Issue 16314: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? (sbvr-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, mlinehan(at)us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 6, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:44:06 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcwkeV76B1WsrSFXQCK0utgqq0zAWwC/8qWg X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4DF22DB8.0102, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.6.10.135719:17:9.975, ip=184.74.140.210, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, DATE_TZ_NA, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __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, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __SUBJECT_ENDING_IN_LATIN_OR_NUMERALS, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_BOLD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __IMGSPAM_BODY, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, __RATWARE_SIGNATURE_3_N1, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, IMGSPAM_BODY X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.4DF22E31.0038,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=184.74.140.210, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All . I agree with Mark that the SBVR specification says that a thing has no instances (unless that this is a concept). When I was responded to Mark.s conclusion that a state of affairs cannot be repeatable because it is a thing, I got the wrong end of the stick in all the confusion around me here in Watertown. I realized after Monday.s telecom that the problem people are having with .repeatable. stems from its connotations of multiple instances. A more precise (but very clumsy) term would be .re-involve-able.. It.s not that there are multiple instances of a state of affairs, but that the state of affairs can have multiple involvements with different time intervals to create multiple temporal occurrences. This is true since a temporal occurrence is a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval. I.m sorry for any confusion I introduced by getting the wrong end of the stick. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 14:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions X-KeepSent: EBB14909:B38402AF-852578AB:00716FBC; 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: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:59:29 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/10/2011 16:59:33 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p5AKqnHa021075 Donald, I'm sorry I missed the 14849 discussion today. >From Don's charts, I can see that what you bring up below is an important discussion point. In Date-Time, we have not thought of a (temporal) occurrence as "a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval". We have thought of an occurrence as a state of affairs that occurs throughout a time interval; i.e. a subtype of "state of affairs". Whereas "a combination" implies to me that a (temporal) occurrence is a new kind of thing that is not itself a state of affairs but instead incorporates both a state of affairs and a time interval. The difference is subtle but it may be important. Clearly we want to be able to apply additional modifiers to (temporal) occurrences. Consider the example "John writes a book". That's clearly a state of affairs. Now consider this (temporal) occurrence developed from it: "John writes a book in 2011". This can be addressed by both of the modeling options outlined above. Now consider this further example "John writes a book in 2011 in the U.S.". The "in the U.S." part needs to be apply "recursively" to the "John writes a book in 2011" part. The way to do that is to treat "John writes a book in 2011" as a state of affairs and then use that complete state of affairs as a "point of involvement" in a fact type " in ". But if "John writes a book in 2011" is "a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval", and not itself a state of affairs, then we cannot do that. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: Date: 06/10/2011 10:48 AM Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions All ­ I agree with Mark that the SBVR specification says that a thing has no instances (unless that this is a concept). When I was responded to Markâs conclusion that a state of affairs cannot be repeatable because it is a thing, I got the wrong end of the stick in all the confusion around me here in Watertown. I realized after Mondayâs telecom that the problem people are having with ârepeatableâ stems from its connotations of multiple instances. A more precise (but very clumsy) term would be âre-involve-ableâ. Itâs not that there are multiple instances of a state of affairs, but that the state of affairs can have multiple involvements with different time intervals to create multiple temporal occurrences. This is true since a temporal occurrence is a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval. Iâm sorry for any confusion I introduced by getting the wrong end of the stick. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 14:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions Thread-Topic: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions Thread-Index: AQHMJ31abm+CvxV1iEa/NUbjVqVdKJS3iPGA//+UkrA= Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:43:55 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.72] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p5ALb6YV024016 Mark, I'm glad you see the recursion. States of affair involve each other recursively. As defined in the slides, every temporal occurrence is a state of affairs and can thereby be involved in other states of affairs. That's why we define 'temporal occurrence' using objectification of a fact type with two roles -- one role for each of the intrinsic elements of a temporal occurrence (what happened and when). So, as you noted, the temporal occurrence is not the state of affairs that occurs for a time interval, but is another state of affairs that combines that "what-happened" state of affairs with the "when". Regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:59 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions Donald, I'm sorry I missed the 14849 discussion today. >From Don's charts, I can see that what you bring up below is an important discussion point. In Date-Time, we have not thought of a (temporal) occurrence as "a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval". We have thought