Issue 16309: Clarify Objectification (sbvr-rtf) Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative “that” for objectification, refer more generally to “state of affairs” rather than to “actuality”. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 3, 2011: received i9ssue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" Subject: SBVR ISSUE -- Clarify objectification Thread-Topic: SBVR ISSUE -- Clarify objectification Thread-Index: AcwiYlcTCxwlQMhoQ8yiXtMNHjv3WQ== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:52:01 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74] Issue: Clarify Objectification Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative .that. for objectification, refer more generally to .state of affairs. rather than to .actuality.. Thanks, Don Baisley Microsoft From: Don Baisley To: "'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" Subject: RE: issue 16309 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16309 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHMJFYNLqm8IXGEuUq2ELHcfcV51pSwarBA Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:58:02 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.73] A proposed resolution for issue 16309 is attached. Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:26 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16309 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" Subject: SBVR ISSUE -- Clarify objectification Thread-Topic: SBVR ISSUE -- Clarify objectification Thread-Index: AcwiYlcTCxwlQMhoQ8yiXtMNHjv3WQ== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:52:01 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74] Issue: Clarify Objectification Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative ?that? for objectification, refer more generally to ?state of affairs? rather than to ?actuality?. Thanks, Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org SBVR 16309.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16309 Title: Clarify objectification Source: Don Baisley (don.baisley@microsoft.com) Summary: Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative .that. for objectification, refer more generally to .state of affairs. rather than to .actuality.. Resolution: Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative .that. for objectification, refer more generally to .state of affairs. rather than to .actuality.. Revised Text: In 9.2.7 in the entry for .objectification., in the second example, REPLACE the line that says: . . . The second variable ranges over the fact type .company reviews account.. with this line: . . . The second variable ranges over the concept .state of affairs.. In 9.2.7 in the entry for .objectification., in the fourth example, REMOVE the second and third sentences and REPLACE .is private. at the end of the example with .occurs privately. so that the example looks like this: Example: .EU-Rent privately reviews each corporate account.. A formulation of the example statement is similar to that of the previous two examples, but uses the fact type .state of affairs occurs privately.. In 9.2.7 in the entry for .objectification., in the last sentence of the last example, replace both occurrences of .state of affairs. with .actuality. so that the examples looks like this: Example: .If a rental car is returned late because the car has a mechanical breakdown ... In a possible formulation of this example, objectifications of .the car has a mechanical breakdown. and .the rental car is returned late. respectively formulate something for each role of the fact type .actuality causes actuality.. In 9.3 in the last sentence of the first note in the entry for .closed projection means question., REPLACE .state of affairs. with .actuality. so that the sentence says: However, the concept .cause. is a role that ranges over the concept .actuality., so an answer to a .why. question is often formulated using objectification (the last example under objectification considers one actuality as a cause of another). In C.1.2, Other Keywords, at the end of the third point in the explanation of the keyword .that., REPLACE the words .an actuality. with .a state of affairs.. Editorial Correction: In C.1.5, for the two examples of operative rules statements having the "Necessity" caption, REMOVE the .Necessity. caption so that the statements are formatted just like the other example statements above them in that section. The two statements are these and should look like this (with NO .Necessity. caption in front): If a car is assigned to a rental then the rental report of the rental must specify that the car is assigned to the rental. The rental report of each rental must specify what car is assigned to the rental. Disposition: Resolved Subject: RE: issue 16309 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: A1D4A64A:CFDE7B39-852578A7:0071ABB1; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:51:52 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 16:51:56 In 8.1.1, the definition of "fact type" says that all the instances of a fact type are actualities. Either in 14849 or in this issue or somewhere, we need to change that to say that instances of fact types are states of affairs. Regarding the second example for "objectification": if you change the formulation as you propose, shouldn't the example itself change from "actuality that ..." to "state of affairs that ..."? -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" Date: 06/06/2011 11:04 AM Subject: RE: issue 16309 -- SBVR RTF issue A proposed resolution for issue 16309 is attached. Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:26 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16309 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "issues@omg.org" Subject: SBVR ISSUE -- Clarify objectification Thread-Topic: SBVR ISSUE -- Clarify objectification Thread-Index: AcwiYlcTCxwlQMhoQ8yiXtMNHjv3WQ== Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 02:52:01 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74] Issue: Clarify Objectification Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual. Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual. Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative ?that? for objectification, refer more generally to ?state of affairs? rather than to ?actuality?. Thanks, Don Baisley Microsoft Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [attachment "SBVR 16309.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM]