Issue 16020: Individual Concept and Change (sbvr-rtf) Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, thing [individual concept] is changed, defined thus: the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for individual concept: each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use individual concept. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 12, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLzGbVB2ODbn9WcESUnYmfhhGQCJQb7uwggC146YCALe9VAA== Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:56:39 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.34] A proposed resolution to SBVR issue 16020 is attached. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, .thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: .the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for .individual concept.: .. each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use .individual concept.. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org SBVR Issue 160201.doc Disposition: New OMG Issue No: 16020 Title: Individual Concept and Change Source: Don Baisley, Microsoft Summary: In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, .thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: .the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for .individual concept.: .. each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use .individual concept.. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Resolution: A new concept type, .unitary concept., is added. The examples and explanations in C.1.6 are changed to use the new concept. Also, one example in clause 9 and a fact type in Annex E that involve intensional roles are changed to be consistent with the changes to C.1.6. Revised Text: In 8.1.1 just before the entry for .individual concept., ADD the following new entry: unitary concept Definition: individual concept or object type that always has at most one instance General Concept: noun concept Concept Type: concept type Note: The meaning of a singular definite description is a unitary concept. In 8.1.1 in the entry for .individual concept. REPLACE the following line: General Concept: noun concept with this line: General Concept: unitary concept In the same entry, ADD a new note in front of the existing note: Note: Individual concepts are unitary concepts whose extensions are necessarily invariant across all possible worlds. In clause 9.2.8 REMOVE the last example in the entry for .noun concept nominalization. which starts, .EU-Rent.s headcount increased by 300 in the year 2005.. REPLACE that example with this: Example: .No rental.s pick-up branch changes.. The statement is formulated by a logical negation. . The logical operand of the logical negation is an existential quantification. . . The quantification introduces a first variable. . . . The first variable ranges over the concept .rental.. . . The quantification scopes over a second existential quantification. . . . The quantification ranges over a second variable, which is unitary. . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept .unitary concept.. . . . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization. . . . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable. . . . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection. . . . . . . The projection is on a third variable, which is unitary. . . . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept .pick-up branch.. . . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation. . . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .rental has pick-up branch.. . . . . . . . The .rental. role binds to the first variable. . . . . . . . The .pick-up branch. role binds to the third variable. . . . The second quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .unitary concept* changes.. . . . . The .unitary concept*. role binds to the second variable. (See C.1.6, Intensional Roles, about the fact type .unitary concept* changes..) In C.1.6, Intensional Roles, ADD the following after the first sentence of the first paragraph. Each intensional role ranges over a concept type. Also in C.1.6, REPLACE the second sentence of the second paragraph, which says: Normally, a placeholder is shown using a designation for a concept that generalizes its role, but for an intensional role that concept is a concept type and is shown in square brackets after designation for a noun concept that corresponds with syntactic usage of the verb. with this: A placeholder that ends with an asterisk is taken to indicate that a noun concept nominalization is used in the formulations of uses of the fact type so that rather than binding to what is directly denoted by an expression, the role is bound to the concept of what is expressed. REMOVE all three fact type entries that follow that paragraph (.thing [individual concept] is changed., .thing1 becomes thing2 [noun concept]., .quantity1 [individual concept] increases by quantity2.) and REPLACE them with the following entries: unitary concept* changes Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept* Example: .The scheduled pick-up time of an advance rental can change.. Example: .For every rental, the pick-up location of the rental cannot change.. unitary concept* changes to thing Definition: the thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept* Example: .The return branch of a rental changes to the Heathrow Airport branch.. unitary quantity concept Definition: unitary concept that incorporates the characteristic of being a quantity unitary quantity concept* increases by quantity Definition: a quantity equal to an initial quantity plus the quantity replaces the initial quantity as being the instance of the unitary quantity concept* Example: .EU-Rent.s headcount increases by 300.. Suppose EU-Rent.s headcount has been 500. In the formulation of the statement, the fact type role .unitary quantity concept*. binds to a general concept defined as EU-Rent.s headcount. It does not bind to 500, which has been the instance of that general concept. The fact type role .quantity. binds to the quantity 300. The conclusion is that the quantity 800 replaces 500 as EU-Rent.s headcount. In contrast, suppose the statement were formulated using a different fact type, .quantity1 increases by quantity2., which does not use an intensional role. The fact type role .quantity1. would bind to 500 leading to the conclusion that 500 increases by 300, which is nonsense because 500 will always be 500. In E.2.3 REPLACE the following entry: thing [individual concept] is changed Definition: the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time with this entry: unitary concept* changes Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept* In Annex E there are six .Possibility. statements that include the phrase .is changed.. In each case, REPLACE .is changed. with .changes.. In Annex E there are eleven .Necessity. statements that include the phrase .is not changed.. In each case, REPLACE .is not changed. with .does not change.. Disposition: Resolved From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLzGbVB2ODbn9WcESUnYmfhhGQCJQb7uwggC146YCALe9VAIAN4Lxg Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:46:49 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.71] The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week.s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, .thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: .the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for .individual concept.: .. each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use .individual concept.. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org SBVR Issue 160202.doc Disposition: New OMG Issue No: 16020 Title: Individual Concept and Change Source: Don Baisley, Microsoft Summary: In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, .thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: .the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for .individual concept.: .. each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use .individual concept.. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Resolution: A new concept type, .unitary concept., is added. The examples and explanations in C.1.6 are changed to use the new concept. Also, one example in clause 9 and a fact type in Annex E that involve intensional roles are changed to be consistent with the changes to C.1.6. Revised Text: In 8.1 REPLACE Figure 8.1 with this diagram: In 8.1.1 just before the entry for .individual concept., ADD the following new entry: unitary concept Definition: individual concept or object type that always has at most one instance General Concept: noun concept Concept Type: concept type Note: The meaning of a singular definite description is a unitary concept. In 8.1.1 in the entry for .individual concept. REPLACE the following line: General Concept: noun concept with this line: General Concept: unitary concept In the same entry, ADD a new note in front of the existing note: Note: Individual concepts are unitary concepts whose extensions are necessarily invariant across all possible worlds. In clause 9.2.8 REMOVE the last example in the entry for .noun concept nominalization. which starts, .EU-Rent.s headcount increased by 300 in the year 2005.. REPLACE that example with this: Example: .No rental.s pick-up branch changes.. The statement is formulated by a logical negation. . The logical operand of the logical negation is an existential quantification. . . The quantification introduces a first variable. . . . The first variable ranges over the concept .rental.. . . The quantification scopes over a second existential quantification. . . . The quantification ranges over a second variable, which is unitary. . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept .unitary concept.. . . . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization. . . . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable. . . . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection. . . . . . . The projection is on a third variable, which is unitary. . . . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept .pick-up branch.. . . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation. . . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .rental has pick-up branch.. . . . . . . . The .rental. role binds to the first variable. . . . . . . . The .pick-up branch. role binds to the third variable. . . . The second quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .unitary concept* changes.. . . . . The .unitary concept*. role binds to the second variable. (See C.1.6, Intensional Roles, about the fact type .unitary concept* changes..) In C.1.6, Intensional Roles, ADD the following after the first sentence of the first paragraph. Each intensional role ranges over a concept type. Also in C.1.6, REPLACE the second and third sentences of the second paragraph, which say: Normally, a placeholder is shown using a designation for a concept that generalizes its role, but for an intensional role that concept is a concept type and is shown in square brackets after designation for a noun concept that corresponds with syntactic usage of the verb. Some examples of such fact types are listed below. with this: A placeholder that ends with an asterisk is taken to indicate that a noun concept nominalization is used in the formulations of uses of the fact type form so that rather than binding to what is directly denoted by an expression, the role binds to the concept of what is expressed. The asterisk is part of the placeholder. Other placeholders for the same role in other fact type forms do not necessarily require noun concept nominalization, so they do not always have an asterisk, as in the synonymous form of the first example below. Note that the examples below are not part of the normative SBVR vocabularies. REPLACE all three fact type entries that follow that paragraph (.thing [individual concept] is changed., .thing1 becomes thing2 [noun concept]., .quantity1 [individual concept] increases by quantity2.) with the following entries: unitary concept* changes Synonymous Form: unitary concept referentially changes Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept Example: .The scheduled pick-up time of an advance rental can change.. Example: .For every rental, the pick-up location of the rental cannot change.. Necessity: No individual concept referentially changes. unitary