of an occurrence as a state of affairs that occurs throughout a time interval; i.e. a subtype of "state of affairs". Whereas "a combination" implies to me that a (temporal) occurrence is a new kind of thing that is not itself a state of affairs but instead incorporates both a state of affairs and a time interval. The difference is subtle but it may be important. Clearly we want to be able to apply additional modifiers to (temporal) occurrences. Consider the example "John writes a book". That's clearly a state of affairs. Now consider this (temporal) occurrence developed from it: "John writes a book in 2011". This can be addressed by both of the modeling options outlined above. Now consider this further example "John writes a book in 2011 in the U.S.". The "in the U.S." part needs to be apply "recursively" to the "John writes a book in 2011" part. The way to do that is to treat "John writes a book in 2011" as a state of affairs and then use that complete state of affairs as a "point of involvement" in a fact type " in ". But if "John writes a book in 2011" is "a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval", and not itself a state of affairs, then we cannot do that. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: Date: 06/10/2011 10:48 AM Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions All ­ I agree with Mark that the SBVR specification says that a thing has no instances (unless that this is a concept). When I was responded to Markâs conclusion that a state of affairs cannot be repeatable because it is a thing, I got the wrong end of the stick in all the confusion around me here in Watertown. I realized after Mondayâs telecom that the problem people are having with ârepeatableâ stems from its connotations of multiple instances. A more precise (but very clumsy) term would be âre-involve-ableâ. Itâs not that there are multiple instances of a state of affairs, but that the state of affairs can have multiple involvements with different time intervals to create multiple temporal occurrences. This is true since a temporal occurrence is a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval. Iâm sorry for any confusion I introduced by getting the wrong end of the stick. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 14:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:26:51 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Don Baisley CC: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p5ANQvWl032390 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1308353223.4487@3CIlAt28VoIMdU/lKwnGxA X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov Don Baisley wrote: Mark, I'm glad you see the recursion. States of affair involve each other recursively. As defined in the slides, every temporal occurrence is a state of affairs and can thereby be involved in other states of affairs. That's why we define 'temporal occurrence' using objectification of a fact type with two roles -- one role for each of the intrinsic elements of a temporal occurrence (what happened and when). The problem with this wording is that it confuses the representation with the thing -- the classic semiotic error. The temporal occurrence is a thing. The objectification of a fact type with two roles is one possible representation of it. So you can't define 'temporal occurrence' that way. You can identify a particular temporal occurrence that way -- it is a valid representation scheme. But, for example, "the American Civil War" denotes a temporal occurrence that is defined by two other temporal occurrences, which by convention were the first and last sub-events: the opening salvo on Fort Sumter and the signing of the surrender at Appomattox. Of course there is an associated time frame, as there must be with all occurrences, but the occurrence is not defined by a state of affairs and a time frame; it is defined by 'starts with' and 'ends with'. What Date/Time says is that the time interval over which the occurrence lasts is an intrinsic property of the occurrence. I would also agree that some 'state of affairs' (Date/Time "occurrence type") is a necessary part of recognizing the occurrence. This follows from Antoine Lonjon's observation that an 'actuality' is a situation interpreted by a fact type. That is, to know what exactly constitutes the occurrence, you have to know what the conceptualization characteristics are. One man's end of the war is someone else's temporary truce. So, as you noted, the temporal occurrence is not the state of affairs that occurs for a time interval, but is another state of affairs that combines that "what-happened" state of affairs with the "when". That is, the fact type 'state of affairs' occurs for 'time interval' has an instance "the players met from 2:00 to 3:00 on June 9, 2011", in which the 'state of affairs' role is played by the state of affairs "the players meet" and the time interval role is played by "2:00 to 3:00 on June 9, 2011". We all agree on this. Now, the state of affairs "the players met from 2:00 to 3:00 on June 9, 2011" is a different state of affairs. It is a subtype of "the players meet" which adds an additional essential characteristic -- the exact time frame. The temporal occurrence of the meeting itself is an instance of both of them. Unless they could meet in several places at the same time, the latter state of affairs has only one occurrence. But this leaves us in a hole with respect to defining the relationship between truth values and occurrences. "The players meet" is the sentence that describes the (general) state of affairs in which the players meet. Is it a proposition? And if so, is it true or false? Similarly, the sentence "the players met from 2:00 to 3:00 on June 9, 2011" describes the (individual?) state of affairs of a meeting over that time frame. Is it a proposition? It seems so. It seems to be either true or false in a given world. If the meeting -- the occurrence -- is an instance of both 'states of affairs', then its occurrence time interval is 2:00 to 3:00 on June 9, which means that its 'occurs for' time interval is not 'all time of interest'. Hmm... This means that the relationship of truth to time is more interesting than we have made it. That is, I still don't know what an 'actuality' is. But the things that a fact type corresponds to, if anyone really cares, seem to be occurrences that are characterized by a state of affairs derived from the fact type by substitution of specific things for the roles. -Ed Regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:59 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions Donald, I'm sorry I missed the 14849 discussion today. From Don's charts, I can see that what you bring up below is an important discussion point. In Date-Time, we have not thought of a (temporal) occurrence as "a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval". We have thought of an occurrence as a state of affairs that occurs throughout a time interval; i.e. a subtype of "state of affairs". Whereas "a combination" implies to me that a (temporal) occurrence is a new kind of thing that is not itself a state of affairs but instead incorporates both a state of affairs and a time interval. The difference is subtle but it may be important. Clearly we want to be able to apply additional modifiers to (temporal) occurrences. Consider the example "John writes a book". That's clearly a state of affairs. Now consider this (temporal) occurrence developed from it: "John writes a book in 2011". This can be addressed by both of the modeling options outlined above. Now consider this further example "John writes a book in 2011 in the U.S.". The "in the U.S." part needs to be apply "recursively" to the "John writes a book in 2011" part. The way to do that is to treat "John writes a book in 2011" as a state of affairs and then use that complete state of affairs as a "point of involvement" in a fact type " in ". But if "John writes a book in 2011" is "a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval", and not itself a state of affairs, then we cannot do that. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: Date: 06/10/2011 10:48 AM Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Connotations of "Repeatable" have Thrown a Curved Ball into our Discussions All ­ > I agree with Mark that the SBVR specification says that a thing has no instances (unless that this is a concept). When I was responded to Markâs conclusion that a state of affairs cannot be repeatable because it is a thing, I got the wrong end of the stick in all the confusion around me here in Watertown. I realized after Mondayâs telecom that the problem people are having with ârepeatableâ stems from its connotations of multiple instances. A more precise (but very clumsy) term would be âre-involve-ableâ. Itâs not that there are multiple instances of a state of affairs, but that the state of affairs can have multiple involvements with different time intervals to create multiple temporal occurrences. This is true since a temporal occurrence is a combination of a state of affairs and a time interval. Iâm sorry for any confusion I introduced by getting the wrong end of the stick. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 14:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: DRAFT --- Issue 16314 "Can there be multiple instances of a thing?" X-KeepSent: 291E1D0A:712D1C6E-8525792E:000A3883; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:08:13 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 10/18/2011 22:08:14 The fact type "concept has instance" is only defined with respect to concepts. "Necessity: No thing that is not a concept has an instance." seems superfluous. I disagree with this part of the proposed Note: "The way to talk about multiples of something in an SBVR vocabulary is to define a concept such that the multiples are defined to be its instances." There is another way: when we have a verb concept such as "local area includes service depot ", absent a Necessity that says otherwise, multiple "local areas" and "service depots" may participate in instances of the verb concept. I think that a rule fragment such as "each service depot included by the local area" "talks about" multiples of service depots. I attach a version with some typo fixes. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 10/18/2011 11:20 AM Subject: FW: DRAFT --- Issue 16314 "Can there be multiple instances of a thing?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John, V2 -- is this any clearer? Is it addressed more directly to the Issues summary wording? Donald From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 18 October 2011 10:54 To: John Hall (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk) Subject: DRAFT --- Issue 16314 "Can there be multiple instances of a thing?" John, Do you see any problem with this resolution? Donald[attachment "v2 -- Draft Resolution for Issue 16314 'Can There be Multiple Instances of Thing'.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] v2 -- Draft Resolution for Issue 16314 'Can There be Multiple Instances of Thing' mhl.doc From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:05:01 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcwkeV76B1WsrSFXQCK0utgqq0zAWxrAvZCw X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4EA0A86C.0064, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.10.20.213916:17:9.975, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__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, LINK_TO_IMAGE, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __IMGSPAM_BODY, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, IMGSPAM_BODY X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4EA0A923.0023,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Attached is an new draft resolution for Issue 16314 for discussion to tomorrow.s SBVR RTF telecon. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 Draft Resolution for Issue 16314 'Can There be Multiple Instances of Thing' (2011-10-20).doc X-SpamScore: -34 X-BigFish: PS-34(z21cILzbb2dK9371Kc85fh10e3K12d5Mzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h34h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT006.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHMJHoGrqJO6Gs7i0a02eNWLY1rh5WGsG+AgABe7RA= Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:57:46 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [76.104.188.194] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT006.namprd03.prod.outlook.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%OMG.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn% X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com I have attached a draft resolution for Issue 16314. The issue uses the word .singleton., which has multiple meanings. Perhaps Mark, who submitted the issue, can clarify what he meant by .singleton. and further explain why nothing is perceivable or conceivable unless it is a singleton. The note suggested by Donald in his proposed resolution is inappropriate. This issue has nothing to do with any classes begin abstract in clause 13. Regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:05 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Attached is an new draft resolution for Issue 16314 for discussion to tomorrow.s SBVR RTF telecon. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org Issue 16314.doc To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: 6F065D1F:0E5D8058-85257930:0049F149; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:47:02 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 10/21/2011 09:48:28, Serialize complete at 10/21/2011 09:48:28 x-cbid: 11102113-1976-0000-0000-0000003E69EB I see two emails with proposed resolutions for this issue, both from Don. Don -- which do you want us to review for today's conference call? MHL>>I inserted responses below. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 10/21/2011 01:02 AM Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have attached a draft resolution for Issue 16314. The issue uses the word âsingletonâ, which has multiple meanings. Perhaps Mark, who submitted the issue, can clarify what he meant by âsingletonâ MHL>>The issue text says "singletons (i.e. individual things)". This seems pretty clear to me. But to be very specific, MHL>>I quote this definition from Merriam-Webster: "2 : an individual member or thing distinct from others grouped with it " and further explain why nothing is perceivable or conceivable unless it is a singleton. MHL>>I'm not sure what Don is asking for here. The text âanything perceivable or conceivableâ is SBVR's current definition of "thing". And it is in the Resolution, not in the original Issue. Perhaps Don can explain what he is asking. MHL>>I'm not sure why this issue come up, but I expect that it was in the context of the state of affairs discussion. MHL>>I think it was specifically about whether "state of affairs" is an individual thing or more like a mass noun (such as MHL>>sand) that is made of multiple individual things. Thinking of "state of affairs" as a mass noun would have been MHL>>another way to deal with the state of affairs issue. The note suggested by Donald in his proposed resolution is inappropriate. This issue has nothing to do with any classes begin abstract in clause 13. MHL>>Why not put the text of this Resolution into a Note associated with the glossary entry for "thing"? Is there a reason MHL>>not to be explicit about what SBVR means? Regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:05 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Attached is an new draft resolution for Issue 16314 for discussion to tomorrowâs SBVR RTF telecon. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 "Issue 16314.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:04:01 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHJMLcWR48XNAtAIH7fZqP8wy2AZALs+cPKAeVaC2QBog96lJVZ7vrw X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4EA17BD1.00A8, actions=TAG X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=8/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.7.19.51514:17:8.129, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, SUPERLONG_LINE, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HTML_FONT_RED, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.4EA17BD2.0168,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Mark, Neither. We have to start over because the definition of the problem /question of the Issue is not clear. I plan first to re-triage the Issue for the RTF to gain a sharp understanding of the exact problem / question of concern. We can then discuss the outline of the approach to a resolution independent of resolution wording already written. Only after today.s telecon can new wording be drafted that addresses what you are actually concerned about. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 21 October 2011 14:47 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue I see two emails with proposed resolutions for this issue, both from Don. Don -- which do you want us to review for today's conference call? MHL>>I inserted responses below. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 10/21/2011 01:02 AM Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have attached a draft resolution for Issue 16314. The issue uses the word .singleton., which has multiple meanings. Perhaps Mark, who submitted the issue, can clarify what he meant by .singleton. MHL>>The issue text says "singletons (i.e. individual things)". This seems pretty clear to me. But to be very specific, MHL>>I quote this definition from Merriam-Webster: "2 : an individual member or thing distinct from others grouped with it " and further explain why nothing is perceivable or conceivable unless it is a singleton. MHL>>I'm not sure what Don is asking for here. The text .anything perceivable or conceivable. is SBVR's current definition of "thing". And it is in the Resolution, not in the original Issue. Perhaps Don can explain what he is asking. MHL>>I'm not sure why this issue come up, but I expect that it was in the context of the state of affairs discussion. MHL>>I think it was specifically about whether "state of affairs" is an individual thing or more like a mass noun (such as MHL>>sand) that is made of multiple individual things. Thinking of "state of affairs" as a mass noun would have been MHL>>another way to deal with the state of affairs issue. The note suggested by Donald in his proposed resolution is inappropriate. This issue has nothing to do with any classes begin abstract in clause 13. MHL>>Why not put the text of this Resolution into a Note associated with the glossary entry for "thing"? Is there a reason MHL>>not to be explicit about what SBVR means? Regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:05 PM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Attached is an new draft resolution for Issue 16314 for discussion to tomorrow.s SBVR RTF telecon. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 "Issue 16314.