Issue 16486: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs (sbvr-rtf) Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: SBVR’s explanation of the concept ‘state of affairs’ could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 5, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft include-exclude.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Revised Text: In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is possible that the state of affairs1 is actual only if the state of affairs2 is actual Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement of a state of affairs does not imply inclusion. state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is possible that the state of affairs1 is actual only if the state of affairs2 is not actual Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open. In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes X-KeepSent: 6A007B3D:F54FB8EA-852578E3:0067B867; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:38:30 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 08/05/2011 15:38:30 The discussion during and notes from today's RTF discussion claimed that "it is possible that the state of affairs1 is actual only if the state of affairs2 is actual" is equivalent to "It is necessary that s1 is not actual if s2 is not actual". This is incorrect. Per the second note under "restricted possibility" statement in 12.2.2.2, a restricted possibility statement of the for "it is possible that p only if q" form is equivalent to "it is not possible that p if not q". By substitution, the original statement is equivalent to "it is not possible that the state of affairs1 is actual if the state of affairs2 isnot actual". We can manipulate this further, via the equivalences shown in table 10.2, to get "it is necessary that not ( the state of affairs1 is actual if the state of affairs2 isnot actual)". And "x if y" is equivalent to "not (x and not y)", so we can convert the above to "it is necessary that not ( not (the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 isnot not actual))". Now we can cancel the not's, and get "it is necessary that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual". This is clearly not the same as "It is necessary that s1 is not actual if s2 is not actual". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 08/05/2011 01:18 AM Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVRâ..s explanation of the concept â..state of affairsâ.. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft include-exclude1.doc m: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Topic: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Index: AcxYb6iDbLwROOZKTPaZ3ErgH/qmQg== Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:44:11 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.76] Here is a resolution based on the discussion at the last SBVR call. Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:25 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR?s explanation of the concept ?state of affairs? could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft SBVR Issue 16486.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Revised Text: In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual Source: based on SEP (Actualism/Possible Worlds) .Say that one state of affairs s includes another s. if and only if it is not possible that s obtain without s. obtaining.. Necessity: Each state of affairs that is included by an actuality is actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement (per .state of affairs involves thing in role. defined above) of one state of affairs in another one does not imply inclusion. state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual Necessity: Each state of affairs that is excluded by an actuality is not actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open. In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-KeepSent: 19E41883:48207B65-852578EA:00512F84; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:57:32 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 08/12/2011 10:57:33, Serialize complete at 08/12/2011 10:57:33 Don, I wonder if the definition of "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2" should be "it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual if the state of affairs2 is not actual" -- using "if" rather than "and". Consider " 'the London branch being open' includes 'the London branch exists' ". Compare "it is impossible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual and the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' " with "it is impossible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual if the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' ". Per clause 12.2.2, the latter is equivalent to "it is possible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual if and only if the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' " -- which I think is what we mean. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Topic: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Index: AcxYb6iDbLwROOZKTPaZ3ErgH/qmQgAyy14AAACPBGA= Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:36:03 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.72] Hi Mark, I don.t understand how you arrive at .if and only if. (highlighted below). .S1 includes S2. means that S1 cannot obtain without S2.s obtaining. It is impossible that (S1 is actual and S2 is not actual). I changed the previous wording (.possible . only if.) because you found it confusing and the new wording is clear. The problem with using .it is impossible . if. is that people easily interpret it in two ways: It is impossible that (A if not B) (It is impossible that A) if not B For looking at .A includes B. in terms of conjunction there are four combinations: A and B A and (not B) (not A) and B (not A) and (not B) The meaning of .includes. is that the second case is impossible. .includes. means nothing about the possibility or necessity of the other three cases. Regards, Don From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 7:58 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Don, I wonder if the definition of "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2" should be "it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual if the state of affairs2 is not actual" -- using "if" rather than "and". Consider " 'the London branch being open' includes 'the London branch exists' ". Compare "it is impossible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual and the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' " with "it is impossible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual if the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' ". Per clause 12.2.2, the latter is equivalent to "it is possible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual if and only if the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' " -- which I think is what we mean. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-KeepSent: E219E6F9:9512537C-852578F8:0060ABFB; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:05:24 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 08/26/2011 14:05:25, Serialize complete at 08/26/2011 14:05:25 Responses like this. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 08/12/2011 06:37 PM Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Mark, I donât understand how you arrive at âif and only ifâ (highlighted below).I think it was a typo and should have been just "only if". âS1 includes S2â means that S1 cannot obtain without S2âs obtaining. It is impossible that (S1 is actual and S2 is not actual). I changed the previous wording (âpossible . only ifâ) because you found it conffusing and the new wording is clear. The problem with using âit is impossible . ifâ is that people easily inteerpret it in two ways: It is impossible that (A if not B) (It is impossible that A) if not B I believe this one is correct I agree we should avoid confusion. For looking at âA includes Bâ in terms of conjunction there are four combinations: A and B A and (not B) (not A) and B (not A) and (not B) The meaning of âincludesâ is that the second case is impossible. âincludesâ means nothing about the possibility or necessity of the other three cases. On looking at it further, I am ok with what you propose: "it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual" Regards, Don From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 7:58 AM To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Don, I wonder if the definition of "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2" should be "it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual if the state of affairs2 is not actual" -- using "if" rather than "and". Consider " 'the London branch being open' includes 'the London branch exists' ". Compare "it is impossible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual and the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' " with "it is impossible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual if the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' ". Per clause 12.2.2, the latter is equivalent to "it is possible that the 'the London branch being open' is actual if and only if the state of affairs2 'the London branch does not exist' " -- which I think is what we mean. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Topic: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Index: AcxYb6iDbLwROOZKTPaZ3ErgH/qmQgNmgT0g Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:17:47 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.34] Here is a resolution based on the discussion at the last SBVR call. It include the new necessity statements. I have not yet added a diagram, but I will if there is agreement to add the content. When I get time I will try to make an alternative version that has the more controversial changes people asked for: Modified definitions of .is true. and .is false.. Definition of .occurrence./.happening. in terms of .includes.. All the best, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:25 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR?s explanation of the concept ?state of affairs? could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft SBVR Issue 164861.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Also, add related structural rules to 8.6.2. Revised Text: In 8.6 REPLACE figure 8.9 with the following figure: [FIGURE TO BE PROVIDED] In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual Source: based on SEP (Actualism/Possible Worlds) .Say that one state of affairs s includes another s. if and only if it is not possible that s obtain without s. obtaining.. Necessity: Each state of affairs that is included by an actuality is actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement (per .state of affairs involves thing in role. defined above) of one state of affairs in another one does not imply inclusion. state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual Necessity: Each state of affairs that is excluded by an actuality is not actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open. In 8.6.2 Add the following after the Necessity statement that starts, .Each proposition that is true ...: Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to no actuality. Necessity: A proposition corresponds to a state of affair if and only if it is necessary that the proposition is true if the state of affairs is actual and it is necessary that the proposition is false if the state of affairs is not actual. Necessity: Each proposition that corresponds to a state of affairs that is included by an actuality is true. In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-KeepSent: B6CD6C09:E80EE7D5-852578FB:00496977; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:27:22 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 08/29/2011 09:27:24, Serialize complete at 08/29/2011 09:27:24 I think this issue resolution illustrates a choice that we have: (a) Go down the path of defining the "state of affairs" concept and its relationships. This is getting progressively more complex. (b) Abandon "state of affairs" entirely, as something that we can never explain to business people. (Whereas, I believe we can explain "proposition" and "actuality".) The proposed issue resolution shows the circularity among the concepts "proposition is true", "state of affairs", and "actuality". I think we can simplify (but probably not eliminate) this circularity by eliminating "state of affairs". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813,1.0.211,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-08-29_04:2011-08-29,2011-08-29,1970-01-01 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-1108290134 Cc: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148) From: keri_ah Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:08:31 -0700 To: Mark H Linehan Mark, To clarify, are you saying that 'being actual' is an intrinsic property of a res? IOW, there can be no res that is not actual? Thx. Keri Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Mark H Linehan wrote: I think this issue resolution illustrates a choice that we have: (a) Go down the path of defining the "state of affairs" concept and its relationships. This is getting progressively more complex. (b) Abandon "state of affairs" entirely, as something that we can never explain to business people. (Whereas, I believe we can explain "proposition" and "actuality".) The proposed issue resolution shows the circularity among the concepts "proposition is true", "state of affairs", and "actuality". I think we can simplify (but probably not eliminate) this circularity by eliminating "state of affairs". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Cc: Stan@hendryxassoc.com Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-KeepSent: F31E59A5:9EEE05F0-852578FB:00516AFB; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:38:00 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 08/29/2011 11:38:01, Serialize complete at 08/29/2011 11:38:01 Hmm, Keri asks an interesting question. Stan said something like this in one of his recent notes, but he was using a different definition of "res". [Stan also said that every non-paradoxical proposition is actual in some possible world. I believe what he means is that for every non-paradoxical proposition, you can imagine a possible world where that proposition is true. But this statement is about propositions (i.e. a kind of meaning), not about "res".] First, I think that "being actual" (i.e. "exists") is a property with respect to a "possible world". For example, "EU-rent being profitable" may exist (i.e. be actual, be true) in some possible worlds and not in other possible worlds. [In a recent email, Don suggested a similar point with respect to "state of affairs".] Second, meanings (noun concepts, verb concepts, propositions) clearly exist independently of the real world. EU-Rent may be profitable only in possible worlds that never turn out to be real, but we can still talk about the idea of "EU-Rent being profitable". Third, meanings (noun concepts, verb concepts, propositions) exist (have instances, are true, are actual) in a possible world if they correspond to a thing in the possible world. In other words, quantification of a meaning is satisfied by correspondence between the meaning and things in a possible world. Fourth, SBVR defines "res" by negation: "things that are not meanings". That's a poor definition because it doesn't say what "res" actually are. Nor does SBVR provide any examples of "res". Certainly, one category of res are "instances", i.e. the members of the extensions of meanings. I think we would all agree that instances are actualities (i.e. they exist) in a possible world. Whether there are any other categories of "res", and whether they are always actualities, I don't know. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: keri_ah To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS Cc: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: 08/29/2011 10:10 AM Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, To clarify, are you saying that 'being actual' is an intrinsic property of a res? IOW, there can be no res that is not actual? Thx. Keri Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Mark H Linehan wrote: I think this issue resolution illustrates a choice that we have: (a) Go down the path of defining the "state of affairs" concept and its relationships. This is getting progressively more complex. (b) Abandon "state of affairs" entirely, as something that we can never explain to business people. (Whereas, I believe we can explain "proposition" and "actuality".) The proposed issue resolution shows the circularity among the concepts "proposition is true", "state of affairs", and "actuality". I think we can simplify (but probably not eliminate) this circularity by eliminating "state of affairs". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 768890.22832.bm@omp1008.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1314632619; bh=BuEV2g7HFHMdsljtiZw3K+i68JRA0Yb8Y44hpi7vBso=; 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=6fhbl/ntspd/1reVN8qsvoqY2uSANDvrg+2S1nZY0xIkBSaLNI3qAIZY+eylTxbifQgqF221s4FesinCe5Rtaq6O+YlJnkxqFP1AS3CNS114o9icGKyAOoGAmBz5Lb8QsQMq6kPSAlFV4ZEgaOZ4IkcYxPg+YQiBrG0XFzMxw0k= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 1R4T3b0VM1nlyCBuVl9grn5XRfs5GDLrjTkYPX5vwrggmr9 ZmXt0jkZlhvNgw93y4kG5awc277tOyu6Fb9U5KVI0sTXzrHMycV6AWZ3uKSS 1rYCT20tznJchOmsYtUyz8Nthxvq0iUuarmmFDpxrgpt7BT.ESOPwF7_2xkO wa0EkxgNjYD2PCYTtXknaOXRs4gyPHeapv.kZcen_Tpi3bt3tpSmGm3MF5pf cmFDxVbC60yfiXGJNsKobQrZulIqkDOP1jpywAD6rvtslBAwiQIuzQ3iD13k Wct6Vg5UZVjPQQsJRl6k6zNBWSetCWvRzqmPv.tXB8P4yfTtTKAHndRgRib3 MoC4l04EzQXd.2z34doCOfYi8GnDMP4KHCP772AYWUbjpyC9gbJnEH6Z4Bxo - X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:43:23 -0500 To: Mark H Linehan , sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution At 08:27 AM 8/29/2011, Mark H Linehan wrote: I think this issue resolution illustrates a choice that we have: (a) Go down the path of defining the "state of affairs" concept and its relationships. This is getting progressively more complex. (b) Abandon "state of affairs" entirely, as something that we can never explain to business people. (Whereas, I believe we can explain "proposition" and "actuality".) Mark, with respect, I beg to differ. Business people have no interest in "proposition" and "actuality". If you tried to explain them, they *might* get it ... but why should they need to?? These are not business concepts. I need some feedback please. Perhaps I am missing something. What we want to do with SBVR is to enable business people (one way or another) to build business vocabularies (essentially Clause 11 stuff ) and write business rules and other forms of business communications (essentially Clause 12 stuff). If business people have to understand "state of affairs", "proposition" and "actuality", we might as well pack up and go home. I can tell you with certainty it's not going to happen in our lifetime. Have we lot sight of what SBVR is about?? What am I missing? (Maybe I need repositioning ... or an exit.) Ron The proposed issue resolution shows the circularity among the concepts "proposition is true", "state of affairs", and "actuality". I think we can simplify (but probably not eliminate) this circularity by eliminating "state of affairs". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-KeepSent: FAD1EBF5:6231FD56-852578FB:00589801; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:11:34 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 08/29/2011 12:11:35, Serialize complete at 08/29/2011 12:11:35 Ron, I do not suggest that business people are or should be interested in any of "proposition" or "state of affairs" or "actuality". I do believe I could explain "proposition" and "actuality" to them if needed, in particular by giving examples. What I don't know is how I could explain the SBVR distinction between "proposition" and "state of affairs". An example of one is an example of the other. And the formal definitions don't capture a distinction that would make any sense to business people. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, sbvr-rtf@omg.org Date: 08/29/2011 11:46 AM Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 08:27 AM 8/29/2011, Mark H Linehan wrote: I think this issue resolution illustrates a choice that we have: (a) Go down the path of defining the "state of affairs" concept and its relationships. This is getting progressively more complex. (b) Abandon "state of affairs" entirely, as something that we can never explain to business people. (Whereas, I believe we can explain "proposition" and "actuality".) Mark, with respect, I beg to differ. Business people have no interest in "proposition" and "actuality". If you tried to explain them, they *might* get it ... but why should they need to?? These are not business concepts. I need some feedback please. Perhaps I am missing something. What we want to do with SBVR is to enable business people (one way or another) to build business vocabularies (essentially Clause 11 stuff ) and write business rules and other forms of business communications (essentially Clause 12 stuff). If business people have to understand "state of affairs", "proposition" and "actuality", we might as well pack up and go home. I can tell you with certainty it's not going to happen in our lifetime. Have we lot sight of what SBVR is about?? What am I missing? (Maybe I need repositioning ... or an exit.) Ron The proposed issue resolution shows the circularity among the concepts "proposition is true", "state of affairs", and "actuality". I think we can simplify (but probably not eliminate) this circularity by eliminating "state of affairs". -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813,1.0.211,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-08-29_05:2011-08-29,2011-08-29,1970-01-01 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-1108290190 Cc: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148) From: keri_ah Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:00:58 -0700 To: Mark H Linehan On Aug 29, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Mark H Linehan wrote: > I do believe I could explain "proposition" and "actuality" to them if needed, in particular by giving examples. What I don't know is how I could explain the SBVR distinction between "proposition" and "state of affairs". Mark, If we take SOA to be a category of res (which it is in SBVR) then I am hearing the struggle being how to explain that there are some SOAs that are actual and some SOAs that are not actual. Yes, I hear that this gets into worlds (actual/possible). For the moment let's say there is only one world. In that world there are things. Some things are meanings and some things are res's (plural of res). Setting the meaning things aside we have some res's that are SOAs and some that are something else. (I'm not sure what the non-SOA things are -- maybe trees and cars and the like, but that's not important here.) Following down the SOA leg we get some SOAs that are actual and some SOAs that are not actual. I believe that I am hearing a struggle to see what a non-actual SOA (indeed, a non-actual res) might be. Some find this plausible/explainable and others do not. Hence the philosophical divide. To make this explainable, some seem to want to move SOA (or maybe just the non-actual SOAs) over to the meaning (conceptualization) side. However, if there are SOAs and categories of SOA they all must be on the res side (by definition). That is why I asked my earlier question, asked at the level of 'res'. If we can come to an understanding of what it is for a res to be in this world and not be actual it might help. Keri Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:17:21 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Don Baisley CC: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p7TMHQGe004890 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1315261050.27535@JFxg6DuTWJWW3HhipTGdjg X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov The only thing wrong with the proposed resolution to 16486 is that it is not clear why the RTF addressed it. The concept 's-o-a includes s-o-a' was not in SBVR, and no one seems to have missed it for 5 years. So it is not clear how SBVR would benefit from making the missing concept clear. It