Chapin , "sbvr-rtf " Date: 09/05/2011 02:56 PM Subject: RE: [SBVR-RTF-1] -- VOTE - Ballot 5 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Thursday, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Microsoft votes YES to all of the Ballot-5 recommended SBVR RTF-1 Issue Dispositions.* *Ballot corrections:* In the Revised Text section of the resolution to issue 15635, all of the paragraph captions (e.g., âNote:â, âDefinition:â) are missing. Mark says he is seeing all captions as âEnforcement Level:â, but I see no captions. In any case, there is a problem with the way that resolution document is incorporated in the overall ballot document. The source document needs to be copied into the ballot document again while making sure that source formatting is preserved. As Mark noted, âAlabamaâ needs to be changed to âArkansasâ in the resolution to 15952. In the resolution to issue 15972, there is a stray line that says ââmopedâ is a vehicle typeâ. That line was removed by agreement in the 2/24/2011 SBVR meeting (see meeting notes). *Response to Markâs comments:* 15972 In Markâs first point he noted that the two example statements below are much alike: s1: âSUVâ is a vehicle type. s2: EU-Rent is a car rental company. They are different in exactly the ways in which they are used to demonstrate two different types of formulations. s1 includes a nominalization of a concept. Note that in s1 âSUVâ is not used to refer to SUVs, but is a mention of the âSUVâ concept, a particular vehicle type. In contrast, in s2 âEU-Rentâ is used to refer to a company, not to a concept. Markâs second point is that the example s1 nominalizes a concept using a term for that concept. That is the most common way that concepts are nominalized. Another approach is to give a definition. Both are formulated using noun concept nominalization. The example (s1 above) is a good example of âmentionâ of a concept and is seen in clear contrast with âuseâ of a concept (s2 above). 16020 Markâs first point is about the distinction between the concept âunitary conceptâ and the concept âindividual conceptâ. SBVR adopted âindividual conceptâ from ISO 1087. An individual concept refers to the same individual in all possible worlds. A unitary concept always refers to one thing in any possible world, but not necessarily the same thing across all worlds. This contrast is explained in the text added by the resolution. The difference is clearly seen in temporal concepts like âthe futureâ, âtodayâ, etc. which always refer to one thing, but not the same thing in all possible worlds. Note that the Date-Time submission correctly defines âtodayâ as a general concept, not an individual concept. In Markâs second point he identifies an error in 11.1.3 which should be addressed by a new issue. A definite description in the context of a schema might well be taken as defining an individual concept, but a definite description within a statement of a fact in a model need not define an individual concept because it need not identify the same individual in all possible worlds. It would identify an individual in the world described by the fact. Also, a note should be added to the entry for âdefinite descriptionâ to point out that the one thing defined by a definite description can be a set (e.g., âthe cars owned by EU-Rentâ). I will submit an issue. 16172 Mark asks why an example in the entry for âactualityâ defines a concept as âstate of affairs that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitableâ rather than as âconcept that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitableâ. The point of the example is to distinguish the concept âactualityâ from its more general concept âstate of affairsâ, not to contrast actualities with concepts. Second, Mark asks why the example concept defined as âactuality that EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitableâ is a unitary concept. He apparently considers it to be an individual concept. To say that it is an individual concept would be a claim that EU-Rent is profitable in all possible worlds if in any. Such a claim would not make sense and is not the intent of the example. The same state of affairs exists in all possible worlds, but it is not an actuality in all of them, especially given the high tax rates in some possible worlds J. Best regards, Don *From:* Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] * Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2011 7:12 AM* To:* sbvr-rtf * Subject:* [SBVR-RTF-1] -- VOTE - Ballot 5 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Thursday, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) To SBVR-RTF-1 Voting Members -- 88solutions Manfred Koethe Adaptive Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions LLC Ronald Ross Business Semantics Ltd Donald Chapin CA Inc. Andrea Westerinen Collibra Damien Trog Deere & Company Duane Clarkson e-Business Management Sect. Davide Storelli eStep Associates Cheryl Estep Fujitsu Ltd Hiroshi Miyazaki Hewlett-Packard Company Jishnu Mukerji Inferware John Hall International Business Machines Mark Linehan KDM Analytics Nick Mansourov KnowGravity Inc Markus Schacher MEGA International Antoine Lonjon Microsoft Don Baisley NIST Ed Barkmeyer PNA Group Sjir Nijssen Rule ML Initiative Said Tabet Sandia National Laboratories David Cuyler Sandpiper Software, Inc Elisa Kendall TIBCO Paul Vincent Unisys Corporation Sumeet Malhotra Please vote by reply to _SBVR-RTF@omg.org_ for each of the following recommended SBVR RTF-1 Issue Dispositions by THURSDAY, September 15, 2011 (2 WEEKS) REMINDER: It is necessary to vote to continue your membership on the SBVR-RTF-1. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Issue Dispositions for the Issues listed below are in the attached file, and on the server at (_ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-rtf/FilesForVoting/SBVRIssueDispositions-Ballot5.doc_) -------------------------------------------------------------------- _âRESOLVEDâ ISSUES_ Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15450 "Fact Type Role Designation" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15635 "Placeholder concepts model SBVR Structured English syntax" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15684 "Need a Definition for 'property'" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15947 "Inconsistency in is-role-of and is-category-of fact types" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15950 "Inappropriate definitions of business rule, rule statement" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15951 "example definitions (of "Australian")" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain _ _Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15952 "'example elementary fact type" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 15972 "Example of quantity vs. quantification" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16020 "Individual Concept and Change" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain _ _Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16101 " Explicitness of Representation " __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16171 "Something Missing in Definition of Expression" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16172 "Clarify difference between EXISTS and OCCURS" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16309 "Clarify objectification" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain _âNO CHANGEâ ISSUES_ Disposition: No CHANGE for Issue 15948 "is-property-of fact types" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Disposition: NO CHANGE for Issue 15949 "Assortment Fact Types" __X__ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain Many Thanks, Donald & Cheryl -- 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 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."