Issue 16059: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Rule Solutions, LLC (Mr. Ron Ross, rross(at)brsolutions.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of “community” is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of “semantic community” is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the “business” part of “business rule”. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the “under business jurisdiction” test in the definition of “business rule”. Resolution: Add a category of “community” called “governed community” as follows. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Definition: community that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules Dictionary Basis [MWUD “govern”]: 1a: to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in Examples: societies, chartered organizations, businesses, government bodies Example: EU-Rent is a legal entity, makes business rules for itself, and is therefore a governed community. Eu-Rent is also a member of each governed community (country) where it does business, as well as the European Union, a yet broader governed community. Note: A governed community can adopt sets of business rules (and advices) as-is, just like vocabulary. The decision to adopt business rules ‘as-is’ is an act of free will and therefore satisfies the “under business jurisdiction” test in the definition of “business rule”. Note: The “business” part of “business rule” is a popular, informal term for “governed community”. Note: The question “Who makes the rules?” for a governed community is outside the scope of SBVR. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Revised Text: Previously, I did a search of Clause 12, and sent my findings and recommendations. There are 5 segments of text where “semantic community”, “community” or “communities” appear. Below are (revised) recommendations for each. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [1] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings uniting a semantic community that takes the elements of guidance as true RGR: This definition is problematic. Alethic elements of guidance might “unite” a semantic community (no real opinion), but I don’t see deontic elements of guidance as (a) “uniting” anything, or (b) pertaining to semantic community at all (unless the semantic community just happens to be a society, organization or business). Also, from a business perspective (as appropriate for Clause 11), a “community” doesn’t “take … elements of guidance to be true”. That’s a logician’s view. It would be more accurate to say ‘recognizes … as applicable’. Recommendation: Delete the phrase starting “uniting ...”. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [2] business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule, element of guidance Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. RGR: There are 3 instances of “semantic community” in this note. Recommendation: I would change this note to read as follows: Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [3] advice of contingency Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is one instance of “semantic community” in this note and one instance of “community”. Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by “governed community”. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [4] advice of optionality Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is one instance of “semantic community” in this note and one instance of “community”. Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by “governed community”. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [5] Section 12.5, page 178, the paragraph that reads: In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement, there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions. Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what characteristics are incorporated by concepts. RGR: There is one instance of “community” in this section and one instance of “communities”. Recommendation: I have no strong feelings at present about whether these instances should be changed or stand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 11, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ource: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a category of .community. called .governed community. as follows. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Definition: community that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules Dictionary Basis [MWUD .govern.]: 1a: to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in Examples: societies, chartered organizations, businesses, government bodies Example: EU-Rent is a legal entity, makes business rules for itself, and is therefore a governed community. Eu-Rent is also a member of each governed community (country) where it does business, as well as the European Union, a yet broader governed community. Note: A governed community can adopt sets of business rules (and advices) as-is, just like vocabulary. The decision to adopt business rules .as-is. is an act of free will and therefore satisfies the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Note: The .business. part of .business rule. is a popular, informal term for .governed community.. Note: The question .Who makes the rules?. for a governed community is outside the scope of SBVR. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Revised Text: Previously, I did a search of Clause 12, and sent my findings and recommendations. There are 5 segments of text where .semantic community., .community. or .communities. appear. Below are (revised) recommendations for each. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [1] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings uniting a semantic community that takes the elements of guidance as true RGR: This definition is problematic. Alethic elements of guidance might .unite. a semantic community (no real opinion), but I don.t see deontic elements of guidance as (a) .uniting. anything, or (b) pertaining to semantic community at all (unless the semantic community just happens to be a society, organization or business). Also, from a business perspective (as appropriate for Clause 11), a .community. doesn.t .take . elements of guidance to be true.. That.s a logician.s view. It would be more accurate to say .recognizes . as applicable.. Recommendation: Delete the phrase starting .uniting ..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [2] business rule Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction General Concept: rule, element of guidance Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the semantic community that it governs or guides - that the semantic community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company (or other semantic community); legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be adopted. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. RGR: There are 3 instances of .semantic community. in this note. Recommendation: I would change this note to read as follows: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [3] advice of contingency Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is one instance of .semantic community. in this note and one instance of .community.. Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by .governed community.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [4] advice of optionality Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. RGR: There is one instance of .semantic community. in this note and one instance of .community.. Recommendation: Both instances should be replaced by .governed community.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [5] Section 12.5, page 178, the paragraph that reads: In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement, there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions. Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what characteristics are incorporated by concepts. RGR: There is one instance of .community. in this section and one instance of .communities.. Recommendation: I have no strong feelings at present about whether these instances should be changed or stand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 876922.81230.bm@omp1052.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: LfYW8YYVM1nejVBNjWo490PXbBxFPmGHbhT4GD4SLwpPz0Y 8.PcR3iLbEhDP0Nu.cZPyjVxH_RdvFqOUckbAlHb8WQNaY3TVoizoyyh_mdP v8_WYAxaTl4NliUtAsnZ9kK0lYMr5Tl3BUvm_sfab.ReWvt6vjSKXmajSG7f J1nQASP._8vw6QijvTdRNNqmICrdWCYGWEMiwuYOdz3pBS1gSKA0ML67U7o2 gasJVwl6eNLu3PCFopyvmbp8kqc.tv1l3MOOdi3acS_Is8BHAT05ZeJ0wdO. uYRxpOL_sbyvxrtwNoFp6hQmoGWU1PJ31Dr55MmIH96zsPA-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:06:20 -0500 To: John Hall From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Cc: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org At 12:23 PM 3/17/2011, John Hall wrote: Ron, I think that the term "governed community" in your proposal does not have the right connotation. A governed community is not necessarily the community that creates or adopts (has business jurisdiction over) the business rules that govern it. For example, I have recently been using the American Airlines "AAdvantage" customer retention program as a case study. For the rules of AAdvantage membership (as published on the AA web site) the governed community is the AAdvantage frequent flier members, but the rules are under the business jurisdiction of American Airlines. John, Good example. SBVR does need to support *any* group that lives by rules. Before I get to your example, let me make some other points. The focal point and most common use of SBVR is likely to be within businesses, formal organizations, etc. Our experience in a great many businesses is that there is no single group that defines all the rules. Instead, responsibility for making and owning certain kinds of rules is dispersed across many groups. There is no simple division between groups that make rules and groups that are subject to the rules. This is especially true for rules that pertain to product/services and these are numerous. So, I wanted to stay well away from the question, "Who makes the rules?" Within the boundaries of a legal entity, the answer to the question gets deep into rule management and organizational structure (and strategy), both out of scope for SBVR. The simplest answer for a legal entity is to recognize that it is governed by rules ... i.e., that it is a "governed community". That makes it something more than a semantic community. I think a (national) society is also best viewed as a "governed community" (except Somalia ... anarchy doesn't count). There can be many forms of government, ranging from dictatorship to democracy. SBVR for sure shouldn't get into that. Now to your example. Let me play devil's advocate. When you signed up for the AAdvantage frequent flier program did you agree to abide by their rules? I imagine the answer is yes. You joined *their* "governed community" on their terms. Wasn't American Airlines creating a special 'governed community' that was larger than itself? Didn't you agree to abide by their rules (not decide to adopt their rules)? You became a voluntary member of a 'governed community' with a dictator at its head (American Airlines). From that point of view, American Airlines is itself a member of the "governed community" (i.e., the AAdvantage frequent flier program). So we have two overlapping 'governed communities', AA itself and the AAdvantage frequent flier program ... of which AA is a member (and the dictator). Let's take a different example: A tax authority such as Inland Revenue or IRS. In a ideal world, they would produce practicable rules (EOGs) that taxpaying entities could simply adopt (or not). Isn't this regulatory situation different than the AAdvantage frequent flier program? AA is attempting to create an overlapping community (governed by rules) of mutual benefit to all the parties (members). A tax authority isn't (to put it mildly). It's simply a source (or conduit) of rules. In this case you don't apply for membership, you simply adopt their rules (or not). I find the definition of "govern" to be spot on for concept needed by this issue. (MWUD: 1 a : to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in]. I wasn't able to come up with any better term than "governed community". The most obvious term is "business" (as in *business* rule!), but there are lots of communities governed by rules that aren't businesses -- for example, non-profits, governments,, societies (both professional and national) ... and frequent flier programs. What they all have in common is that they are "governed" by rules ... hence "governed community". Other suggestions? Clearly the choice does need to work both with adoption of rules and RC. Ron Regards, John On 17/03/2011 16:25, Ronald G. Ross wrote: Donald, Since Juergen has not officially registered the issue yet, the supplemental material in the second e-mail could be added to the first, if desirable. I simply wanted to make sure I didn't violate any rules. Ron At 06:22 AM 3/17/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: All -- Please IGNORE the email below it is wrong. I will send a correct one. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 17 March 2011 11:15 To: 'Juergen Boldt'; 'issues@omg.org'; 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: FW: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Hi Juergen, I haven't seen a formal OMG Issue number for this forwarded email from Ron Ross. The original email was sent to "issues@omg.org", but this revised version was not. It's probably best just to register this revised version as the Issue. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 12 March 2011 02:38 To: keri; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR >currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of >business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal >to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs >in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of >additional material going to be part of this issue? Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? Ron >~ Keri > >On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > > > Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for > SBVR. (Thanks) > > > > All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that > "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways > that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing > a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of > "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. > > > > Ron --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1674&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 929126.38812.bm@omp1026.