appears that the intent was to clarify the meaning of 'state of affairs involves thing in role', where one of the roles is played by a state of affairs. So, perhaps the resolution should say that. I don't see the reason for either of the last two Necessities under 8.6.2. They add nothing to what was defined or said better in other axioms. The middle axiom, in particular, is pointless -- it incorporates the concept 'state of affairs' into the issue of truth of propositions, where it is unnecessary and serves no purpose. Situations in possible worlds have nothing to do with the truth of propositions. And this would-be axiom doesn't say anything about what 'corresponds to' means when the state of affairs is not an actuality, so it doesn't help in defining 'corresponds to'. Finally, all of this belongs in clause 10. It is not a set of concepts that will be used in formulating anything in SBVR or using SBVR. It is rather a set of concepts related to providing a formal semantics for SBVR. We seem to have trouble separating those ideas these days. -Ed Don Baisley wrote: Here is a resolution based on the discussion at the last SBVR call. It include the new necessity statements. I have not yet added a diagram, but I will if there is agreement to add the content. When I get time I will try to make an alternative version that has the more controversial changes people asked for: Modified definitions of .is true. and .is false.. Definition of .occurrence./.happening. in terms of .includes.. All the best, Don *From:* Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] *Sent:* Monday, August 08, 2011 10:25 AM *To:* issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org *Subject:* issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley > To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org " > Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don *From:* Don Baisley *Sent:* Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM *To:* issues@omg.org *Cc:* Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com ) *Subject:* SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR?s explanation of the concept ?state of affairs? could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft -- 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." Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution From: keri Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:40:18 -0700 Cc: Don Baisley , sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Stan Hendryx To: edbark@nist.gov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) On Aug 29, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: And this would-be axiom doesn't say anything about what 'corresponds to' means when the state of affairs is not an actuality, so it doesn't help in defining 'corresponds to'. Thanks, Ed, for mentioning this. I was wanting to ask the following question: We say that: A proposition that "is true" corresponds to a state of affairs that "is actual". If that is the case then which of the following would we say about a proposition that "is not true"? (a) A proposition that is not true corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual. or (b) A proposition that is not true corresponds to no state of affairs. For the sake of this discussion I want to stick with just one world. I played this out at breakfast this morning. I said: We are here, sitting at this table at the Bremerton airport. -- that's an actuality (fact). Then I said: "The table across from us is on fire." (Ed's fire, perhaps). Am I talking about a state of affairs that is not actual, or am I talking about something that has no correspondence to any thing in the world? - Keri Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:49:00 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: keri_ah CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p7TNn6Ov012141 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1315266548.50517@AmYC6Ppo3Yj5o/oURvl6tQ X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov This is not about the resolution of 16486. It is yet another issue with 'state of affairs' Keri wrote: On Aug 29, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Mark H Linehan wrote: I do believe I could explain "proposition" and "actuality" to them if needed, in particular by giving examples. What I don't know is how I could explain the SBVR distinction between "proposition" and "state of affairs". Mark, If we take SOA to be a category of res (which it is in SBVR) then I am hearing the struggle being how to explain that there are some SOAs that are actual and some SOAs that are not actual. Yes, I hear that this gets into worlds (actual/possible). For the moment let's say there is only one world. In that world there are things. Some things are meanings and some things are res's (plural of res). (properly 'rei'. Thank you, Frank Modica, for my freshman Latin course. ) Setting the meaning things aside we have some res's that are SOAs and some that are something else. (I'm not sure what the non-SOA things are -- maybe trees and cars and the like, but that's not important here.) Following down the SOA leg we get some SOAs that are actual and some SOAs that are not actual. I believe that I am hearing a struggle to see what a non-actual SOA (indeed, a non-actual res) might be. Some find this plausible/explainable and others do not. Hence the philosophical divide. To make this explainable, some seem to want to move SOA (or maybe just the non-actual SOAs) over to the meaning (conceptualization) side. However, if there are SOAs and categories of SOA they all must be on the res side (by definition). That is why I asked my earlier question, asked at the level of 'res'. If we can come to an understanding of what it is for a res to be in this world and not be actual it might help. In so many words, this issue has academic origins and is mostly irrelevant to anyone's understanding. Following Ron's observation, this is not something that most of us, or any of the SBVR target audiences -- business modelers and supporting toolsmiths -- should ever care about. And OBTW, NIST could not care less whether 'state of affairs' is a 'meaning' or a 'res'. A res is a thing that is not a 'meaning'. The only properties a meaning has are two: - a meaning can have a representation, whereas a res apparently cannot - a meaning can 'correspond to' other things, while a res apparently cannot 'state of affairs' is not said to have a representation or to correspond to anything. So I guess it must be a res. So what? The important idea here is that a 'state of affairs' is (ooh) NOT A CONCEPT. So it cannot 'correspond to' any actual situations. This avoids any misunderstanding. A 'state of affairs' is a situation that exists (is 'included') in some possible world, but not necessarily in the world that is actual. A proposition corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual in the same way that the concept 'customer' corresponds to an organization that might be a customer in some possible world, but is not a customer in the actual world, or indeed to an organization that might not even exist in the actual world. We NIST find it difficult to make use of that concept of 'corresponds to', but then we were only educated enough to provide formal semantics for BPMN. Since it has no meaning to people who formulated the BPMN standard, we are not surprised that it is so academic as to miss the SBVR audience, as Ron suggested. -Ed Keri -- 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." Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:26:46 -0400 From: Edward Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: keri CC: Don Baisley , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" , Stan Hendryx Subject: Re: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov keri wrote: On Aug 29, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: And this would-be axiom doesn't say anything about what 'corresponds to' means when the state of affairs is not an actuality, so it doesn't help in defining 'corresponds to'. Thanks, Ed, for mentioning this. I was wanting to ask the following question: We say that: A proposition that "is true" corresponds to a state of affairs that "is actual". If that is the case then which of the following would we say about a proposition that "is not true"? (a) A proposition that is not true corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual. or (b) A proposition that is not true corresponds to no state of affairs. Don and Terry say that it is (a). As the proposed new Necessity in 8.6.2 says, A proposition that is not true corresponds to no actuality. Mark's point is that correspondence to anything else isn't very interesting. The NIST opinion is a stronger version of that. For the sake of this discussion I want to stick with just *one* world. You, me and Tarski. Plantinga made it much harder, but in fairness, his ideas are really valuable for database models. Each consistent state of the database represents a different 'possible world', and that world 'includes' all the 'states of affairs' that are represented by the individual rows of the database. If you change one column in one of those rows, you have a different 'possible world'. Usually we only care about the current consistent state, which represents what we take to be the 'actual world', so all the rows represent 'actualities'. But in the case of colliding transactions, or forensics, or data mining, we may want to go back to a previous state of the database and the 'possible world' it represents and use that world as the basis for some analysis. So for that analysis, that previous state is taken to be the 'actual world'. The idea of multiple possible worlds makes formalizing the semantics of transactions much easier. The important idea here is that we choose some 'possible world' to be 'actual' for any given decision or analysis activity. And if we are doing what-ifs, looking at business opportunities and risks, we may choose some hypothetical world as actual for the purpose of that analysis. It is hard to examine the consequences of an acquisition, for example, if you don't start by postulating making the acquisition. So you examine the consequences in the world in which the acquisition is a 'fact'. Only one possible world is 'actual' for a given purpose, and 'is true' and 'exists' and the like are based entirely on what is in that world when we are making decisions about that purpose. 'Actual' is only related to 'current reality' when a model of the real world is the basis for making decisions. I played this out at breakfast this morning. I said: We are here, sitting at this table at the Bremerton airport. -- that's an actuality (fact). Then I said: "The table across from us is on fire." (Ed's fire, perhaps). Am I talking about a state of affairs that is not actual, or am I talking about something that has no correspondence to any thing in the world? You are talking about a 'state of affairs that is not actual'. In some alternate reality, the table across from you might well have been on fire. You might postulate that the table is on fire if you were concerned about the possibility of fire in the restaurant and the table blocked the most obvious escape route. Then you would be asking: Suppose there is a fire and the table across from me is on fire, how would I escape? And that would cause you to look for alternative escape routes. When you do that, you are (formally) making a different world 'actual' for the purposes of planning, and asking what can I do to escape in this world? This may seem a bit strange, but it is precisely what we do when simulating possible decisions, e.g., about production scheduling. We create a possible world in which that decision is made (actual) and then see what happens. The rules we have in place will take effect when certain propositions are 'true', so the simulation must make them 'true' by making the situations they refer to 'actualities' in the simulated world. So, yes, we have one 'actual world' at a time, but there are times when we make some world that is not 'real' the 'actual world' for the purpose of using our rules to see what states result. That is what possible worlds are good for. But in those worlds the interesting states of affairs are the ones that are taken to be actual in the world we are analyzing -- they are just actualities in a different fact model. It is mixing non-actual situations into a model of the 'actual world' that we don't understand. Mark and Stan and I think of these possible situations as 'conceptualizations of situations that might exist', which is what a 'proposition' really is. True/false is just a relationship between a proposition and a possible world. In the real world and the simulated world, different propositions are true. -Ed - Keri -- 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." From: Don Baisley To: "'sbvr-rtf@omg.org'" CC: "'Stan Hendryx (stan@hendryxassoc.com)'" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Topic: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Thread-Index: AcxYb6iDbLwROOZKTPaZ3ErgH/qmQgNmgT0gAGXdDPA= Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:57:08 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33] Two documents are attached. One is the proposed resolution that I sent August 28th. The other is the same plus some other content which is more controversial and is annotated and marked in the document. I was asked to add that content at last Friday.s SBVR RTF call. Both documents addresses Date-Time.s reported top concern about how a proposition that corresponds to a single state of affairs relates to multiple propositions (any of which could make the proposition true). Best regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:18 PM To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Here is a resolution based on the discussion at the last SBVR call. It include the new necessity statements. I have not yet added a diagram, but I will if there is agreement to add the content. When I get time I will try to make an alternative version that has the more controversial changes people asked for: Modified definitions of .is true. and .is false.. Definition of .occurrence./.happening. in terms of .includes.. All the best, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:25 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR?s explanation of the concept ?state of affairs? could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft SBVR Issue 164862.doc SBVR Issue 16486 plus.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Also, add related structural rules to 8.6.2. Revised Text: [I find that the existing definitions of .is true. and .is false. are more clear than the rewordings below. I would leave them alone. The following change reflects what was discussed in the RTF meeting. The same intent can be captured with a structural rule as shown for 8.6.2 below. I prefer adding structural rules to changing the definitions.] In 8.1.2 REPLACE the definition of .proposition is true. with this: Definition: the proposition to which the state of affairs corresponds is actual In 8.1.2 REPLACE the definition of .proposition is false. with this: Definition: the proposition to which the state of affairs corresponds is not actual In 8.6 REPLACE figure 8.9 with the following figure: [FIGURE TO BE PROVIDED] In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual Source: based on SEP (Actualism/Possible Worlds) .Say that one state of affairs s includes another s. if and only if it is not possible that s obtain without s. obtaining.. Necessity: Each state of affairs that is included by an actuality is actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement (per .state of affairs involves thing in role. defined above) of one state of affairs in another one does not imply inclusion. [The synonymous form below suggests a way that the .includes. fact type could be a basis for kind of .occurrence.. But that signifier .occurrence. is not used in order to not conflict with the term defined in the Date-Time submission. The idea is that the same circumstance can be a part of many different situations, each of which is a different context (possibly temporal) for that circumstance. I am not recommending that SBVR add this synonymous form, but I put it here for discussion.] Synonymous Form: state of affairs2 occurs in state of affairs1 state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual Necessity: Each state of affairs that is excluded by an actuality is not actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open. In 8.6.2 Add the following after the Necessity statement that starts, .Each proposition that is true ...: Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to no actuality. [The following two structural rules capture in more plain language what was discussed about the definition of .is true. and .is false. without changing those definitions.] Necessity: Each proposition that is true corresponds to a state of affairs that is actual. Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual. [The following two structural addresses the how a proposition corresponds to one state of affairs, but can be made true by many different actualities. The first of the two rules does not use the new .includes. fact type, so it could be added separately if desired.] Necessity: A proposition corresponds to a state of affair if and only if it is necessary that the proposition is true if the state of affairs is actual and it is necessary that the proposition is false if the state of affairs is not actual. Necessity: Each proposition that corresponds to a state of affairs that is included by an actuality is true. In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Don Baisley'" , Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:34:23 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQG9wu8Ql6Cf0k8IcsyW9bN4oAqiOgIhHvwFlUL+sRA= X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4E5E0E30.001D, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.8.31.94515:17:7.944, 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_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, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NAME, __C230066_P5, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0202.4E5E0E31.01F2,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 Don, It.s no wonder that you.re not comfortable with the revised wording of the definitions of .is true . and .is false. that you have in the attached Issue Resolution document. The discussion in the telecom and the Meeting Notes had the verb as active when it should have been passive. The intent of the discussion in the meeting was that the definition start with .the state of affairs. · Clarify the definitions . without changing the meaning. ¨ .proposition is true. to be .the state of affairs to which that is corresponded to by the proposition corresponds is actual ¨ .proposition is false. to be .the state of affairs to which that is corresponded to by the proposition corresponds is not actual Donald From: Don Baisley [mailto:Don.Baisley@microsoft.com] Sent: 31 August 2011 06:57 To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Cc: 'Stan Hendryx (stan@hendryxassoc.com)' Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Two documents are attached. One is the proposed resolution that I sent August 28th. The other is the same plus some other content which is more controversial and is annotated and marked in the document. I was asked to add that content at last Friday.s SBVR RTF call. Both documents addresses Date-Time.s reported top concern about how a proposition that corresponds to a single state of affairs relates to multiple propositions (any of which could make the proposition true). Best regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:18 PM To: 'sbvr-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue -- proposed resolution Here is a resolution based on the discussion at the last SBVR call. It include the new necessity statements. I have not yet added a diagram, but I will if there is agreement to add the content. When I get time I will try to make an alternative version that has the more controversial changes people asked for: Modified definitions of .is true. and .is false.. Definition of .occurrence./.happening. in terms of .includes.. All the best, Don From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:25 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR?s explanation of the concept ?state of affairs? could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft SBVR Issue 16486 plus1.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Also, add related structural rules to 8.6.2. Revised Text: [I find that the existing definitions of .is true. and .is false. are more clear than the rewordings below. I would leave them alone. The following change reflects what was discussed in the RTF meeting. The same intent can be captured with a structural rule as shown for 8.6.2 below. I prefer adding structural rules to changing the definitions.] In 8.1.2 REPLACE the definition of .proposition is true. with this: Definition: the proposition to which the state of affairs corresponds is actual In 8.1.2 REPLACE the definition of .proposition is false. with this: Definition: the proposition to which the state of affairs corresponds is not actual In 8.6 REPLACE figure 8.9 with the following figure: [FIGURE TO BE PROVIDED] In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual Source: based on SEP (Actualism/Possible Worlds) .Say that one state of affairs s includes another s. if and only if it is not possible that s obtain without s. obtaining.. Necessity: Each state of affairs that is included by an actuality is actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement (per .state of affairs involves thing in role. defined above) of one state of affairs in another one does not imply inclusion. [The synonymous form below suggests a way that the .includes. fact type could be a basis for kind of .occurrence.. But that signifier .occurrence. is not used in order to not conflict with the term defined in the Date-Time submission. The idea is that the same circumstance can be a part of many different situations, each of which is a different context (possibly temporal) for that circumstance. I am not recommending that SBVR add this synonymous form, but I put it here for discussion.] Synonymous Form: state of affairs2 occurs in state of affairs1 state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual Necessity: Each state of affairs that is excluded by an actuality is not actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open. In 8.6.2 Add the following after the Necessity statement that starts, .Each proposition that is true ...: Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to no actuality. [The following two structural rules capture in more plain language what was discussed about the definition of .is true. and .is false. without changing those definitions.] Necessity: Each proposition that is true corresponds to a state of affairs that is actual. Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual. [The following two structural addresses the how a proposition corresponds to one state of affairs, but can be made true by many different actualities. The first of the two rules does not use the new .includes. fact type, so it could be added separately if desired.] Necessity: A proposition corresponds to a state of affair if and only if it is necessary that the proposition is true if the state of affairs is actual and it is necessary that the proposition is false if the state of affairs is not actual. Necessity: Each proposition that corresponds to a state of affairs that is included by an actuality is true. In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved From: Don Baisley To: "'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" Subject: FW: SBVR 16486 Thread-Topic: SBVR 16486 Thread-Index: Acxye4NSlaADpjeCR76N8UuEtzoHQwCCDuew Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:18:48 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.76] For discussion at today.s RTF call. For 16486 I used a short example that fits neatly in section 8.6 and that is related to another example in that section. The new example, which matches the added structural rule where Mark wanted an example, is placed in the entry for the relationship it is about: .meaning corresponds to thing.. Thanks, Don SBVR Issue 16486 plus2.