concept* changes to thing Definition: the thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept Example: .The return branch of a rental changes to the Heathrow Airport branch.. unitary quantity concept Definition: unitary concept that incorporates the characteristic of being a quantity unitary quantity concept* increases by quantity Definition: a quantity equal to an initial quantity plus the quantity replaces the initial quantity as being the instance of the unitary quantity concept Example: .EU-Rent.s headcount increases by 300.. Suppose EU-Rent.s headcount has been 500. In the formulation of the statement, the .unitary quantity concept*. role binds to a general concept defined as EU-Rent.s headcount. It does not bind to 500, which has been the instance of that general concept. The .quantity. role binds to the quantity 300. The conclusion is that the quantity 800 replaces 500 as EU-Rent.s headcount. In contrast, suppose the statement were formulated using a different fact type, .quantity1 increases by quantity2., which does not use an intensional role. The .quantity1. role would bind to 500 leading to the conclusion that 500 increases by 300, which is nonsense because 500 will always be 500. In E.2.3 REPLACE the following entry: thing [individual concept] is changed Definition: the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time with this entry: unitary concept* changes Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept* In Annex E there are six .Possibility. statements that include the phrase .is changed.. In each case, REPLACE .is changed. with .changes.. In Annex E there are eleven .Necessity. statements that include the phrase .is not changed.. In each case, REPLACE .is not changed. with .does not change.. Disposition: Resolved Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: DDB00BA4:E5313787-8525788B:006311C4; 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: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:09:20 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1|November 29, 2010) at 05/09/2011 16:09:43 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p49K4Pf9024939 Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, ..thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: ..the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ..individual concept..: ... each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLzGbVB2ODbn9WcESUnYmfhhGQCJQb7uwggC146YCALe9VAIAN4LxggACumwCAAOg/wA== Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:30:50 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74] Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, ..thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: ..the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ..individual concept..: ... each refeerring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc Disposition: New OMG Issue No: 16020 Title: Individual Concept and Change Source: Don Baisley, Microsoft Summary: In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, .thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: .the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for .individual concept.: .. each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use .individual concept.. Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Resolution: A new concept type, .unitary concept., is added. The examples and explanations in C.1.6 are changed to use the new concept. Also, one example in clause 9 and a fact type in Annex E that involve intensional roles are changed to be consistent with the changes to C.1.6. Revised Text: In 8.1 REPLACE Figure 8.1 with this diagram: In 8.1.1 just before the entry for .individual concept., ADD the following new entry: unitary concept Definition: individual concept or object type that always has at most one instance General Concept: noun concept Concept Type: concept type Note: The meaning of a singular definite description is a unitary concept. In 8.1.1 in the entry for .individual concept. REPLACE the following line: General Concept: noun concept with this line: General Concept: unitary concept In the same entry, ADD a new note in front of the existing note: Note: Individual concepts are unitary concepts whose extensions are necessarily invariant across all possible worlds. In clause 9.2.8 REMOVE the last example in the entry for .noun concept nominalization. which starts, .EU-Rent.s headcount increased by 300 in the year 2005.. REPLACE that example with this: Example: .No rental.s pick-up branch changes.. The statement is formulated by a logical negation. . The logical operand of the logical negation is an existential quantification. . . The quantification introduces a first variable. . . . The first variable ranges over the concept .rental.. . . The quantification scopes over a second existential quantification. . . . The quantification ranges over a second variable, which is unitary. . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept .unitary concept.. . . . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization. . . . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable. . . . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection. . . . . . . The projection is on a third variable, which is unitary. . . . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept .pick-up branch.. . . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation. . . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .rental has pick-up branch.. . . . . . . . The .rental. role binds to the first variable. . . . . . . . The .pick-up branch. role binds to the third variable. . . . The second quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .unitary concept* changes.. . . . . The .unitary concept*. role binds to the second variable. (See C.1.6, Intensional Roles, about the fact type .unitary concept* changes..) In C.1.6, Intensional Roles, ADD the following after the first sentence of the first paragraph. Each intensional role ranges over a concept type. Also in C.1.6, REPLACE the second and third sentences of the second paragraph, which say: Normally, a placeholder is shown using a designation for a concept that generalizes its role, but for an intensional role that concept is a concept type and is shown in square brackets after designation for a noun concept that corresponds with syntactic usage of the verb. Some examples of such fact types are listed below. with this: A placeholder that ends with an asterisk is taken to indicate that a noun concept nominalization is used in the formulations of uses of the fact type form so that rather than binding to what is directly denoted by an expression, the role binds to the concept of what is expressed. The asterisk is part of the placeholder. An example of a logical formulation based on the first fact type below is in the description of noun concept nominalization in clause 9. Note that the examples below are not part of the normative SBVR vocabularies. REPLACE all three fact type entries that follow that paragraph (.thing [individual concept] is changed., .thing1 becomes thing2 [noun concept]., .quantity1 [individual concept] increases by quantity2.) with the following entries: unitary concept* changes Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept Example: .The scheduled pick-up time of an advance rental can change.. Example: .For every rental, the pick-up location of the rental cannot change.. unitary concept* changes to thing Definition: the thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept Example: .The return branch of a rental changes to the Heathrow Airport branch.. unitary quantity concept Definition: unitary concept that incorporates the characteristic of being a quantity unitary quantity concept* increases by quantity Definition: a quantity equal to an initial quantity plus the quantity replaces the initial quantity as being the instance of the unitary quantity concept Example: .EU-Rent.s headcount increases by 300.. Suppose EU-Rent.s headcount has been 500. In the formulation of the statement, the .unitary quantity concept*. role binds to a general concept defined as EU-Rent.s headcount. It does not bind to 500, which has been the instance of that general concept. The .quantity. role binds to the quantity 300. The conclusion is that the quantity 800 replaces 500 as EU-Rent.s headcount. In contrast, suppose the statement were formulated using a different fact type, .quantity1 increases by quantity2., which does not use an intensional role. The .quantity1. role would bind to 500 leading to the conclusion that 500 increases by 300, which is nonsense because 500 will always be 500. In E.2.3 REPLACE the following entry: thing [individual concept] is changed Definition: the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time with this entry: unitary concept* changes Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary concept In Annex E there are six .Possibility. statements that include the phrase .is changed.. In each case, REPLACE .is changed. with .changes.. In Annex E there are eleven .Necessity. statements that include the phrase .is not changed.. In each case, REPLACE .is not changed. with .does not change.. Disposition: Resolved Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: 363BD619:DEAE54BD-8525788D:000CD9DE; 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: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:23:45 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1|November 29, 2010) at 05/10/2011 22:23:55 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p4B2IZVa001648 Don, thanks for your response. Regarding point #1, why doesn't the disjoint inheritance diagram notation also extend to "unitary concept" and "role"? Regarding point #2, why would the alternative form not use nominalization? Just because the asterisk is missing from the placeholder? Or is there something deeper going on here? (Part of the reason I'm asking is that I still don't understand the intended meaning of "referentially changes".) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/10/2011 01:36 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, ..thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: ..the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ..individual concept..: ... each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLzGbVB2ODbn9WcESUnYmfhhGQCJQb7uwggC146YCALe9VAIAN4LxggACumwCAAOg/wIABErKAgABtPrA= Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:23:46 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.72] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p4BGonE4027204 Hi Mark, Good questions. 1. 'unitary concept' and 'role' are not disjoint. Many unitary concepts are situational roles. E.g., 'CEO of Microsoft'. The disjointness shown in the diagram matches the structural rules in the text. 2. Based on the ugly example that I left out of the v2 proposal, these are two statements of the same proposition: IBM's stock price changes. The unitary concept defined as "IBM's stock price" referentially changes. The second is unnatural. But is reveals what is happening with the statement. In the first case, the noun concept nominalization is implicit based on the fact type form that is used. In the second statement, the nominalization is explicit, as it would be for other fact types with roles ranging over a concept type. The second form also allow other usages that would not use nominalization of an particular concept, as in the statement, "No individual concept referentially changes." But as I said, while having the two types of forms is possible, because it is just a matter of form, it seems to be unnatural in every case I can think of. We need to support the implicit nominalization case because it is a property of some common natural language verbs to do so. We do it in order to support common business language. Best regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:24 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, thanks for your response. Regarding point #1, why doesn't the disjoint inheritance diagram notation also extend to "unitary concept" and "role"? Regarding point #2, why would the alternative form not use nominalization? Just because the asterisk is missing from the placeholder? Or is there something deeper going on here? (Part of the reason I'm asking is that I still don't understand the intended meaning of "referentially changes".) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/10/2011 01:36 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, ..thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: ..the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ..individual concept..: ... each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: F3428EF0:6B8C3E4B-8525788D:00630A49; 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: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:18:00 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1|November 29, 2010) at 05/11/2011 14:18:01 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p4BICbuw005515 Is nominalization always involved when both: (a) a verb concept is defined in a business vocabulary that is not one of the SBVR vocabularies; and (b) a role of the verb concept ranges over a concept type? If so, is the * in the placeholder really needed? Or can the need for nominalization be derived from the fact that the role is a concept type? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/11/2011 12:23 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Good questions. 1. 'unitary concept' and 'role' are not disjoint. Many unitary concepts are situational roles. E.g., 'CEO of Microsoft'. The disjointness shown in the diagram matches the structural rules in the text. 2. Based on the ugly example that I left out of the v2 proposal, these are two statements of the same proposition: IBM's stock price changes. The unitary concept defined as "IBM's stock price" referentially changes. The second is unnatural. But is reveals what is happening with the statement. In the first case, the noun concept nominalization is implicit based on the fact type form that is used. In the second statement, the nominalization is explicit, as it would be for other fact types with roles ranging over a concept type. The second form also allow other usages that would not use nominalization of an particular concept, as in the statement, "No individual concept referentially changes." But as I said, while having the two types of forms is possible, because it is just a matter of form, it seems to be unnatural in every case I can think of. We need to support the implicit nominalization case because it is a property of some common natural language verbs to do so. We do it in order to support common business language. Best regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:24 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, thanks for your response. Regarding point #1, why doesn't the disjoint inheritance diagram notation also extend to "unitary concept" and "role"? Regarding point #2, why would the alternative form not use nominalization? Just because the asterisk is missing from the placeholder? Or is there something deeper going on here? (Part of the reason I'm asking is that I still don't understand the intended meaning of "referentially changes".) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/10/2011 01:36 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, ..thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: ..the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ..individual concept..: ... each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHLzGbVB2ODbn9WcESUnYmfhhGQCJQb7uwggC146YCALe9VAIAN4LxggACumwCAAOg/wIABErKAgABtPrCAAJ1fAP//wCrg Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 21:40:33 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.72] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p4BLZ6NR024923 Mark, The need for nominalization cannot be derived from knowing that a fact type role ranges over a concept type. E.g., in the statement, "Every situational role specializes at least one object type", both roles of the binary fact type used in the statement range over a concept type, but there is no nominalization. Whether a concept type comes from SBVR is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Enjoy, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:18 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Is nominalization always involved when both: (a) a verb concept is defined in a business vocabulary that is not one of the SBVR vocabularies; and (b) a role of the verb concept ranges over a concept type? If so, is the * in the placeholder really needed? Or can the need for nominalization be derived from the fact that the role is a concept type? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/11/2011 12:23 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Good questions. 1. 'unitary concept' and 'role' are not disjoint. Many unitary concepts are situational roles. E.g., 'CEO of Microsoft'. The disjointness shown in the diagram matches the structural rules in the text. 2. Based on the ugly example that I left out of the v2 proposal, these are two statements of the same proposition: IBM's stock price changes. The unitary concept defined as "IBM's stock price" referentially changes. The second is unnatural. But is reveals what is happening with the statement. In the first case, the noun concept nominalization is implicit based on the fact type form that is used. In the second statement, the nominalization is explicit, as it would be for other fact types with roles ranging over a concept type. The second form also allow other usages that would not use nominalization of an particular concept, as in the statement, "No individual concept referentially changes." But as I said, while having the two types of forms is possible, because it is just a matter of form, it seems to be unnatural in every case I can think of. We need to support the implicit nominalization case because it is a property of some common natural language verbs to do so. We do it in order to support common business language. Best regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:24 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, thanks for your response. Regarding point #1, why doesn't the disjoint inheritance diagram notation also extend to "unitary concept" and "role"? Regarding point #2, why would the alternative form not use nominalization? Just because the asterisk is missing from the placeholder? Or is there something deeper going on here? (Part of the reason I'm asking is that I still don't understand the intended meaning of "referentially changes".) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/10/2011 01:36 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Topic: SBVR issue -- Individual Concept and Change Thread-Index: AcvLEasKaGKVAypkRD2MTAASUgTUAQ== Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:05:05 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.123.12] Title: Individual Concept and Change In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, ..thing [individual concept] is changed., defined thus: ..the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time.. In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world. But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ..individual concept..: ... each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:44:29 -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: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p4BLiYg6014909 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1305755076.09327@FBL4+Bv/InkQ7pmYeYy63w X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov For the record, a 'unitary concept' seems to be what RECOn calls an 'extent concept'. The reference is to the extent of a concept per se, rather than to the instances that make up the extent. This same construct is used in what SBVR calls a 'question' or an 'answer'. That is (as I observed in some telecon): "When the IBM stock price changes, ..." can be written correctly as: "When what the IBM stock price is changes, ..." It is exactly the same concept as The dealer must tell the customer what the IBM stock price is. In both cases, the nominalized extension of the concept 'the IBM stock price' is the thing that plays the role, and only the verbs (and the fact type roles) are different. So, in that sense, SBVR already has the concept 'unitary concept', but the preferred term until now has been 'question' (or perhaps 'answer', which is just a different fact type role for the same category of thing). The nominalized extent is a single thing, so I suppose that is why Don wants to call it a 'unitary concept', but there is no particular reason for the corresponding sets to have cardinality 1. Example: you can tell who your friends are when you are in trouble. The 'unitary concept' ('extent concept') is "who your friends are". What is meant is that you will know the extent of the concept 'your friend'. I won't disagree that the SBVR model of 'unitary concept' should be a thing that satisfies a role whose range is 'concept', but technically the unitary/extent concept is different from the nominalized concept, in much the same way that an objectification is different from a nominalized proposition. That is to say: (dealer) tells (customer) (concept) and if (concept) changes, (situation) must occur have the same flavor of meaning -- a reference to the extent. But those are a different flavor of meaning from (concept1) specializes (concept2) which are references to the concepts themselves, and not to their extents. As I mentioned above, SBVR has this concept as 'question', which is a different kind of meaning than 'concept'. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 Mark H Linehan wrote: Is nominalization always involved when both: (a) a verb concept is defined in a business vocabulary that is not one of the SBVR vocabularies; and (b) a role of the verb concept ranges over a concept type? If so, is the * in the placeholder really needed? Or can the need for nominalization be derived from the fact that the role is a concept type? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/11/2011 12:23 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Good questions. 1. 'unitary concept' and 'role' are not disjoint. Many unitary concepts are situational roles. E.g., 'CEO of Microsoft'. The disjointness shown in the diagram matches the structural rules in the text. 2. Based on the ugly example that I left out of the v2 proposal, these are two statements of the same proposition: IBM's stock price changes. The unitary concept defined as "IBM's stock price" referentially changes. The second is unnatural. But is reveals what is happening with the statement. In the first case, the noun concept nominalization is implicit based on the fact type form that is used. In the second statement, the nominalization is explicit, as it would be for other fact types with roles ranging over a concept type. The second form also allow other usages that would not use nominalization of an particular concept, as in the statement, "No individual concept referentially changes." But as I said, while having the two types of forms is possible, because it is just a matter of form, it seems to be unnatural in every case I can think of. We need to support the implicit nominalization case because it is a property of some common natural language verbs to do so. We do it in order to support common business language. Best regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:24 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, thanks for your response. Regarding point #1, why doesn't the disjoint inheritance diagram notation also extend to "unitary concept" and "role"? Regarding point #2, why would the alternative form not use nominalization? Just because the asterisk is missing from the placeholder? Or is there something deeper going on here? (Part of the reason I'm asking is that I still don't understand the intended meaning of "referentially changes".) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/10/2011 01:36 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" and the same instance in all possible worlds.. Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:59:28 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Don Baisley CC: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p4BLxWcm016024 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1305755974.11878@nRlqaQQV7VZE7qk4MmNCMA X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Don Baisley wrote: Mark, The need for nominalization cannot be derived from knowing that a fact type role ranges over a concept type. E.g., in the statement, "Every situational role specializes at least one object type", both roles of the binary fact type used in the statement range over a concept type, but there is no nominalization. This is about the definition of 'nominalization'. If 'nominalization' means a mention of a meaning as a thing, as distinct from a use of a meaning to refer to things, then every instance of a concept type is perforce a nominalization. So I will do a Haim Kilov and say the above discussion is meaningless to me, because I apparently don't know the definitions Don and Mark are assigning to 'nominalization'. Whether a concept type comes from SBVR is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Agree, but I thought Mark's point was more about the way in which 'concept type' is used in SBVR. That is, if a fact type role ranges over 'concept', is the corresponding situational role a specialization of 'concept type'? And if a fact type role like (concept) changes ranges over 'concept', is it the same idea? -Ed Enjoy, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:18 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Is nominalization always involved when both: (a) a verb concept is defined in a business vocabulary that is not one of the SBVR vocabularies; and (b) a role of the verb concept ranges over a concept type? If so, is the * in the placeholder really needed? Or can the need for nominalization be derived from the fact that the role is a concept type? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/11/2011 12:23 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Good questions. 1. 'unitary concept' and 'role' are not disjoint. Many unitary concepts are situational roles. E.g., 'CEO of Microsoft'. The disjointness shown in the diagram matches the structural rules in the text. 2. Based on the ugly example that I left out of the v2 proposal, these are two statements of the same proposition: IBM's stock price changes. The unitary concept defined as "IBM's stock price" referentially changes. The second is unnatural. But is reveals what is happening with the statement. In the first case, the noun concept nominalization is implicit based on the fact type form that is used. In the second statement, the nominalization is explicit, as it would be for other fact types with roles ranging over a concept type. The second form also allow other usages that would not use nominalization of an particular concept, as in the statement, "No individual concept referentially changes." But as I said, while having the two types of forms is possible, because it is just a matter of form, it seems to be unnatural in every case I can think of. We need to support the implicit nominalization case because it is a property of some common natural language verbs to do so. We do it in order to support common business language. Best regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:24 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, thanks for your response. Regarding point #1, why doesn't the disjoint inheritance diagram notation also extend to "unitary concept" and "role"? Regarding point #2, why would the alternative form not use nominalization? Just because the asterisk is missing from the placeholder? Or is there something deeper going on here? (Part of the reason I'm asking is that I still don't understand the intended meaning of "referentially changes".) -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 05/10/2011 01:36 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments. 1. The diagram addition follows the same pattern that was already used for 'role' and 'fact type role' in the same diagram. In this way, the diagram continues to show us that 'individual concept', 'object type' and 'fact type role' are disjoint. 2. Donald asked me to show an example of an alternative form for the same fact type that did not invoke proposition nominalization. That is perfectly doable, and I did it, but I did not like it because I could not find a natural language fit. The signifier, "referentially changes", is horrible. The fact type role is "intensional" regardless of what form is used, because it ranges over a noun concept, but the second fact type form does not require noun concept nominalization (hence, no asterisk). I do not expect these dual cases to occur in real usage, so my preference is to not include the strange synonymous form, nor to even talk about such obscure cases. After all, the issue at hand is aimed at solving a real problem with an incorrect use of 'individual concept', so we should not get sidetracked with trying to add an bunch of new material about newly thought-of cases. I attached a different resolution that removes the quirky example. We can discuss this at our next call. All the best, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue Don, In the diagram, is the inheritance association from 'individual concept' to 'noun concept' needed? 'Individual concept' is already a 'noun concept' via the relationship through 'unitary concept'. I do not understand the example synonymous form "unitary concept referentially changes". What does "referentially" mean in this example? And why is it not an intentional role? There should be a note answering these questions, rather than leaving it to readers to wonder. More significantly, the implication of the example is that a role in a verb concept may be used intentionally or not, depending upon which Synonymous Form is used.If that's the idea, then it should be spelled out. Again, we shouldn't leave these kinds of obscure detail to the imagination of the reader. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Date: 05/09/2011 12:50 PM Subject: RE: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached proposed resolution of issue 16020 includes the changes that were requested at last week..s SBVR conference call. Best regards, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:45 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16020 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ..individual concept... Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description. Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "SBVR Issue 16020 v2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] -- 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."