Issue 16491: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Rule Solutions, LLC (Mr. Ron Ross, rross(at)brsolutions.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 12, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m -r issue16491hoo-Newman-Id: 644753.45202.bm@omp1002.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1313170482; bh=MMCNgz2ZsjI2B8cuA+fHR78sf1ezhTjJDtnJt5usg9c=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=VWDVo9Sd+mQChDcPZW/h0iBTEN9IzcBNaYx6UkLKHflkTv2LxuS9TLQCe/wE//UdUg/5pmhyKqx76FvLfnBFS6zO+AoJOVh3JVlsoi58iNFUMPUXS3yWs4SxL5utSDuiWNmiO5WhWWK//52l6xBuzlxyMV5TBR6yGQgA+k8/dE4= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: eFbocjEVM1nmBrDugA0ijqEaE3ZUcxl6zZKom9_jqqtlWp5 _HZEkgAzvWtwaq3zVdPrZXtVJ6KFzpz3LnJ.apjfOULtjprIvKse2CjBfcK6 PWL6wKXkh7SPWbIoSc29hHT9di5RhJZE0nrj6FT59wKtwGiKWCJvFcZxOmh0 HLFc0OVK2t.ni0hGPVsEpMJmt1INS6e1U2ytOpv49NEthLg09zzK_agwGpaI HBojFbuZmC1wlKAEulpbQdC5v7T9HzlNXS6pWfqwZlzOE.IMPWztiIQwpUQx N7arioLg7A2cpnSVEVEmAOiug9bJHtqKM5GPW.ene9OZwBYxtv4jjtuOmHVZ wjaNjXHvrpEHxoCFfSEldxcIhoQXArmVOLG2sCtu.SZEEngQcYb1j7uoHbif ymm9Wae8J4LzArkxPURqDQHgywPqEGwUal1m8 X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813,1.0.211,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-10-27_06:2011-10-27,2011-10-27,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=3 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1110270237 Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) From: keri Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:20:53 -0700 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: Donald Chapin , "Ronald G. Ross" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. ~ Keri On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: > Ron, > > I didn.t say that very well in my attempt to get an answer out. I meant to say all the references to .objectification. in Clause 9. > > But I now see that there are references throughout the specification that need to be examined to see which meaning they carry, and the appropriate signifier substituted. > > Sorry for the confusion. > > Donald > > > From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] > Sent: 26 October 2011 18:21 > To: Donald Chapin; 'keri'; sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution > > At 08:18 AM 10/26/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: > > Ron, > > We agreed in Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon, as per the notes I took during the telecon, that Clause .objectification. would be renamed to .objectifying formulation.. > > I don't see how re-naming a subsections?) addresses (my concern(s)? It thought it was the *entry* we were talking about renaming(?!) Subclause headings are probably not even normative. > > > Rm > > > > Donald > > > From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] > Sent: 25 October 2011 23:11 > To: keri; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution > > At 03:55 PM 10/25/2011, keri wrote: > > Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: > > All, > > I have looked over the draft resolution. Keri has done a nice job bringing this together. A couple of comments: > > 1. I would like to see an (additional) business example in which the signifier for the fact type objectification is a single word. That would remove any doubt whether such a choice is possible. I believe Terry uses the example "sponsorship". I'm not sure what fact type Terry uses, but I believe "company sponsors publication" would probably do. > > 2. I remain dissatisfied that SBVR uses "objectification" (a) to mean both an act (of logical formulation) and a result of such, and (b) to refer to something (logical formulation) other than the usual real-world meaning of the term. We seem to forget we are creating a business vocabulary. However, it appears I am essentially alone on the point, so I will not pursue it further unless anybody rallies to the cause. Seems like poor practice to me, however. > > 3. I was *very* surprised to learn that SBVR currently supports no way to say "here is a fact type objectification" directly. This is an important element of structure that whose specification SBVR needs to support directly. Fortunately we caught this one, but I wonder if there are any other elements of structure missing from SBVR in that same sense?? I Haven't been able to think of any, but it worries me. > > Ron > > > > > > > ~ Keri > > > > On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 > >> To: Juergen Boldt > >> From: "Ronald G. Ross" > >> Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) > >> > >> Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed > >> > >> Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. > >> > >> Resolution: > >> > >> 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". > >> > >> 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. > >> > >> 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). > >> > >> Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). > > > > > Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: > > > > ~ Keri > > > > On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: > > Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 > To: Juergen Boldt > From: "Ronald G. Ross" > Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) > > Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed > > Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. > > Resolution: > > 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". > > 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. > > 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). > > Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). > > > > Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ > LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 > Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross > Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info > > > > Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ > LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 > Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross > Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info > > Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. Issue 16491 (v3).doc ~ Keri On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, I didn.t say that very well in my attempt to get an answer out. I meant to say all the references to .objectification. in Clause 9. But I now see that there are references throughout the specification that need to be examined to see which meaning they carry, and the appropriate signifier substituted. Sorry for the confusion. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 18:21 To: Donald Chapin; 'keri'; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 08:18 AM 10/26/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, We agreed in Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon, as per the notes I took during the telecon, that Clause .objectification. would be renamed to .objectifying formulation.. I don't see how re-naming a subsections?) addresses (my concern(s)? It thought it was the *entry* we were talking about renaming(?!) Subclause headings are probably not even normative. Rm Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 25 October 2011 23:11 To: keri; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 03:55 PM 10/25/2011, keri wrote: Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: All, I have looked over the draft resolution. Keri has done a nice job bringing this together. A couple of comments: 1. I would like to see an (additional) business example in which the signifier for the fact type objectification is a single word. That would remove any doubt whether such a choice is possible. I believe Terry uses the example "sponsorship". I'm not sure what fact type Terry uses, but I believe "company sponsors publication" would probably do. 2. I remain dissatisfied that SBVR uses "objectification" (a) to mean both an act (of logical formulation) and a result of such, and (b) to refer to something (logical formulation) other than the usual real-world meaning of the term. We seem to forget we are creating a business vocabulary. However, it appears I am essentially alone on the point, so I will not pursue it further unless anybody rallies to the cause. Seems like poor practice to me, however. 3. I was *very* surprised to learn that SBVR currently supports no way to say "here is a fact type objectification" directly. This is an important element of structure that whose specification SBVR needs to support directly. Fortunately we caught this one, but I wonder if there are any other elements of structure missing from SBVR in that same sense?? I Haven't been able to think of any, but it worries me. Ron ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 >> To: Juergen Boldt >> From: "Ronald G. Ross" >> Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) >> >> Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed >> >> Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. >> >> Resolution: >> >> 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". >> >> 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. >> >> 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). >> >> Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). > Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:00:04 +0100 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: keri CC: Donald Chapin , "Ronald G. Ross" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Keri, Just a minor point, that we ought to be able to decide with a quick 'yes' or 'no' in tomorrow's teleconference: could we style the definition of "general concept objectifies verb concept" fully? general concept objectifies verb concept Definition: the general concept incorporates the characteristics that are incorporated in the verb concept Necessity: the general concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated in the verb concept If it needs discussion, I'll withdraw the suggestion rather than take up teleconference time. Regards, John On 27/10/2011 21:20, keri wrote: Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Keri On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, I didn.t say that very well in my attempt to get an answer out. I meant to say all the references to .objectification. in Clause 9. But I now see that there are references throughout the specification that need to be examined to see which meaning they carry, and the appropriate signifier substituted. Sorry for the confusion. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 18:21 To: Donald Chapin; 'keri'; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 08:18 AM 10/26/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, We agreed in Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon, as per the notes I took during the telecon, that Clause .objectification. would be renamed to .objectifying formulation.. I don't see how re-naming a subsections?) addresses (my concern(s)? It thought it was the *entry* we were talking about renaming(?!) Subclause headings are probably not even normative. Rm Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 25 October 2011 23:11 To: keri; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 03:55 PM 10/25/2011, keri wrote: Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: All, I have looked over the draft resolution. Keri has done a nice job bringing this together. A couple of comments: 1. I would like to see an (additional) business example in which the signifier for the fact type objectification is a single word. That would remove any doubt whether such a choice is possible. I believe Terry uses the example "sponsorship". I'm not sure what fact type Terry uses, but I believe "company sponsors publication" would probably do. 2. I remain dissatisfied that SBVR uses "objectification" (a) to mean both an act (of logical formulation) and a result of such, and (b) to refer to something (logical formulation) other than the usual real-world meaning of the term. We seem to forget we are creating a business vocabulary. However, it appears I am essentially alone on the point, so I will not pursue it further unless anybody rallies to the cause. Seems like poor practice to me, however. 3. I was *very* surprised to learn that SBVR currently supports no way to say "here is a fact type objectification" directly. This is an important element of structure that whose specification SBVR needs to support directly. Fortunately we caught this one, but I wonder if there are any other elements of structure missing from SBVR in that same sense?? I Haven't been able to think of any, but it worries me. Ron ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 >> To: Juergen Boldt >> From: "Ronald G. Ross" >> Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) >> >> Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed >> >> Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. >> >> Resolution: >> >> 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". >> >> 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. >> >> 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). >> >> Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). > Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:25:28 +0100 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: John Hall CC: keri , Donald Chapin , "Ronald G. Ross" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) - oops X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Keri, Sorry, I did the first version of this too quickly. It can be done simply with 'and' general concept objectifies verb concept Definition: the general concept incorporates the characteristics that are incorporated by the verb concept and the general concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated by the verb concept The necessity in the original was incomplete (necessities should be self-contained): general concept objectifies verb concept Definition: the general concept incorporates the characteristics that are incorporated by the verb concept Necessity: A general concept that objectifies a verb concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated by the verb concept. Regards, John On 27/10/2011 22:00, John Hall wrote: Keri, Just a minor point, that we ought to be able to decide with a quick 'yes' or 'no' in tomorrow's teleconference: could we style the definition of "general concept objectifies verb concept" fully? general concept objectifies verb concept Definition: the general concept incorporates the characteristics that are incorporated in the verb concept Necessity: the general concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated in the verb concept If it needs discussion, I'll withdraw the suggestion rather than take up teleconference time. Regards, John On 27/10/2011 21:20, keri wrote: Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Text inserted by Panda GP 2011: This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Keri On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, I didn.t say that very well in my attempt to get an answer out. I meant to say all the references to .objectification. in Clause 9. But I now see that there are references throughout the specification that need to be examined to see which meaning they carry, and the appropriate signifier substituted. Sorry for the confusion. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 18:21 To: Donald Chapin; 'keri'; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 08:18 AM 10/26/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, We agreed in Friday.s SBVR RTF telecon, as per the notes I took during the telecon, that Clause .objectification. would be renamed to .objectifying formulation.. I don't see how re-naming a subsections?) addresses (my concern(s)? It thought it was the *entry* we were talking about renaming(?!) Subclause headings are probably not even normative. Rm Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 25 October 2011 23:11 To: keri; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 03:55 PM 10/25/2011, keri wrote: Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: All, I have looked over the draft resolution. Keri has done a nice job bringing this together. A couple of comments: 1. I would like to see an (additional) business example in which the signifier for the fact type objectification is a single word. That would remove any doubt whether such a choice is possible. I believe Terry uses the example "sponsorship". I'm not sure what fact type Terry uses, but I believe "company sponsors publication" would probably do. 2. I remain dissatisfied that SBVR uses "objectification" (a) to mean both an act (of logical formulation) and a result of such, and (b) to refer to something (logical formulation) other than the usual real-world meaning of the term. We seem to forget we are creating a business vocabulary. However, it appears I am essentially alone on the point, so I will not pursue it further unless anybody rallies to the cause. Seems like poor practice to me, however. 3. I was *very* surprised to learn that SBVR currently supports no way to say "here is a fact type objectification" directly. This is an important element of structure that whose specification SBVR needs to support directly. Fortunately we caught this one, but I wonder if there are any other elements of structure missing from SBVR in that same sense?? I Haven't been able to think of any, but it worries me. Ron ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 >> To: Juergen Boldt >> From: "Ronald G. Ross" >> Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) >> >> Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed >> >> Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. >> >> Resolution: >> >> 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". >> >> 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. >> >> 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). >> >> Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). > Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info X-SpamScore: -29 X-BigFish: PS-29(z21cILzbb2dK9371Kc85fh98dKzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:SKI;H:SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;R:internal;EFV:INT From: Don Baisley To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) - oops Thread-Topic: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) - oops Thread-Index: AQHMlRkz/sQWWoj2H0Ks7t+RLMtY3JWREOtw Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:04:30 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [76.104.188.194] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%OMG.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn% X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com John is correct. The definition can be written to be fully styled in SBVR Structured English. I would change .the characteristics that are. to .each characteristic that is.. Best regards, Don From: John Hall [mailto:john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:25 PM To: John Hall Cc: keri; Donald Chapin; Ronald G. Ross; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) - oops Keri, Sorry, I did the first version of this too quickly. It can be done simply with 'and' general concept objectifies verb concept Definition: the general concept incorporates the characteristics that are incorporated by the verb concept and the general concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated by the verb concept The necessity in the original was incomplete (necessities should be self-contained): general concept objectifies verb concept Definition: the general concept incorporates the characteristics that are incorporated by the verb concept Necessity: A general concept that objectifies a verb concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated by the verb concept. Regards, John On 27/10/2011 22:00, John Hall wrote: Keri, Just a minor point, that we ought to be able to decide with a quick 'yes' or 'no' in tomorrow's teleconference: could we style the definition of "general concept objectifies verb concept" fully? general concept objectifies verb concept From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'keri'" , "'Ronald G. Ross'" Cc: Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:36:04 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQI+6V5xNUT3t6elU1viIK6/M56a9gIeUuR7AfMGyvkDGSdUPgL7S7E4ArnCy50Ckadqz5QxTNGw X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EAA7787.0002, actions=TAG X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.10.28.84214:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __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_50_70, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr06.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4EAA778B.006C,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Attached is Keri.s latest draft resolution for Issue 16491 with some text added under the .Resolution. heading to be very explicit about how fixing this Issue fits under the remit of an OMG FTF/RTF. Donald From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 21:21 To: Donald Chapin; Ronald G. Ross Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. Issue 16491 (v3) - 'Resolution' Text Strengthened.doc X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813,1.0.211,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-10-28_03:2011-10-28,2011-10-28,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1110280053 Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated-v4) From: keri Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:20:38 -0700 Cc: "'Ronald G. Ross'" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org To: Donald Chapin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Here is an updated/corrected write-up, reflecting: Donald's text for the Resolution paragraph, John's/Don's improved (fully formal) wording for the fact type, and the additions made to the latest C.D. version of the Figure (as noted by Ron). Question: Is the Necessity given for the new fact type still needed? Keri On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: > Attached is Keri.s latest draft resolution for Issue 16491 with some text added under the .Resolution. heading to be very explicit about how fixing this Issue fits under the remit of an OMG FTF/RTF. > > Donald > > > From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] > Sent: 27 October 2011 21:21 > To: Donald Chapin; Ronald G. Ross > Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) > > Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). > > A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. > > Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. > > Here is an updated/corrected write-up, reflecting: Donald's text for the Resolution paragraph, John's/Don's improved (fully formal) wording for the fact type, and the additions made to the latest C.D. version of the Figure (as noted by Ron). Question: Is the Necessity given for the new fact type still needed? Keri Issue 16491 (v4).doc On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: Attached is Keri.s latest draft resolution for Issue 16491 with some text added under the .Resolution. heading to be very explicit about how fixing this Issue fits under the remit of an OMG FTF/RTF. Donald From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 21:21 To: Donald Chapin; Ronald G. Ross Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say .exactly one. because we cannot prove .exactly one.. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated-v4) X-KeepSent: BCB6896F:B32512B6-85257937:0045532B; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:49:28 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 10/28/2011 08:49:29, Serialize complete at 10/28/2011 08:49:29 x-cbid: 11102812-5930-0000-0000-000000A6B64C I don't understand these two Necessities under " verb concept objectification": Necessity: Each verb concept objectification objectifies at least one verb concept. Necessity: Each verb concept is objectified by at most one general concept. How would a verb concept objectification objectify more than one verb concept? I assume the reason for the second Necessity is that if two general concepts objectify the same verb concept then they must be synonyms since they incorporate the same characteristics. Can't we say that in a note rather than leaving people to wonder? Regarding the proposed changes to C.1.5, I think "SBVR Structured English supports objectifying states of affairs using a convenient mechanism" is wrong. A "state of affairs" is the result of the objectification of a "proposition". So the text should read "... objectifying propositions ...." A similar point applies to the proposed replacement text âobjectifies the state of affairs denoted by a propositional expression in the position of the placeholder and thatâ. The following comment is probably a separate issue. I believe the text C.1.5 is wrong. I think that when a vocabulary defines a fact type role as a kind of state of affairs, then any use of the verb concept "coerces" any propositional expression in the position of the role to be objectified. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: keri To: Donald Chapin Cc: "'Ronald G. Ross'" , sbvr-rtf@omg.org Date: 10/28/2011 06:24 AM Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated-v4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is an updated/corrected write-up, reflecting: Donald's text for the Resolution paragraph, John's/Don's improved (fully formal) wording for the fact type, and the additions made to the latest C.D. version of the Figure (as noted by Ron). Question: Is the Necessity given for the new fact type still needed? Keri [attachment "Issue 16491 (v4).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: Attached is Keriâs latest draft resolution for Issue 16491 with some text added under the âResolutionâ heading to be very explicit about how fixing this Issue fits under the remit of an OMG FTF/RTF. Donald From: keri [mailto:keri_ah@mac.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 21:21 To: Donald Chapin; Ronald G. Ross Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say âexactly oneâ because we cannot prove âexactly oneâ. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) X-KeepSent: C51F40E3:B5A201AE-85257937:00482616; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:13:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 10/28/2011 09:11:39, Serialize complete at 10/28/2011 09:11:39 x-cbid: 11102813-5806-0000-0000-0000006995AE I don't understand how "The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics." By definition, a binary fact type has two fact type roles and specifies a relationship between the roles, whereas a characteristic has one fact type role and specifies something about that role. It seems to me that fact types that have different numbers of fact type roles necessarily incorporate different characteristics. Otherwise, you could drop one or more fact type roles from the fact type and still have the same meaning. So the only way that "a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics" is if the meaning of the binary verb concept is agnostic with respect to one of its fact type roles. At the least, that would be poor vocabulary formation. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: keri To: Donald Chapin , "Ronald G. Ross" Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Date: 10/27/2011 04:24 PM Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution (updated) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached is an updated write-up for 16491 for discussion tomorrow (or, if you spot anything needing tending to today, please get back to me today). A lot of detail has been added so please don't wait until the meeting to begin to review it. Mark, I have added in the item to place this into the scheme, as you pointed out. Thanks for pointing out that omission. As for your other two questions: The entry is made for the synonym because that is the convention we have used in Clauses 11 and 12 (it gets the synonym term into the Index, for example). For your other question, it doesn't say âexactly oneâ because we cannot prove âexactly oneâ. The same actuality can be an instance of both a binary fact type and a characteristic. So it is conceivable that a binary verb concept and a characteristic could incorporate the same characteristics. [attachment "Issue 16491 (v3).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] ~ Keri On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, I didnât say that very well in my attempt to get an answer out. I meant to say all the references to âobjectificationâ in Clause 9. But I now see that there are references throughout the specification that need to be examined to see which meaning they carry, and the appropriate signifier substituted. Sorry for the confusion. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 18:21 To: Donald Chapin; 'keri'; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 08:18 AM 10/26/2011, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, We agreed in Fridayâs SBVR RTF telecon, as per the notes I took during the telecon, that Clause âobjectificationâ would be renamed to âobjectifying formulationâ. I don't see how re-naming a subsections?) addresses (my concern(s)? It thought it was the *entry* we were talking about renaming(?!) Subclause headings are probably not even normative. Rm Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 25 October 2011 23:11 To: keri; Donald Chapin; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: SBVR RTF Issue 16491 -- Objectification - Draft Resolution At 03:55 PM 10/25/2011, keri wrote: Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: All, I have looked over the draft resolution. Keri has done a nice job bringing this together. A couple of comments: 1. I would like to see an (additional) business example in which the signifier for the fact type objectification is a single word. That would remove any doubt whether such a choice is possible. I believe Terry uses the example "sponsorship". I'm not sure what fact type Terry uses, but I believe "company sponsors publication" would probably do. 2. I remain dissatisfied that SBVR uses "objectification" (a) to mean both an act (of logical formulation) and a result of such, and (b) to refer to something (logical formulation) other than the usual real-world meaning of the term. We seem to forget we are creating a business vocabulary. However, it appears I am essentially alone on the point, so I will not pursue it further unless anybody rallies to the cause. Seems like poor practice to me, however. 3. I was *very* surprised to learn that SBVR currently supports no way to say "here is a fact type objectification" directly. This is an important element of structure that whose specification SBVR needs to support directly. Fortunately we caught this one, but I wonder if there are any other elements of structure missing from SBVR in that same sense?? I Haven't been able to think of any, but it worries me. Ron ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 >> To: Juergen Boldt >> From: "Ronald G. Ross" >> Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) >> >> Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed >> >> Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. >> >> Resolution: >> >> 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". >> >> 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. >> >> 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). >> >> Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). > Here is an initial (draft) write-up for discussion at tomorrow's meeting: ~ Keri On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly. 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification). Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex). Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info Blog || http://www.RonRoss.info/blog/ LinkedIn || http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ronald-ross/1/3b/346 Twitter || https://twitter.com/Ronald_G_Ross Homepage || http://www.RonRoss.info X-SpamScore: 0 X-BigFish: PS0(zzc85fhzz1202hzzz31h2a8h668h839h34h) 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' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org)" Subject: RE: SBVR 16491 Thread-Topic: SBVR 16491 Thread-Index: AcyXTr97fz3SuP2HR3WVqtZcVwCczgCouV/Q Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:30:59 +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: TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com The attached draft resolution of issue 16491 includes a diagram (thanks to Keri) and some new revisions to text in C.1.5. The new revisions are highlighted and are best reviewed while looking at their context in the SBVR specification. Best regards, Don Issue 16491 (v6).doc From: "Donald Chapin" To: "''SBVR RTF''" Subject: RE: SBVR 16491 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:29:40 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQI3CjS0pYGb6mO621sPSCKmAe0KEJTH9mAQ X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EB404E6.0094, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.11.4.124215:17:7.586, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __FRAUD_SUBJ_ALLCAPS, __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, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.4EB405F7.0136,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Attached is an update to the resolution for Issue 16491 based on feedback. It removes the synonyms "fact type objectification" and "objectified fact type"; adds two sentences to the "Resolution" section stating that the resolution of this Issue only changes "fact type" to "verb concept" where it qualifies "objectification"; and removes the highlighting added to facilitate review of earlier changes. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Don Baisley [mailto:Don.Baisley@microsoft.com] Sent: 03 November 2011 06:31 To: 'SBVR RTF' (sbvr-rtf@omg.org) Subject: RE: SBVR 16491 The attached draft resolution of issue 16491 includes a diagram (thanks to Keri) and some new revisions to text in C.1.5. The new revisions are highlighted and are best reviewed while looking at their context in the SBVR specification. Best regards, Don Issue 16491 (v8).doc