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Also, add related structural rules to 8.6.2. Revised Text: In 8.1.2 REPLACE the definition of .proposition is true. with this: Definition: the state of affairs that the proposition corresponds to is actual In 8.1.2 REPLACE the definition of .proposition is false. with this: Definition: the state of affairs that the proposition corresponds to is not actual In 8.6 REPLACE figure 8.9 with the following figure: [FIGURE TO BE PROVIDED] In 8.6 ADD the following at the end of the entry for .meaning corresponds to thing.. Example: The proposition, .Some EU-Rent branch is open., corresponds to exactly one state of affairs and the proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is open., corresponds to exactly one, but a different states of affairs. The first proposition is true if some EU-Rent branch is open, so it is true if the London EU-Rent branch is open, but the first proposition could be true even if the London EU-Rent branch is not open, because another branch could be open. The one state of affair to which a proposition corresponds is the one for which being actual necessarily makes the proposition true and being not actual necessarily makes the proposition false. In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual Source: based on SEP (Actualism/Possible Worlds) .Say that one state of affairs s includes another s. if and only if it is not possible that s obtain without s. obtaining.. Necessity: Each state of affairs that is included by an actuality is actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement (per .state of affairs involves thing in role. defined above) of one state of affairs in another one does not imply inclusion. state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual Necessity: Each state of affairs that is excluded by an actuality is not actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open. In 8.6.2 Add the following after the Necessity statement that starts, .Each proposition that is true ...: Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to no actuality. Necessity: Each proposition that is true corresponds to a state of affairs that is actual. Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual. Necessity: A proposition corresponds to a state of affairs if and only if it is necessary that the proposition is true if the state of affairs is actual and it is necessary that the proposition is false if the state of affairs is not actual. Necessity: Each proposition that corresponds to a state of affairs that is included by an actuality is true. In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 645796.70297.bm@omp1013.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1316193096; bh=Z2AWA601iGBH+pVbwt+naXQm3WcrbZeOcLzYwDXCMHU=; 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=D7E4pQ+VyOXb74zrYxyS3EUUI743xuM05O7+9gkJRZb4XwI0rWi8x1cvq/PfM3bSX77kYKosWdcvw9JJS8aQfIN64gtFpbf9yAeB3nmZjDhBQyc6FMnvlViMxTRS2p74fqN0z6Cv9CeRdguZLUZsBLPETAi7ytYClJawP3achq4= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 4j_SDskVM1nYzHuCK5QVZMs6TuEtz9.7hBm0V190diJRUB4 GZHds53EL7BBPnkxqcRNOm.Rka5K8ItFKECz1IB4oGJHht4mMYNeFXwaKYax 8boUq96x69WfmCFFZIgeLWsc1M0q75diT85NxMrp9ZBIWk.Y8YVviJjYXGBU NiJp.fU1bdgezpt9sT5WpEiIvlkLMXb3cyvKX1pFN5Kx7eOjGZ.OrRFtLSi2 thd7nSX12X3yw_v8glNooISPznQomqVCNjHBJZjeA9_swQBpskl0aGa7bEjU SH3HOQzIr0MmlM12fp7GG2wz1nrpJ71v3OyFEaYbKYXs1Y0V.OdGaPGRQ23b yT4H1aB1QPhJMO1SqwcO79WpA8UmfuxqhAinXpR7LD7lw8vQ38pp9D75NErG CGr2V.BJ6Ssd37Fv.bbjCPJovhsN_7wB4YBpNrBuUpHOPEW4Ro0C0oeKBnmC 8f6exGWKACQyiBoIeY522wwyyIh4qyX__oA9PsVIaTKEEqHTqV7zTLF3zJOk TLDZYKgO5Giz4T5CT9Osz7DPUbLmtoJqRsbKawVgPN9eWaRp2owrJ.Xl2tlc C89fewJvzcNfOXWbHsuuXxOi4.iNBYEF81CCpZrbLWFtS25RFuy2py4AJ1CK L3FgHJIk5vMBY0kjVrNDst846wav22qi4y2xgI07u X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:11:30 -0500 To: Don Baisley , "'SBVR RTF' \(sbvr-rtf@omg.org\)" From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: FW: SBVR 16486 All, In MWUD, definition 2b for "include" lists "to take in". Would renaming the fact type to "takes in" provide more intuitive (but still accurate) wording for the fact type? Ron At 10:18 AM 9/16/2011, Don Baisley wrote: For discussion at today RTF call. For 16486 I used a short example that fits neatly in section 8.6 and that is related to another example in that section. The new example, which matches the added structural rule where Mark wanted an example, is placed in the entry for the relationship it is about: meaning corresponds to thing Thanks, Don 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 Subject: Re: SBVR 16486 From: keri Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:03:23 -0700 Cc: Don Baisley , "'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" To: "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Hmmm... In the example that worked for me (the one about the ever-expanding scope of geography) "takes in" doesn't seem like a fit -- it would be more something like "expands out" (which is awful for an actual verb). Something more like: 'encompass' or 'cover'? ~ Keri On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Ronald G. Ross wrote: In MWUD, definition 2b for "include" lists "to take in". Would renaming the fact type to "takes in" provide more intuitive (but still accurate) wording for the fact type? X-SpamScore: -20 X-BigFish: PS-20(z21cILzc85fhzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h34h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT007.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHMVfDcvaD9JaBdTkSCT3+nGu+fGpV+Jqeg Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:43:47 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [76.104.188.194] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT007.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: TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com An updated resolution to issue 16486 is attached. It includes an updated diagram 8.9. It excludes the definitions of .is true. and .is false. which have been moved into the draft resolution for issue 16526. Best regards, Don Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft X-SpamScore: -20 X-BigFish: PS-20(z21cILzc85fhzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h34h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT X-FB-SS: 13, From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHMVfDcvaD9JaBdTkSCT3+nGu+fGpV+JqeggAh5b+A= Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:05:31 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [76.104.188.194] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT002.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: TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com A resolution for issue 16486 is attached. It includes the changes agreed on Wednesday.s RTF call and is ready for ballot. Regards, Don Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft Issue 16486.doc From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:01:14 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJpikR/2z+EQBDcurKeYqhOxUzwhJYXx3Yg X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.5022712C.005C, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.8.8.133332:17:7.944, 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, __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_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0209.50227130.00FA,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 a draft resolution for Issue 16486 that is part of the package of five that addresses the .state of affairs. question. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 08 August 2011 18:25 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft Issue 16486 - SBVR Relationships between States of Affairs (2012-08-08) .doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: Add fact types .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. and .state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2.. Add a note to the entry for .situation., defined as a set of circumstances, to refer to the .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. entry about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Also, add related structural rules to 8.6.2. Role names had been suggested for the fact type roles of the fact type, .