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:09:45 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHJMLcWR48XNAtAIH7fZqP8wy2AZALs+cPKAeVaC2QBog96lJVZ8GNQ X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4EA17D29.00A0, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.10.21.125416:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HTML_FONT_RED, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_4000_4999, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4EA17D2A.0178,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Mark, ON 21 October 2011 14:47 Mark Linehan wrote: 'm not sure why this issue come up, but I expect that it was in the context of the state of affairs discussion. MHL>>I think it was specifically about whether "state of affairs" is an individual thing or more like a mass noun (such as MHL>>sand) that is made of multiple individual things This is your Issue. You are the only one who can tell us exactly what the problem / concern / question is, or even if it is still an Issue. Donald From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:38:07 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcwkeV76B1WsrSFXQCK0utgqq0zAWxvc1QvA X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4EA81B51.0011, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.10.26.135715:17:9.975, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__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, LINK_TO_IMAGE, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __IMGSPAM_BODY, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, IMGSPAM_BODY X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020C.4EA81BBF.01C1,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false The attached is a revised draft resolution for Issue 16314 updated based on agreements in last Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org Draft Resolution for Issue 16314 'Can There be Multiple Instances of Thing' (2011-10-26).doc IBM Research X-SpamScore: -34 X-BigFish: PS-34(z21cILzbb2dK9371Kc85fh10e3K12d5Mzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h34h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHMJHoGrqJO6Gs7i0a02eNWLY1rh5WPkMyAgAKOm+A= Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:52:45 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [76.104.188.194] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%OMG.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn% X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com Here is an updated draft resolution for issue 16314. It has changes tracked since the previous version. The resolution addresses the generality of the concept .thing.. The previous resolution was based on some resolution text which I had not completed. This version shows the complete resolution text. This issue could be closed with no change or with the addition of some Note text, which is included. We should discuss which way to close the issue. Regards, Don From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:38 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue The attached is a revised draft resolution for Issue 16314 updated based on agreements in last Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 Draft Resolution for Issue 16314.doc From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:39:25 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcwkeV76B1WsrSFXQCK0utgqq0zAWx704tcQ X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4EBCDF43.00B4, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.11.11.74215:17:9.975, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__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, LINK_TO_IMAGE, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __CP_NOT_1, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __IMGSPAM_BODY, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, IMGSPAM_BODY X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr13.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.4EBCDFC1.0182,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Attached is a draft resolution of Issue 16314 for discussion and, hopefully, release to Ballot in today.s telecon. Please note especially the sentence that Don Baisley believes to be incorrect. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 19:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 Draft Resolution for Issue 16314 (2011-11-11).doc From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: FW: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:54:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHJMLcWR48XNAtAIH7fZqP8wy2AZAGMJ4t0lhtEYTA= X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4F22BAB7.00B7, actions=TAG X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.1.27.135714:17:9.975, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, LINK_TO_IMAGE, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NAME, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __IMGSPAM_BODY, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, IMGSPAM_BODY X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr06.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0201.4F22BAB9.00C8,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 Sent originally from the wrong email address to get onto the OMG server. From: Donald Chapin [mailto:donald_chapin@msn.com] Sent: 27 January 2012 14:53 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue The most recent prior version of a draft resolution for Issue 16314 is dated November 11, 2011 and was last discussed in the November 11th SBVR RTF telecon. Attached is a revision of that draft resolution for Issue 16314 updated based on the Meeting Notes from the November 11, 2011 SBVR RTF telecon. The key change agreed was the point that whether a thing is considered to have instances or not depends on how it is conceptualized in a given SBVR model as determined by the definition of the concept(s) of whose extension it is an element. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 06 June 2011 18:41 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16314 -- SBVR RTF issue Subject: SBVR issue: Can there be multiple instances of a thing? X-KeepSent: 057F27C6:08CE6500-852578A7:0065189F; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: juergen@omg.org Cc: 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 14:38:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 06/06/2011 14:38:52 Issue Statement: SBVR defines the concept "thing" in clause 8.7. The definition is unclear as to whether the extension of "thing" contains only singletons (i.e. individual things) or can contain instances that recur in some way. Proposed Resolution: Add a Necessity or Possibility or Note that explains whether individual things can recur. Add examples. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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