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: LfYW8YYVM1nejVBNjWo490PXbBxFPmGHbhT4GD4SLwpPz0Y 8.PcR3iLbEhDP0Nu.cZPyjVxH_RdvFqOUckbAlHb8WQNaY3TVoizoyyh_mdP v8_WYAxaTl4NliUtAsnZ9kK0lYMr5Tl3BUvm_sfab.ReWvt6vjSKXmajSG7f J1nQASP._8vw6QijvTdRNNqmICrdWCYGWEMiwuYOdz3pBS1gSKA0ML67U7o2 gasJVwl6eNLu3PCFopyvmbp8kqc.tv1l3MOOdi3acS_Is8BHAT05ZeJ0wdO. uYRxpOL_sbyvxrtwNoFp6hQmoGWU1PJ31Dr55MmIH96zsPA-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:06:20 -0500 To: John Hall From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Cc: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org At 12:23 PM 3/17/2011, John Hall wrote: Ron, I think that the term "governed community" in your proposal does not have the right connotation. A governed community is not necessarily the community that creates or adopts (has business jurisdiction over) the business rules that govern it. For example, I have recently been using the American Airlines "AAdvantage" customer retention program as a case study. For the rules of AAdvantage membership (as published on the AA web site) the governed community is the AAdvantage frequent flier members, but the rules are under the business jurisdiction of American Airlines. John, Good example. SBVR does need to support *any* group that lives by rules. Before I get to your example, let me make some other points. The focal point and most common use of SBVR is likely to be within businesses, formal organizations, etc. Our experience in a great many businesses is that there is no single group that defines all the rules. Instead, responsibility for making and owning certain kinds of rules is dispersed across many groups. There is no simple division between groups that make rules and groups that are subject to the rules. This is especially true for rules that pertain to product/services and these are numerous. So, I wanted to stay well away from the question, "Who makes the rules?" Within the boundaries of a legal entity, the answer to the question gets deep into rule management and organizational structure (and strategy), both out of scope for SBVR. The simplest answer for a legal entity is to recognize that it is governed by rules ... i.e., that it is a "governed community". That makes it something more than a semantic community. I think a (national) society is also best viewed as a "governed community" (except Somalia ... anarchy doesn't count). There can be many forms of government, ranging from dictatorship to democracy. SBVR for sure shouldn't get into that. Now to your example. Let me play devil's advocate. When you signed up for the AAdvantage frequent flier program did you agree to abide by their rules? I imagine the answer is yes. You joined *their* "governed community" on their terms. Wasn't American Airlines creating a special 'governed community' that was larger than itself? Didn't you agree to abide by their rules (not decide to adopt their rules)? You became a voluntary member of a 'governed community' with a dictator at its head (American Airlines). From that point of view, American Airlines is itself a member of the "governed community" (i.e., the AAdvantage frequent flier program). So we have two overlapping 'governed communities', AA itself and the AAdvantage frequent flier program ... of which AA is a member (and the dictator). Let's take a different example: A tax authority such as Inland Revenue or IRS. In a ideal world, they would produce practicable rules (EOGs) that taxpaying entities could simply adopt (or not). Isn't this regulatory situation different than the AAdvantage frequent flier program? AA is attempting to create an overlapping community (governed by rules) of mutual benefit to all the parties (members). A tax authority isn't (to put it mildly). It's simply a source (or conduit) of rules. In this case you don't apply for membership, you simply adopt their rules (or not). I find the definition of "govern" to be spot on for concept needed by this issue. (MWUD: 1 a : to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in]. I wasn't able to come up with any better term than "governed community". The most obvious term is "business" (as in *business* rule!), but there are lots of communities governed by rules that aren't businesses -- for example, non-profits, governments,, societies (both professional and national) ... and frequent flier programs. What they all have in common is that they are "governed" by rules ... hence "governed community". Other suggestions? Clearly the choice does need to work both with adoption of rules and RC. Ron Regards, John On 17/03/2011 16:25, Ronald G. Ross wrote: Donald, Since Juergen has not officially registered the issue yet, the supplemental material in the second e-mail could be added to the first, if desirable. I simply wanted to make sure I didn't violate any rules. Ron At 06:22 AM 3/17/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: All -- Please IGNORE the email below it is wrong. I will send a correct one. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 17 March 2011 11:15 To: 'Juergen Boldt'; 'issues@omg.org'; 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: FW: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Hi Juergen, I haven't seen a formal OMG Issue number for this forwarded email from Ron Ross. The original email was sent to "issues@omg.org", but this revised version was not. It's probably best just to register this revised version as the Issue. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 12 March 2011 02:38 To: keri; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR >currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of >business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal >to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs >in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of >additional material going to be part of this issue? Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? Ron >~ Keri > >On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > > > Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for > SBVR. (Thanks) > > > > All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that > "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways > that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing > a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of > "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. > > > > Ron --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1674&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-17_06:2011-03-16,2011-03-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103170118 Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules From: keri Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:56:54 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: John Hall X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) John, Good example. I have been mulling over whether two concepts are needed here. One is for the "governing community" (in your example, American Airlines, which has the rules under its jurisdiction) and another for the "governed community (e.g., members of the AAdvantage program). ~ Keri On Mar 17, 2011, at 7:23 AM, John Hall wrote: Ron, I think that the term "governed community" in your proposal does not have the right connotation. A governed community is not necessarily the community that creates or adopts (has business jurisdiction over) the business rules that govern it. For example, I have recently been using the American Airlines "AAdvantage" customer retention program as a case study. For the rules of AAdvantage membership (as published on the AA web site) the governed community is the AAdvantage frequent flier members, but the rules are under the business jurisdiction of American Airlines. Regards, John On 17/03/2011 16:25, Ronald G. Ross wrote: Donald, Since Juergen has not officially registered the issue yet, the supplemental material in the second e-mail could be added to the first, if desirable. I simply wanted to make sure I didn't violate any rules. Ron At 06:22 AM 3/17/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: All -- Please IGNORE the email below it is wrong. I will send a correct one. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 17 March 2011 11:15 To: 'Juergen Boldt'; 'issues@omg.org'; 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: FW: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Hi Juergen, I haven't seen a formal OMG Issue number for this forwarded email from Ron Ross. The original email was sent to "issues@omg.org", but this revised version was not. It's probably best just to register this revised version as the Issue. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 12 March 2011 02:38 To: keri; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR >currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of >business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal >to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs >in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of >additional material going to be part of this issue? Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? Ron >~ Keri > >On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > > > Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for > SBVR. (Thanks) > > > > All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that > "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways > that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing > a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of > "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. > > > > Ron --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1674&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-17_07:2011-03-16,2011-03-17,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103170127 From: keri Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules - discussion graphic Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:37:51 -1000 To: "Ronald G. Ross" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Ron, All, Here is a sketch I've drawn up that may help visualize the elements involved in this issue. Beyond what Ron has written up I have included an additional 'line' that may be needed (marked with ???); no doubt there are other things needed. PastedGraphic-2.tif In gathering together these bits it made sense to pull in 'rulebook' (and its URI) from Clause 11, tho' this was not part of Ron's original discussion points. The shaded boxes are for reference/context only and are not part of this new material. ~ Keri On Mar 11, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >> This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of additional material going to be part of this issue? > > Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. > > Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? > > Ron X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 4946.57742.bm@omp1040.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: svAWkfMVM1nUor00zLah6qaF4XfqSD.s_tbAX9jo5Tk5eNg Ytwiy0Uxq9lNDxr0QQgvpk3N1ysJHHqMspIFTNpZG4I0U34iSxOUsfor4QvZ 5R4Ni_04IugGR.mtIb7TUzyPInMMvSM7ST97sP5nxrvyVOpO7glmL8lSRSHU PGOyh6lpN4nzFlx7rBcwJg0ghouY2slwmAt99YuAxamheTy.lXSP2vh3cV2D 2Gh1vLYXclKS356bcNtbztvA4Em_M7NIEoaKMnXk- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:59:37 -0500 To: keri , sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules - discussion graphic At 04:37 PM 3/17/2011, keri wrote: Ron, All, Here is a sketch I've drawn up that may help visualize the elements involved in this issue. Beyond what Ron has written up I have included an additional 'line' that may be needed (marked with ???); What did you have in mind for the "???"? Ron no doubt there are other things needed. In gathering together these bits it made sense to pull in 'rulebook' (and its URI) from Clause 11, tho' this was not part of Ron's original discussion points. The shaded boxes are for reference/context only and are not part of this new material. ~ Keri On Mar 11, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >> This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of additional material going to be part of this issue? > > Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. > > Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? > > Ron Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:21:21 +0000 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 To: keri CC: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Keri, In Clause 11 we acknowledge this kind of owning/using relationship between speech communities, with 'speech community owns vocabulary', 'speech community uses vocabulary' and 'vocabulary is designed for speech community'. When we discussed this when developing the SBVR submission, we talked about vocabularies used for external communications, e.g. for contracts, product and service descriptions and customer-facing web sites, as opposed to the vocabulary used inside a business by its employees. In the AAdvantage example, American Airlines (the governing community') and AAdvantage members (the governed community) would be subcommunities of the AAdvantage semantic community - as would be the Oneworld alliance, in which other member airlines have reciprocal agreements with AAdvantage. As well as the membership rules, the AAdvantage body of shared guidance includes rules for American Airlines, governing what AA has to do in operating AAdvantage. These (or some of them, at least) are kept private within AA. This is a fairly common kind of situation. For example, tax authorities have rules about deciding taxation cases, but generally do not publish all of them. John On 17/03/2011 19:56, keri wrote: John, Good example. I have been mulling over whether two concepts are needed here. One is for the "governing community" (in your example, American Airlines, which has the rules under its jurisdiction) and another for the "governed community (e.g., members of the AAdvantage program). ~ Keri On Mar 17, 2011, at 7:23 AM, John Hall wrote: Ron, I think that the term "governed community" in your proposal does not have the right connotation. A governed community is not necessarily the community that creates or adopts (has business jurisdiction over) the business rules that govern it. For example, I have recently been using the American Airlines "AAdvantage" customer retention program as a case study. For the rules of AAdvantage membership (as published on the AA web site) the governed community is the AAdvantage frequent flier members, but the rules are under the business jurisdiction of American Airlines. Regards, John On 17/03/2011 16:25, Ronald G. Ross wrote: Donald, Since Juergen has not officially registered the issue yet, the supplemental material in the second e-mail could be added to the first, if desirable. I simply wanted to make sure I didn't violate any rules. Ron At 06:22 AM 3/17/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: All -- Please IGNORE the email below it is wrong. I will send a correct one. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 17 March 2011 11:15 To: 'Juergen Boldt'; 'issues@omg.org'; 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: FW: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Hi Juergen, I haven't seen a formal OMG Issue number for this forwarded email from Ron Ross. The original email was sent to "issues@omg.org", but this revised version was not. It's probably best just to register this revised version as the Issue. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 12 March 2011 02:38 To: keri; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR >currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of >business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal >to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs >in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of >additional material going to be part of this issue? Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? Ron >~ Keri > >On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > > > Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for > SBVR. (Thanks) > > > > All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that > "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways > that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing > a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of > "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. > > > > Ron --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1674&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 05:41:15 +0000 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 To: "Ronald G. Ross" CC: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Ron, I agree that identifying specific jurisdiction over business rules within an organization can be complicated and is outside the scope of SBVR. But I think there are important distinctions - which are relevant to SBVR - between: A community that has jurisdiction over rules that govern itself A community that is governed by rules over which it has no jurisdiction A community that has jurisdiction over rules that govern another community, but not itself John On 17/03/2011 19:06, Ronald G. Ross wrote: At 12:23 PM 3/17/2011, John Hall wrote: Ron, I think that the term "governed community" in your proposal does not have the right connotation. A governed community is not necessarily the community that creates or adopts (has business jurisdiction over) the business rules that govern it. For example, I have recently been using the American Airlines "AAdvantage" customer retention program as a case study. For the rules of AAdvantage membership (as published on the AA web site) the governed community is the AAdvantage frequent flier members, but the rules are under the business jurisdiction of American Airlines. John, Good example. SBVR does need to support *any* group that lives by rules. Before I get to your example, let me make some other points. The focal point and most common use of SBVR is likely to be within businesses, formal organizations, etc. Our experience in a great many businesses is that there is no single group that defines all the rules. Instead, responsibility for making and owning certain kinds of rules is dispersed across many groups. There is no simple division between groups that make rules and groups that are subject to the rules. This is especially true for rules that pertain to product/services and these are numerous. So, I wanted to stay well away from the question, "Who makes the rules?" Within the boundaries of a legal entity, the answer to the question gets deep into rule management and organizational structure (and strategy), both out of scope for SBVR. The simplest answer for a legal entity is to recognize that it is governed by rules ... i.e., that it is a "governed community". That makes it something more than a semantic community. I think a (national) society is also best viewed as a "governed community" (except Somalia ... anarchy doesn't count). There can be many forms of government, ranging from dictatorship to democracy. SBVR for sure shouldn't get into that. Now to your example. Let me play devil's advocate. When you signed up for the AAdvantage frequent flier program did you agree to abide by their rules? I imagine the answer is yes. You joined *their* "governed community" on their terms. Wasn't American Airlines creating a special 'governed community' that was larger than itself? Didn't you agree to abide by their rules (not decide to adopt their rules)? You became a voluntary member of a 'governed community' with a dictator at its head (American Airlines). From that point of view, American Airlines is itself a member of the "governed community" (i.e., the AAdvantage frequent flier program). So we have two overlapping 'governed communities', AA itself and the AAdvantage frequent flier program ... of which AA is a member (and the dictator). Let's take a different example: A tax authority such as Inland Revenue or IRS. In a ideal world, they would produce practicable rules (EOGs) that taxpaying entities could simply adopt (or not). Isn't this regulatory situation different than the AAdvantage frequent flier program? AA is attempting to create an overlapping community (governed by rules) of mutual benefit to all the parties (members). A tax authority isn't (to put it mildly). It's simply a source (or conduit) of rules. In this case you don't apply for membership, you simply adopt their rules (or not). I find the definition of "govern" to be spot on for concept needed by this issue. (MWUD: 1 a : to exercise arbitrarily or by established rules continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in]. I wasn't able to come up with any better term than "governed community". The most obvious term is "business" (as in *business* rule!), but there are lots of communities governed by rules that aren't businesses -- for example, non-profits, governments,, societies (both professional and national) ... and frequent flier programs. What they all have in common is that they are "governed" by rules ... hence "governed community". Other suggestions? Clearly the choice does need to work both with adoption of rules and RC. Ron Regards, John On 17/03/2011 16:25, Ronald G. Ross wrote: Donald, Since Juergen has not officially registered the issue yet, the supplemental material in the second e-mail could be added to the first, if desirable. I simply wanted to make sure I didn't violate any rules. Ron At 06:22 AM 3/17/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: All -- Please IGNORE the email below it is wrong. I will send a correct one. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 17 March 2011 11:15 To: 'Juergen Boldt'; 'issues@omg.org'; 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: FW: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Hi Juergen, I haven't seen a formal OMG Issue number for this forwarded email from Ron Ross. The original email was sent to "issues@omg.org", but this revised version was not. It's probably best just to register this revised version as the Issue. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 12 March 2011 02:38 To: keri; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules At 04:24 PM 3/11/2011, keri wrote: >This issue talks about "adoption" for business rules. (e.g., "SBVR >currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of >business rules"). However, the write-up does not include a proposal >to add support for rule/advice adoption, similar to the constructs >in 11.1.3 supporting adoption of definitions. Is that kind of >additional material going to be part of this issue? Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it should (has to), shouldn't it. Attached is a mirror image for elements of guidance to use as a strawman. Does that work? Ron >~ Keri > >On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: > > > Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for > SBVR. (Thanks) > > > > All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that > "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways > that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing > a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of > "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. > > > > Ron --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1674&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1693&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-18_05:2011-03-16,2011-03-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103180110 From: keri Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:44:55 -1000 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) In today's discussion of the proposed new concept(s) for rule-governed/governing community it was mentioned that 'community' deals with people. Can someone clarify if this sense of person extends to legal entities (in the context of this discussion of 'community')? Specifically, when a law/regulation governs the behavior of a legal entity (rather than a human) can that law/reg. be 'adopted' as business rule? So far (in this discussion) the determining criterion for adoptability seems to be whether the law/regulation is "practicable" (or not). But it would seem that a practicable law/reg. could not be directly adopted if the law/reg's focus is a legal entity, since that law/reg. would not be "practicable" for the human member. For an example: Honolulu has passed a new tax law as part of its body of GET (General Excise Tax) laws. This new item of tax law applies to our condo association. The law is clearly written ("practicable") but it does not indicate just who in our AOAO is to be governed by the law; indeed, multiple people/roles might be involved. We have a 'governance' body that turns law into 'business rules' for the relevant staff. How does this notion of 'adoption' work in the case of "practicable" law/reg. that targets legal entities? X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-18_05:2011-03-16,2011-03-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103180110 Subject: Re: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules - discussion graphic From: keri Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:58:13 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: "Ronald G. Ross" , John Hall X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: At 04:37 PM 3/17/2011, keri wrote: Ron, All, Here is a sketch I've drawn up that may help visualize the elements involved in this issue. Beyond what Ron has written up I have included an additional 'line' that may be needed (marked with ???); What did you have in mind for the "???"? Perhaps it could reflect the 3 notions in John Hall's email, where he wrote: I think there are important distinctions - which are relevant to SBVR - between: A community that has jurisdiction over rules that govern itself A community that is governed by rules over which it has no jurisdiction A community that has jurisdiction over rules that govern another community, but not itself Here's an update of the sketch to show how that could work. Keri X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 286885.95832.bm@omp1025.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: PXZxMxQVM1kcFmJ1pZJ_WLoId1onSENyVfr.iNSR1qFNgHq 3U37Eq.vsU3SFaHBml3yT.jUkno6HpKi7joEkFS_cBM6RpAPrRt78S61b6iM f0A1onVPGBDrp8yQJLcS5w6g8Xtop4hBiDycxXTV.TGkwHzUtqtNjbYlKNWT vkgSS39yPZvvoowVolxuB_BNIHsQxvMA.wmE_TybExP.BSVdppP.UGqYL.JK wiEjEfGXop2UdQ4y_Q5SDTEm0MmAbDz3sXqLwLi.Pd7fUj_FaXG15bcmjuAt baKxkvf6pX5vk.tj86ZC326FJrnQ2FhfONz2XuMww3ThiyUaX X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:22:03 -0500 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, John Hall From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website ( http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. I'm sure that the member organizations agreed to abide by MISMO's membership rules when they subscribed. So 'community' probably isn't the term we need for business rules ... unless we mean [MWUD person] 6 : a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties ... JURISTIC PERSON. But I'm pretty sure we don't mean that. (By the way, that's the definition used by the CRA, the Canadian equivalent of the IRS.) Therefore I would now change my working definition of the concept missing in SBVR to: **group** that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules. The missing concept is not a category of community. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is to simply use the signifier BUSINESS with a note about its meaning something broader than the usual definition of "business". After all, we do say "... under *business* jurisdiction". Do we really want to unravel that?!? Alternative suggestion: DOMINION [MWUD] 2 : something that is subject to sovereignty or control. (Not business-oriented; not a word that Americans use much.) Ron At 04:18 PM 3/18/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron 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 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 321307.67300.bm@omp1048.mail.sp2.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1300543714; bh=fBU/5Qssd2G+ZOTOpFj2nyVxZwdoom43KAU2Abd8nqA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BwwIA/kWpBw4taG9Olu/PU5UfYJ9ZlkQaK1g/NYf4EJ6skZbHaVyLYBn1JtUKcwpmWoTzprBCWjjbyTeHNDYYdJTc5zLDGjduMELNq3D3oLtewfE/BSiBxNBOuMeJwRD2doonuQx9aofcwIKZFctIVPEQrwG5BECq3nLk9xJb7U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sQwdNhbcI8LOf/wHfjx/igo5cu/P7bHF5ebgg/51fZM9WbMwzUopAEHq6HubCvfIiS6ymHN1kw3hVguriltqm0VPYgBHq6s8eH4zN4bx/Db8wdHNSoL5W0RwnHNASvxu7rdCPJlRQbfu5XQYdAO7dZWXsThQN8aKydt5FJ0TjYo=; X-YMail-OSG: QyWqnoIVM1n8tTHcqnfIh0sFhd4sSZuw4QkAztiibRNw3pH daaE2v5BKhHtw34b6F6lKredwv5UdrP_fxTox00AqvEahqJ3ugh8gCyyKmyy 8RpK4wUbnp8W.ofaYS7gPiA.t7jHALYqtpr7i3lHfwal.g8P.k3nY_hcFqly b7iIMTqU_7O218BtGbj0drrCJCcd2gflsh1xx3xPU5ntjXUDayO3X_CcFey2 wHzOZD6L5tpeVYDsXEjwH1N6Mt06XPmAmE7GvSSm1VNHqEsGTavEGy.wQbiM rtOlS18noD34TfYwLlJYOkz1nN7dZrULP_kEW458pvactavKeI5R_uBL1kEC LjLP9uA-- X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:08:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Allan Kolber Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue To: "Ronald G. Ross" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org I agree that "business" is too constraining. Why isn't "enterprise" a better term for what you are trying to express? It does include non-business org types that are at issue. Allan B. Kolber 732-613-1538 (home) 732-672-3691 (cell) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald G. Ross To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org; John Hall Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 7:22:03 PM Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website (http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. I'm sure that the member organizations agreed to abide by MISMO's membership rules when they subscribed. So 'community' probably isn't the term we need for business rules ... unless we mean [MWUD person] 6 : a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties ... JURISTIC PERSON. But I'm pretty sure we don't mean that. (By the way, that's the definition used by the CRA, the Canadian equivalent of the IRS.) Therefore I would now change my working definition of the concept missing in SBVR to: **group** that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules. The missing concept is not a category of community. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is to simply use the signifier BUSINESS with a note about its meaning something broader than the usual definition of "business". After all, we do say "... under *business* jurisdiction". Do we really want to unravel that?!? Alternative suggestion: DOMINION [MWUD] 2 : something that is subject to sovereignty or control. (Not business-oriented; not a word that Americans use much.) Ron At 04:18 PM 3/18/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron 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 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-19_02:2011-03-16,2011-03-19,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103190095 Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:29:56 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, John Hall To: "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website ( http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. ... Ron, Could this not be viewed as a community and its sub-communities? Ultimately, the membership gets to "people." The notion of "community" is already hard enough to explain. I would hate to see us add a further complication by crafting yet-another grouping notion if sub-community can fill the bill for what's needed. ~ Keri X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-19_02:2011-03-16,2011-03-19,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1103190101 Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue From: keri Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:10:41 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, John Hall To: "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: >> ... > By like token, "governed/governing community" suggests ... Yes. Ugh. That compound term in the graphic was intended as a placeholder term.... Perhaps this part of the proposal could also apply 'role' rather than 'category' and avoid the need for an awkward term. The sketch should also handle John Hall's three cases, e.g., provide for talking about a governing community that is also the governed community (or not). ~ Keri PastedGraphic-6.tif X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 851114.16805.bm@omp1060.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 4l.nlU4VM1kuA5LStuyE8Dnw9p9lMb8pZtbPgni88RG_XOJ xi9mTsXT.ko5ukmH84LRg8aaFzVCF2CES4xrABz4nBGJ_qNoOKc1frcMQzEg .zCy1JjO6ANQoBkggGKZMVPys9bJO3JITsHYdTi7Q9Zl0MHvWCyoB8eRxv5G C16ojzITxFNxQdctQDqZTy.eRN8ix5aY5ajMsVBwYB8ZOyhZu0H1WyQI4Hni LxDKg22VnQUWDrqAkjnuRzUu72P.t1ZMeBzMcgCO.KqUr4CGyxJnlCU6yCJk vi_3ghAHmVsmKGsbDYXPU1VS3DyBb6l1hfUunUjDbGwRCefpo X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:14:25 -0500 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue At 09:08 AM 3/19/2011, Allan Kolber wrote: I agree that "business" is too constraining. Why isn't "enterprise" a better term for what you are trying to express? It does include non-business org types that are at issue. I might be about to live with it. However, in my version of MWUD, "enterprise" doesn't necessarily have the connotations it does in IT/EA circles. Also, societies, states, unions, etc. are not really enterprises. How about "controlled body" or "managed body" or "constrained body"? The sense I'm looking for is "any body that EOGs are made for, including those partially or completely made up of non-human persons juris". Ron Allan B. Kolber 732-613-1538 (home) 732-672-3691 (cell) From: Ronald G. Ross To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org; John Hall Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 7:22:03 PM Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website ( http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. I'm sure that the member organizations agreed to abide by MISMO's membership rules when they subscribed. So 'community' probably isn't the term we need for business rules ... unless we mean [MWUD person] 6 : a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties ... JURISTIC PERSON. But I'm pretty sure we don't mean that. (By the way, that's the definition used by the CRA, the Canadian equivalent of the IRS.) Therefore I would now change my working definition of the concept missing in SBVR to: **group** that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules. The missing concept is not a category of community. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is to simply use the signifier BUSINESS with a note about its meaning something broader than the usual definition of "business". After all, we do say "... under *business* jurisdiction". Do we really want to unravel that?!? Alternative suggestion: DOMINION [MWUD] 2 : something that is subject to sovereignty or control. (Not business-oriented; not a word that Americans use much.) Ron At 04:18 PM 3/18/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron 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 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 248889.61952.bm@omp1048.mail.sp2.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: mI8UJHcVM1nZSxI6w6Xi4Tb98c7LDHtK6jaECzkdCaxcJYT S.keXjwIk9CZ.471P19uXgi4P85n9B2PzFTcSed3KF5TXve.xz7out2WvO1y L6P2wHBYsC4p0bu0zwd5rCdDorSOGXqTfSdXaG8sb0bxcB3VzzrJJ_LvqmRi TdOiowAhIlaHkVnCFJKecVdJm6ZaqcRdxjsaFMNMpp8H8OI10zT0EUjeaPr8 en8Oop3RN_nSq3MNN7b.ggpLdBk6Bik0kn4gJw4k.RW6s43B_pai0OO1V2fT hAeT6NK6DdW5T33Lo9cSRNuZN7LLvZ8o9uLrWQix3dKEIjvQW5PvxvN_8D1Q - X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:48:11 -0500 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue At 11:29 AM 3/19/2011, keri wrote: On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website ( http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. ... Ron, Could this not be viewed as a community and its sub-communities? Ultimately, the membership gets to "people." The notion of "community" is already hard enough to explain. I would hate to see us add a further complication by crafting yet-another grouping notion if sub-community can fill the bill for what's needed. As long as "community" includes only people, it doesn't. People are familiar with individuals and organizations being subject to laws, regulations, and EOGs. For the kind of business people and business analysts SBVR targets, "community" is the harder concept. Businesses generally don't deal with law-less communities (joke). Ron ~ Keri X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 452405.6799.bm@omp1008.mail.sp2.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1300638810; bh=Qgiuq8mDhzk0gNYbeM+QlI9rRSW92lIvAXEz9/BQOc8=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=L1TFR8C9eCsIhqv3xn8CJb9oraKnsxqSOPMwEy49q5qXF1Ql+op+aoOlSUuM8n21TGJWscPei3tWB6/yo7albYVOKyF6DGgblxKW8rKVthrKMqu/h0XIl2jDrlMlkdceBFc1yR6xqQp9RnGCJNvD2NastBMLOMBBX2l2aCJYXRs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PhcgN8zRJMk/i0zRGA8E+dKCQcMZ0WPxAIrm03NjllFDRir3i5LoZUkTyFTjJ3jO5hG35Y4E8TdGARC0H7ZEMI/GnkmNy9aCUDP2yc7cOSwo3z5Z8OK3Hodi8K+f/YcyBS7I1c/+ZGWXVvstIx+vmxrP3YELlZ2mVU0mh2mdBzk=; X-YMail-OSG: u64MuzIVM1nZcL0t3ox3Z_r60osJfHrVLwwF7xMUIi2qqrj 2_DzNGPm53APaX2sFW5YDUBcgY4AM4SHlmSvjBldO9TsBd.n4XLV1mUmxqax BuVks6UZc3sULBBcBycBM1hAAlQ9_Zp1DpQlVpN40zO5AmyrcmPFWU.G5OiG reo6xQ095OKkCaaPj1roAu8BUc1bZfzJZG.QOOzUbYd4i6YrJCO4M7UD.2RL yHk.M8B.2_wgDVnvoNX7xgaMR4l.Ypl9XwYRdOgM5TbM5O.KXSaGZUHfs0I7 hMqAivpAcfNPkTh4XtJKS9sQ_jNLqeNFTKbldhsu5ZTfkyjxBgvpPgmcsPVT b0OmIug-- X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:33:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Allan Kolber Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue To: "Ronald G. Ross" , SBVR OMG Ah! But some of us have made the semantic change to the broader definition of enterprise, obviating the need to create a phrase to get across the concept. You are almost certainly right based on the current state of affairs, but I would rather fight for the cleaner and more elegant solution (one word rather than a phrase - - especially since there is no current candidate phrase and that a current word exists and has been adopted by some). Allan B. Kolber 732-613-1538 (home) 732-672-3691 (cell) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronald G. Ross To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:14:25 PM Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue At 09:08 AM 3/19/2011, Allan Kolber wrote: I agree that "business" is too constraining. Why isn't "enterprise" a better term for what you are trying to express? It does include non-business org types that are at issue. I might be about to live with it. However, in my version of MWUD, "enterprise" doesn't necessarily have the connotations it does in IT/EA circles. Also, societies, states, unions, etc. are not really enterprises. How about "controlled body" or "managed body" or "constrained body"? The sense I'm looking for is "any body that EOGs are made for, including those partially or completely made up of non-human persons juris". Ron Allan B. Kolber 732-613-1538 (home) 732-672-3691 (cell) From: Ronald G. Ross To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org; John Hall Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 7:22:03 PM Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website (http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. I'm sure that the member organizations agreed to abide by MISMO's membership rules when they subscribed. So 'community' probably isn't the term we need for business rules ... unless we mean [MWUD person] 6 : a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties ... JURISTIC PERSON. But I'm pretty sure we don't mean that. (By the way, that's the definition used by the CRA, the Canadian equivalent of the IRS.) Therefore I would now change my working definition of the concept missing in SBVR to: **group** that by virtue of some recognized standing, authority or charter can create, adopt and apply business rules. The missing concept is not a category of community. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is to simply use the signifier BUSINESS with a note about its meaning something broader than the usual definition of "business". After all, we do say "... under *business* jurisdiction". Do we really want to unravel that?!? Alternative suggestion: DOMINION [MWUD] 2 : something that is subject to sovereignty or control. (Not business-oriented; not a word that Americans use much.) Ron At 04:18 PM 3/18/2011, Juergen Boldt wrote: X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron 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 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 12401.12807.bm@omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: w3szEyUVM1l9WYEsOBiUqzsYP7NzpQQmJezuOqqSAPf8J0c bI5F9driVPYTOXSCZ0olx1EU84I1XRJSVmSTaJ1k8TAJTmlCfmRDMcmGJTvQ _.5.NF40RAvO_DFsuwoYTgIcqyrl0l5ad.c9d1gQF9iXdTqaBvKzXO1Yxar_ 7Z9oCfLoth77tDbqDCMP6nv3d43iVcPiz6rfmEGMYMYbuBQBgcDImqy3hg5A F2J389FGj.yeRCAqOnATOAnvxSBTZryrY8Dzmc8Hm0p40.1FLtuP7F2nQ8LV 2LAMZHN8LccV5RoQQvd6ZuCQ- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:46:06 -0500 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, I think perhaps I've found a signifier for the missing concept: BODY CORPORATE I knew there had to be some signifier for the concept. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality ... see below. Note: Definition #3 of "corporation" has this meaning (which is a little surprising). Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personalty, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a non-human entity regarded by law to have the status of a person. A legal person (Latin: persona ficta), (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations ... Some examples of legal persons include: Cooperatives (co-ops), business organization owned and democratically operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member. Municipal corporations (municipalities) are "creatures of statute." Other organizations may be created by statute as legal persons, including European economic interest groupings (EEIGs). Companies, a form of business association that carries on an industrial enterprise, are usually corporations, although some companies may take forms other than a corporation, such as associations, partnership, unions, joint stock companies, trusts, and funds. Limited liability companies are unincorporated associations having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership or sole proprietorship. LLCs, like both incorporated and unincorporated companies, are legal persons. Sovereign states are legal persons. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Temples, in some legal systems, have separate legal personality . At 06:48 PM 3/19/2011, Ronald G. Ross wrote: At 11:29 AM 3/19/2011, keri wrote: On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: In today's meeting, Donald reminded me (us) that "community" is a group of *people*. That's a problem. community Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common John Hall mentioned MISMO, which is a good example of an organization that could produce rules to be adopted. If you go to the MISMO website ( http://www.mismo.org/about-mismo/subscriber-list.html) you will find that the subscribers are mostly (or all) organizations, not individual people. So the group brought together under the MISMO umbrella is actually oriented to organizations, not people. ... Ron, Could this not be viewed as a community and its sub-communities? Ultimately, the membership gets to "people." The notion of "community" is already hard enough to explain. I would hate to see us add a further complication by crafting yet-another grouping notion if sub-community can fill the bill for what's needed. As long as "community" includes only people, it doesn't. People are familiar with individuals and organizations being subject to laws, regulations, and EOGs. For the kind of business people and business analysts SBVR targets, "community" is the harder concept. Businesses generally don't deal with law-less communities (joke). Ron ~ Keri X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 839699.4422.bm@omp1010.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1309539231; bh=lWKvo/ARcia4/YHQk3xLuoik165Ukg4kQYBDK3lRp2U=; h=Message-ID:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=xGlLY5Tc1uQlLZXYIdUO22RWMQ/XDtFyPKAHLYuhzcS3AeZ8cplHX1RF4Zl0LboNORqfrsIX9CAPoDZgca2qvcYrQ/RJKXvCBTa1inuqGlpny/08vHpjgiHc85VYu4+waPI0iwHHolD3eoURP2ysggRAr0X1UgLys2nTU1SGJ2Y= X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: JVqUJv0VM1mwkwrdiU8duLC.WONS9rcQvmD7YXXLy0gEDG5 yiB4wi4maLqEif1hEkcG4syetK29LNoPS8oMMHoGyjibBNpzkSTNqEP_czNX ErutPxfDB8PmN0Rl.m8RqPPH_HZgce2hyLZj5saE.XEq1vdT_avFQsgG9XJz EIBrILtSMpARW76z6lNa2_72mXTdsoHS9jZr8mi0Ze.Nv.OD_WSIJBWRYGiy GjB64a3Uys2TjBhGA8ARFHnnEu64JBfXSsRY5vXRHOmNnbRlKIKZIuC8JKd7 i29U7toqb0sxUVxR05hI4FhH3ft_.ZGztd1hhBPGrz5rvqNGYDwXjOZi8hMl oB2AVIT8iOfxYr2NrPs6f3dYDS0LXWZuBV66DDscn38BV.XNnOn9D5RZkMzb u0Q-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:53:40 -0500 To: From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Here is a current working version of the proposed resolution to this issue as I believe was agreed during today's RTF meeting. document. Ron Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules - 2011-06-28 - RGR v3.doc X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813,1.0.211,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-07-01_08:2011-07-01,2011-07-01,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1107010164 From: keri Subject: Re: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:18:05 -0700 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Donald Chapin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) All, In today's meeting we discussed the following Note (my emphasis), which had been recently added to the proposed Resolution. "Consent of the people and organizations involved constitutes sufficient standing for an authority to make or adopt elements of guidance." I was asked to propose a rewording -- my recommendation is to drop this Note. Discussion: The Note's wording brings in "people and organizations involved" ... involved in what? It sounds like it is referring to their being involved in (giving their consent to) having the EOGs being applied to them -- that they are agreeing to be under the jurisdiction of the authority. Today we agreed that that aspect of "Who is being governed?" is out of scope; an authority does not need to poll anyone to get permission to simply compile a set of EOGs. I recall that this Note was added in response to Mark's point that an organization can be an 'authority' without needing to be legally/organizationally chartered as such (e.g., his hiking club). As long as the definition of 'authority' avoids the requirement that there be some formal mandate then this Note is not needed. An authority can simply be any organization who compiles a body of EOGs (by authoring/adopting its elements). The definition of 'authority' does not need to talk about whether or not anyone/anything actually recognizes that authority by consenting to abide by its rules. ~ Keri X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 184364.5176.bm@omp1003.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1326431936; bh=v8UrHawl7PazqktKoEeCQuoPmqKeQ+ZQDguW/rAVtxM=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=oof2rdD4kWrGEYilZApjrOghMd34Ygva9dTJr3c6bRjmuBkyNoIGd0yGLPoK2wY1dMmI1oRQdJblazdzepQtaforSeFucYqTM7WfglcQZn1+tKD7umB3baKAL4kVmvJsfxD9FKduYm0IvUXrQeZPkkczycx7aMmXSJVY8CwoNBc= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 6iXeDDwVM1m8br8cVGpVjgDMOpEC0Kx97hQTYDW3W.fk56d IxzyjWmPaAXntykyn175jmeRwDxmtVULbbEa0sM3UU4o62ngxpA9h26YhCSu UjexBvhSy6S.sPBYs_7mQTqo2JQlSy5m8yv.4.pl7GOmJcQlDNUi.vzbdF38 AXk1FJ_V3WmdSiWr.78yOX1uq6l.ggTKokZyRjL.Fjs0ZU6itePo84vn7zBG dz6KgMxlihruxVxFFTpt7wlM8uGcF2bPduRnFCWAehXZDEnkVm7IRvjc4RSq QB6aUaZDkEGpbPp.mrg.QRXxglyZpw.p0lTWhzhE.pdbKUoGRTEB5o18.Kko WFrxAmPAqaQiLzjJLFHY0.I4fuMMLQc4seFUvzwMa6pVbCVe0RiFo0eo.ST8 lu9mUgEOTyzq3ZZkDdgPBhHynQKbpZtMJedxc_l3puPppekLkg3duPo7oVy8 .3wpigE2eLCiEQwOv8ktkCTX170VkPIaDUe3NJ6pLdS96azsDgrsowgPaa7g dBAFww2F8BBVIEsy_ZFIZ1SKo8Zw.FTGlT9orP3EhjwXCq64HCI40n.hvwcO XZqXO9jxyEhD1NWjjmoWAgcz3gZZNhlxr8zP6qAVsR5btWfckZBioKw0- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:18:40 -0600 To: "Donald Chapin" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Donald asked me to review the most recent version of the "authority" issue (16059) against the resolution of the "adoption" issue (16375) for discussion in tomorrow's meeting. Issue 16375 added various notes and examples, and I believe corresponding notes are probably desirable for resolution of issue 16059. See p.3 of the attached documents for draft text. I made no other changes to this document ... other than these draft notes, the document is exactly as we last left it. Ron At 09:56 AM 1/11/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, Here's the most recent version of the "Authority" Issue. Can you review it against the resolution of the "Adoption" Issue (Issue 16375) for discussion in Friday's SBVR RTF telecon? That was the Issue, which we paused this Issue for, that needed to be fixed first. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 01 July 2011 16:54 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Here is a current working version of the proposed resolution to this issue as I believe was agreed during today's RTF meeting. document. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules - 2011-06-28 - RGR v4.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16059 Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing: . A new noun concept (general concept): .authority. . Three new verb concepts: 1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it) 2. authority defines element of guidance 3. authority adopts element of guidance from authority . A paragraph, stating that if elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings. Revised Text: [1] Creation and adoption of elements of guidance Add the following subclause to the end of Clause 12 on page numbered 177 (PDF page number 189): 12.6 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such organizations are not merely communities . they must conduct business in some organized fashion. authority Definition: organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance and to apply them as needed Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ; authority. 2a] power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority. 3a] Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional society, a club, a homeowner.s association Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself. Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over those elements of guidance. Note: It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more than one authority. Note: Consent of the people and organizations involved constitutes sufficient standing for an authority to make or adopt elements of guidance. authority defines element of guidance Definition: [The meaning of .defines. is .authors..] Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority. Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g., accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts . noun concepts and verb concepts . used in defining the elements of guidance must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance. authority [adopting authority] adopts element of guidance statement?? citingfrom reference 1/12/2012 [RGR] Notes added to the definition of .adopted definition. include the following. Corresponding notes for .adopted element of guidance statement. would seem appropriate: ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . A meaning cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - a definition. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - an element of guidance statement. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . Subsequent definitions of the adopted concept (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted definition. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: Subsequent element of guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted element of guidance statement. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . The primary term used for the concept does not have to be the same as the primary term in the source. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: The primary element of guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same as the primary element of guidance statement in the source. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . When a concept.s definition is adopted, all other concepts in the referenced source that are used in the definition are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting speech community.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: When an element of guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the element of guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting authority.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. ~~~~~~~~~~~ authority [providing authority] authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance [2] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance On page numbered 158 (PDF 171) replace: body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings that is taken as true by a given semantic community Synonymous Form: body of shared guidance is included in body of shared meanings with body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the body of shared meanings [3] business rule On page numbered 160 (PDF 173) replace the following note under .business rule.: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. with Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. [4] advice of contingency On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of contingency.: Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. [5] advice of optionality On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of optionality: Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of .rules. that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:14:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGnksLnf+Wy/T5YGh26NeMP2Jus/QG2nChgAIRD1zaWQsu+QA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4F101220.0081, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.1.11.215414:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, LINK_TO_IMAGE, INFO_TLD, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NAME, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_90_100, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.4F101221.002B,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All . Our frame of reference for going forward on Issue 16059 is the most recent SBVR RTF discussion of this Issue, which occurred on July 15, 2011. The Meeting Notes are as follows: Ø Issue 16059 . .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. · Small point near bottom of page 2 . do not need the .adopting authority. role name in .authority[adopting authority] adopts element of guidance citing reference. . delete the role name ¨ Need a definition for this concept · We adopt representations directly and meanings indirectly via the representation. It is a two level matter meaning adopted once, each synonymous representation adopted individually consistent the initially adopted meaning. ¨ Vocabulary adoption needs to be clarified ¨ For elements of guidance we need to use a parallel approach of adopting element of guidance statements (a representation) and not element of guidance (meaning) ¨ Speech communities adopt representations (and the meanings) ¨ Need to define the relationship between Speech Community and authority ¨ Fix definition on .authority defines element of guidance. ¨ John will write these up Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 13 January 2012 05:19 To: Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Donald asked me to review the most recent version of the "authority" issue (16059) against the resolution of the "adoption" issue (16375) for discussion in tomorrow's meeting. Issue 16375 added various notes and examples, and I believe corresponding notes are probably desirable for resolution of issue 16059. See p.3 of the attached documents for draft text. I made no other changes to this document ... other than these draft notes, the document is exactly as we last left it. Ron At 09:56 AM 1/11/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, Here's the most recent version of the "Authority" Issue. Can you review it against the resolution of the "Adoption" Issue (Issue 16375) for discussion in Friday's SBVR RTF telecon? That was the Issue, which we paused this Issue for, that needed to be fixed first. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 01 July 2011 16:54 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Here is a current working version of the proposed resolution to this issue as I believe was agreed during today's RTF meeting. document. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 495388.61007.bm@omp1029.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1326474928; bh=Yspm7cMTzjRgzJ5JNWdIRAlUKN/lv3wSqOWihT+46JM=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=GGbq56ANEVfINVl+F5yhDzLdYFFt/tb2uC4CjULRwxgur/PI27aYdL32Nism1VqXA+q/hhtIu1kHIM8Bds3iPaFyD79lkz/XM8sg24nsNBjzJXLbfffYL9MECAdMZusl2b2ZqY802aA2PYX2nkx1ZK5uSLwgbsUf1ua8Sr2LqFE= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: JfCCey4VM1mmqqrRm7ciHw22a9K_XANnUfSfObziJ4O6XFG KSemFS9mmOObwQE0mIk0vpjHg17ul9.T0EzUUR1Y6n9Q36lX9khGSWtfF58C wBMQVqQUaMwnrePVLV4.0bixRcj9.RYrAIur0vc5H70qT6LqpwrzW1sGlhOX iX5VqoP50AuwgOjmo9rb85NfrXPeCo8A8pX3krsJh2lxjHnpKnuVmx4CW1DY JjFUph1y_S5dmyT_e0GurYJ7FjCvD_cKgII_b.6Volt5m4P8j3QVCnkCE2D2 cj99o_CH8.v.ax.Cri3fg8raeGWttdYOm7W_7bWzpbB6vLMXqakI0e60zKoG 285fwBHiEyssijQYASMJWKxfAwsla.q0mCU0PHrMkTO8C0PosUO4SVoMYIA8 D09QxGBZ7.Y2eJqT10pxG.8nNXuvd2JFXOLucaYPib4_TEGYdl1dVnPdAsCL xPYqzh4R6aYOrH5DHWBNpfTMb73nLqQayXY8CsfW0qnxgyomFHpDc5QFIBGY d1q3Mdb5U7cV6T9c0cjBLDcuuJ2vhQ8yq9c8N3cblO1pN4_sp66qE2_FE3rc zKQxXMSOxuah4S3riw9V8sNU.0DQVT0_cB0hOeES.w67G_LaK_sWvQr4- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:15:20 -0600 To: "Donald Chapin" , From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, John Hall graciously agreed to incorporate the points of agreement from today's meeting into this Issue's Resolution. I had made revisions in the attached document during the meeting indicating the points of agreement as I understood them. Ron At 05:14 AM 1/13/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: All . Our frame of reference for going forward on Issue 16059 is the most recent SBVR RTF discussion of this Issue, which occurred on July 15, 2011. The Meeting Notes are as follows: Ø Issue 16059 . .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. · Small point near bottom of page 2 . do not need the .adopting authority. role name in .authority[adopting authority] adopts element of guidance citing reference. . delete the role name ¨ Need a definition for this concept · We adopt representations directly and meanings indirectly via the representation. It is a two level matter meaning adopted once, each synonymous representation adopted individually consistent the initially adopted meaning. ¨ Vocabulary adoption needs to be clarified ¨ For elements of guidance we need to use a parallel approach of adopting element of guidance statements (a representation) and not element of guidance (meaning) ¨ Speech communities adopt representations (and the meanings) ¨ Need to define the relationship between Speech Community and authority ¨ Fix definition on .authority defines element of guidance. ¨ John will write these up Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 13 January 2012 05:19 To: Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Donald asked me to review the most recent version of the "authority" issue (16059) against the resolution of the "adoption" issue (16375) for discussion in tomorrow's meeting. Issue 16375 added various notes and examples, and I believe corresponding notes are probably desirable for resolution of issue 16059. See p.3 of the attached documents for draft text. I made no other changes to this document ... other than these draft notes, the document is exactly as we last left it. Ron At 09:56 AM 1/11/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, Here's the most recent version of the "Authority" Issue. Can you review it against the resolution of the "Adoption" Issue (Issue 16375) for discussion in Friday's SBVR RTF telecon? That was the Issue, which we paused this Issue for, that needed to be fixed first. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 01 July 2011 16:54 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Here is a current working version of the proposed resolution to this issue as I believe was agreed during today's RTF meeting. document. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules - 2011-06-28 - RGR v5.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16059 Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing: . A new noun concept (general concept): .authority. . Three new verb concepts: 1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it) 2. authority defines element of guidance 3. authority adopts element of guidance from authority . A paragraph, stating that if elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings. Revised Text: [1] Creation and adoption of elements of guidance Add the following subclause to the end of Clause 12 on page numbered 177 (PDF page number 189): 12.6 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such organizations are not merely communities . they must conduct business in some organized fashion. authority Definition: organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ; authority. 2a] power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority. 3a] Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional society, a club, a homeowner.s association Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself. Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over those elements of guidance. Note:It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more than one authority. Note: Consent of the people and organizations involved constitutes sufficient standing for an authority to make or adopt elements of guidance. authority defines element of guidance Definition: [The meaning of .defines. is .authors..] Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority. Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g., accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts . noun concepts and verb concepts . used in defining the elements of guidance must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance. authority [adopting authority] adopts element of guidance statement ?? citing reference Notes: Note under adopted definition: . A meaning cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - a definition. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - an element of guidance statement. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . Subsequent definitions of the adopted concept (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted definition. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: Subsequent element of guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted element of guidance statement. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . The primary term used for the concept does not have to be the same as the primary term in the source. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: The primary element of guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same as the primary element of guidance statement in the source. 1/13/2011 This note to be extended to indicate terms in the adopted element of guidance statement must be consistent with primary terms in the vocabulary of the adopting authority. Example(s) to be added. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Note under adopted definition: . When a concept.s definition is adopted, all other concepts in the referenced source that are used in the definition are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting speech community.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. Corresponding note for adopted element of guidance statement: When an element of guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the element of guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting authority.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. ~~~~~~~~~~~ authority [providing authority] authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance [2] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance On page numbered 158 (PDF 171) replace: body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings that is taken as true by a given semantic community Synonymous Form: body of shared guidance is included in body of shared meanings with body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the body of shared meanings [3] business rule On page numbered 160 (PDF 173) replace the following note under .business rule.: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. with Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. [4] advice of contingency On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of contingency.: Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. [5] advice of optionality On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of optionality: Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of .rules. that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. Disposition: Resolved Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:47:39 +0000 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: "Ronald G. Ross" CC: Donald Chapin , sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Hello all, The updated resolution is attached, with change marking. It is almost as Ron marked up the copy he sent. The significant change is in making the distinction between defining an element of guidance and authoring a statement that represents an element of guidance. This supports: defining an element of guidance by authoring the first guidance statement to represent it authoring additional guidance statements, including use of local preferred terms in guidance statements that represent adopted elements of guidance adopting an element of guidance by citing the reference to a guidance statement that represents it in the source There are also a few minor changes shown in the mark-up, e.g. the spec uses 'guidance statement' ('statement that expresses an element of guidance') rather than 'element of guidance statement' Regards, John On 13/01/2012 17:15, Ronald G. Ross wrote: All, John Hall graciously agreed to incorporate the points of agreement from today's meeting into this Issue's Resolution. I had made revisions in the attached document during the meeting indicating the points of agreement as I understood them. Ron At 05:14 AM 1/13/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: All . Our frame of reference for going forward on Issue 16059 is the most recent SBVR RTF discussion of this Issue, which occurred on July 15, 2011. The Meeting Notes are as follows: Ø Issue 16059 . .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. · Small point near bottom of page 2 . do not need the .adopting authority. role name in .authority[adopting authority] adopts element of guidance citing reference. . delete the role name ¨ Need a definition for this concept · We adopt representations directly and meanings indirectly via the representation. It is a two level matter meaning adopted once, each synonymous representation adopted individually consistent the initially adopted meaning. ¨ Vocabulary adoption needs to be clarified ¨ For elements of guidance we need to use a parallel approach of adopting element of guidance statements (a representation) and not element of guidance (meaning) ¨ Speech communities adopt representations (and the meanings) ¨ Need to define the relationship between Speech Community and authority ¨ Fix definition on .authority defines element of guidance. ¨ John will write these up Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 13 January 2012 05:19 To: Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Donald asked me to review the most recent version of the "authority" issue (16059) against the resolution of the "adoption" issue (16375) for discussion in tomorrow's meeting. Issue 16375 added various notes and examples, and I believe corresponding notes are probably desirable for resolution of issue 16059. See p.3 of the attached documents for draft text. I made no other changes to this document ... other than these draft notes, the document is exactly as we last left it. Ron At 09:56 AM 1/11/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, Here's the most recent version of the "Authority" Issue. Can you review it against the resolution of the "Adoption" Issue (Issue 16375) for discussion in Friday's SBVR RTF telecon? That was the Issue, which we paused this Issue for, that needed to be fixed first. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@brsolutions.com] Sent: 01 July 2011 16:54 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules All, Here is a current working version of the proposed resolution to this issue as I believe was agreed during today's RTF meeting. document. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:23:31 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcvlshF0dmO6vUVkTyiWciYWKZmD43zk0Jww X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.50C9F2F9.0065, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.145418:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, DOC_ATTACHED, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_50_70, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.50C9F2FB.00EC,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All . Attached is the most recent resolution to Issue 16059 .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. with two small changes as a strawman basis for discussion to gain agreement. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:18 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules [2012-12-13] .doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16059 Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing: . A new noun concept (general concept): .authority. . Two new roles: .adopting authority. and .owning authority. . Four new verb concepts: 1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it) 2. authority authors guidance statement 3. authority defines element of guidance 4. adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference . Notes , stating that: 1. Elements of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract. They must be adopted via representations . guidance statements. 2. If elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings. Revised Text: [1] Creation and adoption of elements of guidance Add the following subclause to the end of Clause 12 on page numbered 177 (PDF page number 189): 12.6 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such organizations are not merely communities . they must conduct business in some organized fashion. Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g., accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts . noun concepts and verb concepts . used in defining the elements of guidance must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance. authority Definition: semantic community that is an organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ; authority. 2a] power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority. 3a] Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional society, a club, a homeowner.s association Note: The personnel of authority organizations who are involved in creating, adopting, and/or using elements of guidance, of practical comprehension necessity, must be members of the semantic communities whose concepts are referenced in the elements of guidance statements. Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself. Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over those elements of guidance. Note: It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more than one authority. authority authors guidance statement Definition: the authority authors a guidance statement that expresses some element of guidance Note: An authority may author guidance statements for adopted elements of guidance as well as for elements of guidance it defines. authority defines element of guidance Definition: the authority authors the first guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority. adopting authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that adopts some element of guidance owning authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that has business jurisdiction over some element of guidance adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference Definition: the authority adopts the element of guidance from the owning authority citing a reference that points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: The reference that is cited by an owning authority that adopts an element of guidance from an owning authority points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance and is included in a rulebook that is determined by a speech community of the owning authority. Note: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - a guidance statement Note: Subsequent guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted guidance statement. Note: When a guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting authority.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. Note: The primary guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same as the primary guidance statement in the source. Concepts used in the element of guidance should be represented by their preferred terms and fact symbols in the adopting body of shared guidance. Example: EU-Rent has adopted an operative business rule from CRISG: .Before handover of a rented car, the rental contract must be signed by the customer responsible for the rental.. EU-Rent uses its own preferred terms, .rental contract document. and .renter. for its primary guidance statement: .The rental contract document of a rental must be signed by the renter of the rental before handover of the rented car of the rental.. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance [2] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance On page numbered 158 (PDF 171) replace: body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings that is taken as true by a given semantic community with body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the body of shared meanings [3] business rule On page numbered 160 (PDF 173) replace the following note under .business rule.: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. with Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. [4] advice of contingency On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of contingency.: Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. [5] advice of optionality On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of optionality: Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of .rules. that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. Disposition: Resolved X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 334642.72569.bm@smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: UnOymHsVM1nplWMnaVp9Nig5vYd5H3EeYspE_tNYjIQZQUa h_B.X9GGRmAy64nbyi27_FdPzShDgcT7qSr0._PdZLHdNEXJiIJmmV00wj3i YmDXLQjcTJlQxFMsSaMVihH1o8SL5Nq5x2RhtC0AzkRIhWmiNnJq70ecuif7 MgfmYknbhlnTfvfFX9o3nyjip0CDeWpiCuJ5S2nZDGB3bbPwMExVOHkRxDrH V5cEvp3HLwPZoZ6JJ87y62lccK5J9TcltVI_nnFcTNjoidaGqUYVp85wX1kG GGr9zdvEo6ncLadM0WUox5T1H.6hIaZZNNKD_hX0JK6STE7SilBAuNqVtmPa lBRoEkFqYpnVKiYYxAb3fGHKBTlu6Dz5yxUO_PDU.U1LFasZx3vD1tBA2uaz XL21p8b4jbNnpQEddkSL4d.whe1kpGhFbo6MSf5UaBLEgeT0C.QPKjhKMb_5 d9jGDpgpcbkvvB_7diYB81_1_DOPauxuJ9ThC4M.njU7tbg_UH7ggI2eCjSy lgN4OFKNpBb5LMuKIbhbrOC5VleZ0phrD7A4WsvmgWCr26LPe40BRUWR8apy Jzat.PJzItecsXz.XrClYT2pl1X..ktWgNNfAHrHrRVXJNOrpg2PMz7Ib4JV aF7tGR.l9GWDuQSUGfGZvfdkKX_aqCMF9cT6DZb.m6OePwHeqdtaAaA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:31:08 -0600 To: "Donald Chapin" , From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAhh9bvkctzaC X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== All, Attached is my feedback for the proposed resolution to Issue 16059. I have highlighted what seems to be new text in yellow. I have offered suggestions in a couple of places, but I see no significant problems. Ron At 09:23 AM 12/13/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: All . Attached is the most recent resolution to Issue 16059 .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. with two small changes as a strawman basis for discussion to gain agreement. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:18 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules [2012-12-13] - RGR.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16059 Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing: . A new noun concept (general concept): .authority. . Two new roles: .adopting authority. and .owning authority. . Four new verb concepts: 1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it) 2. authority authors guidance statement 3. authority defines element of guidance 4. adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference . Notes , stating that: 1. Elements of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract. They must be adopted via representations . guidance statements. 2. If elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings. Revised Text: [1] Creation and adoption of elements of guidance Add the following subclause to the end of Clause 12 on page numbered 177 (PDF page number 189): 12.6 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such organizations are not merely communities . they must conduct business in some organized fashion. Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g., accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts . noun concepts and verb concepts . used in defining the elements of guidance must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance. authority Definition: semantic community that is an organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ; authority. 2a] power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority. 3a] Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional society, a club, a homeowner.s association Note: The personnel of authority organizations who are involved in creating, adopting, and/or using elements of guidance, of practical comprehension necessity, must be members of the semantic communities whose concepts are referenced in the elements of guidance statements. RGR: Proposed rewording . People who create, adopt or use elements of guidance must understand the concepts on which they are based. Therefore, any person working within an authority who is involved in creating, adopting, and/or using an element of guidance must be a member of the semantic community for each concept referenced within the statement(s) for such element of guidance. Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself. Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over those elements of guidance. Note: It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more than one authority. authority authors guidance statement Definition: the authority authors a guidance statement that expresses some element of guidance Note: An authority may author guidance statements for adopted elements of guidance as well as for elements of guidance it defines. RGR: This seems to be new, but I am O.K. with it. authority defines element of guidance Definition: the authority authors the first guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority. adopting authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that adopts some element of guidance owning authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that has business jurisdiction over some element of guidance adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference Definition: the authority adopts the element of guidance from the owning authority citing a reference that points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: The reference that is cited by an owning authority that adopts an element of guidance from an owning authority points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance and is included in a rulebook that is determined by a speech community of the owning authority. RGR: This seems to be new, but I am O.K. with it. However, The antecedent for the final phrase . . and is included in a rulebook .. might be confused. Since I don.t do SBVR-SE, I.m not quite sure how to fix it (if it needs to be). Note: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - a guidance statement Note: Subsequent guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted guidance statement. Note: When a guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting authority.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. Note: The primary guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same as the primary guidance statement in the source. Concepts used in the element of guidance should be represented by their preferred terms and fact symbols in the adopting body of shared guidance. RGR: I believe we use .verb symbol. now. Example: EU-Rent has adopted an operative business rule from CRISG: .Before handover of a rented car, the rental contract must be signed by the customer responsible for the rental.. EU-Rent uses its own preferred terms, .rental contract document. and .renter. for its primary guidance statement: .The rental contract document of a rental must be signed by the renter of the rental before handover of the rented car of the rental.. RGR: This seems to be new, but I am O.K. with it. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance [2] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance On page numbered 158 (PDF 171) replace: body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings that is taken as true by a given semantic community with body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the body of shared meanings [3] business rule On page numbered 160 (PDF 173) replace the following note under .business rule.: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. with Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. [4] advice of contingency On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of contingency.: Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. [5] advice of optionality On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of optionality: Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of .rules. that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Ronald G. Ross'" , Subject: RE: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:36:01 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQDos7q9Ha8fZ5RsTGqM5EAXXiJZZ5pFV03Q X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.511E0188.0030, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2013.2.15.92124:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __IN_REP_TO, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, LINK_TO_IMAGE, INFO_TLD, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_50_70, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.511E0189.00ED,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Ron, Issue 16059 was on the agenda for the half-day SBVR RTF meeting at the December OMG Technical Meeting and on GotoMeeting. You did not attend that meeting so we postponed discussion of it. I have waited until I knew you would be at an SBVR RTF meeting to put it on the agenda again. It.s on the agenda for today. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 14 February 2013 22:31 To: Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Fwd: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue Donald/All, I thought this issue was just about ready for ballot. I had just a few suggestions on cleaning up some text and terms. What is the hold-up? To repeat my message from below: Attached is my feedback for the proposed resolution to Issue 16059. I have highlighted what seems to be new text in yellow. I have offered suggestions in a couple of places, but I see no significant problems. Ron Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:31:08 -0600 To: "Donald Chapin" , From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, Attached is my feedback for the proposed resolution to Issue 16059. I have highlighted what seems to be new text in yellow. I have offered suggestions in a couple of places, but I see no significant problems. Ron At 09:23 AM 12/13/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: All . Attached is the most recent resolution to Issue 16059 .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. with two small changes as a strawman basis for discussion to gain agreement. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:18 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 349486.78578.bm@smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: aCSYdtIVM1lXKa4JllOdsxaxCuOfp7KCCiKeHPrkS5VIUyc 28NEMVUWg0vdk0MpQeGX7xEoF_F3RuezVran3x8wJ.iFN1jx88gNaLXmvzrR BruQKhzx05hP9WxamGw7gKqHndv0E0yFHYqteFqm3HZg3Ze39gTwV73qgdIA pPQNTGvdVT9rdjkrEFX2XHdEwWSYD4WAobmWmK5CcQnnO5GCheM4Jy.0D79P Ci_6.jIByNx6dixZbqRyQK5moINQ3jInmyE4vDYjZr7q8L_oaoJ9zErNia6h Mghz61y2eP6dGhvfAFxdaU98uC74bqj1kkUAWpH1V7uq2URP3sQJHRNjrhQ6 c3phQkI0Q2hMkAhSSYHHN00QcqpiLfSdOYUzve0hpLc1JfoNm7wpjmGO0hCH zFMty7IwYn3NLG.NnknMVELrGefN7V3TATInfhIymWD8nJ1iIDcSfgr9mf.O OZ0tQv5sPn5kY_veq7N7TTrh5ZzTvuoGEnEHuZuVeVVsaTV9LQERFDWC0sEN 8iyZCxRGgAa3Dtvd8_juJMT5ioplGUrYLMUUg59jYQ1_oX63RLtEpn7Wgtt0 iCykU5BCuOALmMO6zTgbyt.G3Q5rQxBD7E_ikm94sAoGHanUzBlckNpmqLl0 2QR.pvRdelgzW8JieYw-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:30:31 -0600 To: "Donald Chapin" , From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Fwd: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Donald/All, I thought this issue was just about ready for ballot. I had just a few suggestions on cleaning up some text and terms. What is the hold-up? To repeat my message from below: Attached is my feedback for the proposed resolution to Issue 16059. I have highlighted what seems to be new text in yellow. I have offered suggestions in a couple of places, but I see no significant problems. Ron Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:31:08 -0600 To: "Donald Chapin" , From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue All, Attached is my feedback for the proposed resolution to Issue 16059. I have highlighted what seems to be new text in yellow. I have offered suggestions in a couple of places, but I see no significant problems. Ron At 09:23 AM 12/13/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: All . Attached is the most recent resolution to Issue 16059 .Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules. with two small changes as a strawman basis for discussion to gain agreement. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [ mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:18 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules [2012-12-13] - RGR1.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16059 Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing: . A new noun concept (general concept): .authority. . Two new roles: .adopting authority. and .owning authority. . Four new verb concepts: 1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it) 2. authority authors guidance statement 3. authority defines element of guidance 4. adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference . Notes , stating that: 1. Elements of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract. They must be adopted via representations . guidance statements. 2. If elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings. Revised Text: [1] Creation and adoption of elements of guidance Add the following subclause to the end of Clause 12 on page numbered 177 (PDF page number 189): 12.6 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such organizations are not merely communities . they must conduct business in some organized fashion. Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g., accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts . noun concepts and verb concepts . used in defining the elements of guidance must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance. authority Definition: semantic community that is an organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ; authority. 2a] power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority. 3a] Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional society, a club, a homeowner.s association Note: The personnel of authority organizations who are involved in creating, adopting, and/or using elements of guidance, of practical comprehension necessity, must be members of the semantic communities whose concepts are referenced in the elements of guidance statements. RGR: Proposed rewording . People who create, adopt or use elements of guidance must understand the concepts on which they are based. Therefore, any person working within an authority who is involved in creating, adopting, and/or using an element of guidance must be a member of the semantic community for each concept referenced within the statement(s) for such element of guidance. Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself. Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over those elements of guidance. Note: It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more than one authority. authority authors guidance statement Definition: the authority authors a guidance statement that expresses some element of guidance Note: An authority may author guidance statements for adopted elements of guidance as well as for elements of guidance it defines. RGR: This seems to be new, but I am O.K. with it. authority defines element of guidance Definition: the authority authors the first guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority. adopting authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that adopts some element of guidance owning authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that has business jurisdiction over some element of guidance adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference Definition: the authority adopts the element of guidance from the owning authority citing a reference that points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: The reference that is cited by an owning authority that adopts an element of guidance from an owning authority points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance and is included in a rulebook that is determined by a speech community of the owning authority. RGR: This seems to be new, but I am O.K. with it. However, The antecedent for the final phrase . . and is included in a rulebook .. might be confused. Since I don.t do SBVR-SE, I.m not quite sure how to fix it (if it needs to be). Note: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - a guidance statement Note: Subsequent guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted guidance statement. Note: When a guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting authority.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. Note: The primary guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same as the primary guidance statement in the source. Concepts used in the element of guidance should be represented by their preferred terms and fact symbols in the adopting body of shared guidance. RGR: I believe we use .verb symbol. now. Example: EU-Rent has adopted an operative business rule from CRISG: .Before handover of a rented car, the rental contract must be signed by the customer responsible for the rental.. EU-Rent uses its own preferred terms, .rental contract document. and .renter. for its primary guidance statement: .The rental contract document of a rental must be signed by the renter of the rental before handover of the rented car of the rental.. RGR: This seems to be new, but I am O.K. with it. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance [2] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance On page numbered 158 (PDF 171) replace: body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings that is taken as true by a given semantic community with body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the body of shared meanings [3] business rule On page numbered 160 (PDF 173) replace the following note under .business rule.: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. with Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. [4] advice of contingency On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of contingency.: Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. [5] advice of optionality On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of optionality: Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of .rules. that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Ready for Ballot Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:18:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac4PbMp7YF99yVyBRhOwW+h7s/w/ZQ== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.5124CD35.006A, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2013.2.20.124217:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, DOC_ATTACHED, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_50_70, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.5124CD37.00E0,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 16059 as agreed in last Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon. It is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:18 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron Issue 16059 Governed Community and Adoption of Rules (2013-02-20).doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16059 Title: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Source: Ronald G. Ross, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, rross@BRSolutions.com Summary: SBVR currently lacks a concept and term for the kind of community that creates business rules. This glaring omission was separated by agreement of the team from resolution of Issue 15959 (Inappropriate definitions of Business Rule, Rule Statement). The current definition of .community. is: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common The current definition of .semantic community. is: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things that they have to deal with By these definitions, any of the following could qualify as (semantic) communities: atheists, deists, communists, surfers, Francophiles, Anglophiles, futurists, business travelers, rappers, wine lovers, car surfers, baseball fans, diabetics, business travelers, psychics, nudists, philatelists, Egyptian protesters, Japanese earthquake victims ... Such communities do not, and cannot, create business rules. They lack the authority, standing and charter to do so. Unlike societies, organizations and businesses, they are not governed communities. Currently, SBVR has no concept for the special kind of communities that are governed. In effect, SBVR has no meaning for the .business. part of .business rule.. This omission is a significant one. In addition, SBVR currently does not adequately recognize or treat adoption of business rules. Adopting business rules is an act of free will (by a governed community) and should explicitly satisfy the .under business jurisdiction. test in the definition of .business rule.. Resolution: Add a new subclause to Clause 12 containing: . A new noun concept (general concept): .authority. . Two new roles: .adopting authority. and .owning authority. . Four new verb concepts: 1. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance (by either defining or adopting it) 2. authority authors guidance statement 3. authority defines element of guidance 4. adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference . Notes , stating that: 1. Elements of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract. They must be adopted via representations . guidance statements. 2. If elements of guidance are to be adopted, the concepts used in them must also be part of the body of shared meanings. Revised Text: [1] Creation and adoption of elements of guidance Add the following subclause to the end of Clause 12 on page numbered 177 (PDF page number 189): 12.6 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such organizations are not merely communities . they must conduct business in some organized fashion. Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g., accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts . noun concepts and verb concepts . used in defining the elements of guidance must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance. authority Definition: organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ; authority. 2a] power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority. 3a] Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional society, a club, a homeowner.s association Note: People who create, adopt or use elements of guidance must understand the concepts on which they are based. Therefore, any person working within an authority who is involved in creating, adopting, and/or using an element of guidance must be a member of the semantic community for each concept referenced within the statement(s) for such element of guidance. Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself. Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over those elements of guidance. Note: It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more than one authority. authority authors guidance statement Definition: the authority authors a guidance statement that expresses some element of guidance Note: An authority may author guidance statements for adopted elements of guidance as well as for elements of guidance it defines. authority defines element of guidance Definition: the authority authors the first guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority. adopting authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that adopts some element of guidance owning authority Concept Type: role Definition: authority that has business jurisdiction over some element of guidance adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference Definition: the authority adopts the element of guidance from the owning authority citing a reference that points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance Necessity: The reference that is cited by an owning authority that adopts an element of guidance from an owning authority points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance and that is included in a rulebook that is determined by a speech community of the owning authority. Note: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of the meaning - a guidance statement Note: Subsequent guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted guidance statement. Note: When a guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting authority.s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary. Note: The primary guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same as the primary guidance statement in the source. Concepts used in the element of guidance should be represented by their preferred terms and verb symbols in the adopting body of shared guidance. Example: EU-Rent has adopted an behavioral business rule from from an industry glossary: .Before handover of a rented car, the rental contract must be signed by the customer responsible for the rental.. EU-Rent uses its own preferred terms, .rental contract document. and .renter. for its primary guidance statement: .The rental contract document of a rental must be signed by the renter of the rental before handover of the rented car of the rental.. authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance [2] body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance On page numbered 158 (PDF 171) replace: body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of all elements of guidance in the body of shared meanings that is taken as true by a given semantic community with body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the body of shared meanings [3] business rule On page numbered 160 (PDF 173) replace the following note under .business rule.: Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of the governed community that it governs or guides - that the governed community can opt to change or discard the rule. Laws of physics may be relevant to a governed community; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the authority to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with them. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. with Note: A rule.s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules from the company.s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are implemented as intended. See subclause A.2.3. [4] advice of contingency On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of contingency.: Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of rules that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually definitional rules admitted by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. [5] advice of optionality On page numbered 163 (PDF 175) replace the following note under .advice of optionality: Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of .rules. that might be assumed by some members of a semantic community, but are not actually behavioral rules imposed by the community. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. with Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral .rules. that might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past. Disposition: Resolved X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2013-02-20_06:2013-02-20,2013-02-20,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1212290000 definitions=main-1302200227 Subject: Re: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Ready for Ballot From: keri Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:05:09 -1000 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: Donald Chapin , "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Donald, Ron, Does the new 12.6 section call for a diagram? (Let me know if you do want one drawn up.) ~ Keri On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 16059 as agreed in last Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon. It is ready for ballot. Donald X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.253.181;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:DBXPRD0210HT005.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -16 X-BigFish: PS-16(z21cR551biz936eIc85fhdbeeh10e3Ic1dMzz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz17326ah18c673h8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd24he5bhf0ah1249h1288h12a5h12bdh137ah139eh1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh34h1155h) From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: FW: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Ready for Ballot + Missing Diagram and Page Reference Fixed Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:21:16 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5HQEBUvoG3JGgDQOuDtM3nD4ReJA== X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.53] X-OriginatorOrg: businesssemantics.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== All . Attached is an update to SBVR Issue 16059 with the missing diagram and a page reference fixed. This Issue Resolution is now ready for ballot. Donald From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 20 February 2013 13:19 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue -- Ready for Ballot All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 16059 as agreed in last Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon. It is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 18 March 2011 21:18 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16059 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210156.41640.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-YMail-OSG: 6IGX750VM1kJGRyHDiHiAz_CNvw14oTs1Raz7s70.XHa5Y4 eFVcuTnlgS7s09tYCxBHUBdMe.YOqc8cVtX15ri3ZPqYaBYw_bYCAlWSJ3_k tBhOTLD0uGTxhEMoocDTMziGdsjHVnY.Rj8PPtNBNLumad4a9HEv8GMs_zjb JpJmsk67505_pj5iw5nug5q5rp3FM6TfqxVq8f6cX51zzI6qC7vEWsNaokK7 u X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:22 -0600 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Issue: Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules Juergen, Please record and distribute the attached new issue for SBVR. (Thanks) All, In resolving Issue 15950 it has come to our attention that "community" and "semantic community" are used in Clause 12 in ways that are not really appropriate. I believe we are currently missing a very important concept for SBVR -- namely, the "business" part of "business rule". Attached is discussion and proposed resolution. Ron Content-Type: application/msword; name="Issue 16059 Governed Community and" Adoption of Rules (2013-02-20) w-Figure 12.4.doc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue 16059 Governed Community and" Adoption of Rules (2013-02-20) w-Figure 12.4.doc" Issue 16059 Governed Community and.doc Issue 16059 Governed Community and.doc