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2., but they have not been used because they carry connotations that go beyond the defined meaning. Revised Text: In 8.6 REPLACE figure 8.9 with the following figure: In 8.6 ADD the following at the end of the entry for .proposition corresponds to state of affairs.. Example: The proposition, .Some EU-Rent branch is open., corresponds to exactly one state of affairs and the proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is open., corresponds to exactly one, but a different state of affairs. The first proposition is true if some EU-Rent branch is open, so it is true if the London EU-Rent branch is open, but the first proposition could be true even if the London EU-Rent branch is not open, because another branch could be open. The one state of affair to which a proposition corresponds is the one for which being actual necessarily makes the proposition true and being not actual necessarily makes the proposition false. In 8.6 ADD the following new entries after the entry for .state of affairs involves thing in role.. state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is not actual Source: based on SEP (Actualism/Possible Worlds) .Say that one state of affairs s includes another s. if and only if it is not possible that s obtain without s. obtaining.. Necessity: Each state of affairs that is included by an actuality is actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open, but it is open frequently., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes several other states of affairs: 1. the London EU-Rent branch existing 2. the London EU-Rent branch not being open 3. the London EU-Rent branch being open frequently. Number 3 above does not include the London EU-Rent branch being open, even though it involves the London EU-Rent branch being open in a fact type role (the .state of affairs. role of the fact type .state of affairs occurs frequently.). Involvement (per .state of affairs involves thing in role. defined above) of one state of affairs in another one does not imply inclusion. Example: The proposition, .Each EU-Rent branch is open, and the London EU-Rent branch is a EU-Rent branch., corresponds to a state of affairs that includes the London EU-Rent branch being open. Conversely, the proposition, .Some EU-Rent branch is open., corresponds to a state of affairs that does not include but is included by the London EU-Rent branch being open. state of affairs1 excludes state of affairs2 Definition: it is impossible that the state of affairs1 is actual and the state of affairs2 is actual Necessity: Each state of affairs that is excluded by an actuality is not actual. Example: The proposition, .The London EU-Rent branch is not open., corresponds to a state of affairs that excludes the London EU-Rent branch being open and further excludes each EU-Rent branch being open. In 8.6.2 Add the following after the Necessity statement that starts, .Each proposition that is true ...: Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to no actuality. Necessity: Each proposition that is true corresponds to a state of affairs that is actual. Necessity: Each proposition that is false corresponds to a state of affairs that is not actual. Necessity: A proposition corresponds to a state of affairs if and only if it is necessary that the proposition is true if the state of affairs is actual and it is necessary that the proposition is false if the state of affairs is not actual. Necessity: Each proposition that corresponds to a state of affairs that is included by an actuality is true. In 9.2.5 at the end of the entry for .implication. on printed page 60 ADD the following Notes: Note: Logical Implication, which is .material implication. plus a necessity in a logical formulation in an SBVR model parallels .state of affairs includes state of affairs. in the universe of discourse. If it is necessary or desirable to show a .state of affairs includes state of affairs. in an SBVR Business Vocabulary or Rulebook, then .material implication. + necessity is used. It must be done this way because only propositions, and never states of affairs, go into SBVR Business Vocabularies and Rulebooks. Note: The paradoxes of material implication are a group of formulas which are truths of classical logic, but which are intuitively problematic. This is also true for .state of affairs includes state of affairs. which parallels logical implication (materila implication + necessity). It is very important to be very clear about how material implication and .state of affairs includes state of affairs. work, before attempting to use material implication in an SBVR logical formulation. For full explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication In 11.1.5 at the end of the entry for .situation. ADD the following note. Note: See .state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2. about the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:15:37 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJpikR/2z+EQBDcurKeYqhOxUzwhJZQGy/w X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.5051B24C.019B, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.9.13.95416:17:7.944, 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, __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_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.5051B24E.01C5,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 a revised resolution for SBVR Issue 16484 updated to state that direct relationships between states of affairs do not need to added to SBVR. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 08 August 2011 18:25 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16486 -- SBVR RTF issue From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution to new SBVR Issue about includes/excludes Thread-Index: AcxSvXV9SgShxzroRsW/if27YApQgQAcLntw Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:16:17 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] A proposed resolution is attached. Regards, Don From: Don Baisley Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:48 AM To: issues@omg.org Cc: Donald Chapin (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Subject: SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR Issue - Relationships between States of Affairs SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Don Baisley Microsoft Issue 16486 - SBVR Relationships between States of Affairs (2012-09-12) .doc Disposition: No Change OMG Issue No: 16486 Title: Relationships between States of Affairs Source: Don Baisley, don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: SBVR.s explanation of the concept .state of affairs. could be improved by clarifying how states of affairs include or exclude each other. This is relevant to distinguishing involvement (already defined in SBVR) from inclusion. It is also relevant to understanding the relationship between a situation and the circumstances it includes. Resolution: The only reason for including .state of affairs. as a concept in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary is to be able to talk about the referent in the universe of discourse (the universe of organization that uses the SBVR Business Vocabulary) of propositions, verb concepts and some kinds of noun concepts. States of affairs never go in an SBVR Business Vocabulary or Rulebook or even a database. Meanings (via their representation) that correspond to the states of affairs go into SBVR Business Vocabularies as concepts and propositions. If relationships between states of affairs in the universe of discourse need to be referenced in an SBVR Business Vocabulary or Rulebook, they are entered as relationships between the propositions that correspond to them using Semantic Formulations. SBVR Clause 9 provides full support for relationships between propositions and for referencing states of affairs via closed logical formulations of the propositions that correspond to them. There is no need to add direct relationships between states of affairs to SBVR. Revised Text: No Change Disposition: No Change