Issue 16522: "Nominalization" Needs to Be Renamed (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Rules Group (Mr. Ronald G. Ross, rross(at)BRSolutions.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Problem Statement: "Nominalization" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.8 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) "Nominalization" can be used to mean the 'process' of nominalizing, rather than the *result* of nomalization, as usually preferred in SBVR. (3) "Nominalization" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "nominalization" in Clause 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 to "nominalizing formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "nominalization" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a nominalizing formulae" or to the process of nominalization ("nominalizing"), and adjust accordingly. ***Note: This includes the definition of the critical term "state of affairs" (in the convenience document available as of 8/2011). 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of nominalization, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called nominalization). Note: It needs to be determined where in SBVR these entries should be included. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 26, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== hoo-Newman-Id: 617937.48406.bm@omp1003.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1314398515; bh=51H5I0DJWm9EanK1iNGswFjGOX+RENj4pi/fFcBVQxg=; 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=d4K7nhXvc+jVg14gxxbWdTYF7tLlZx5NVqRi71Wn53Zf/0fxnbA5eoAOn0KhulYc87miH9zs7a3ND7x1NxSjCErcOT6OS5XnR/58INbKybv0kS9ZcwFL7ULeQLNrC6HYnHPCpFYq+LhfyAEQ6WzrcMXq3hAQpsYKoocU52u+jkY= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: VrK.sJsVM1luFLE_iZyfVoVR9v.oDyG3Msx_VyWotYHcP51 RzETXcKBSS8HVGmLqY0VKQXdt7LV7s.r_ra2jtQ07u.4ZiDsuimpDaoCgEek Wvdvn6UiVng_arow6eeXWjlJkZzEGnFfk1E.zUdFX5MJG1djyuwQo1nl35V6 J9tRIzLzZqHmyWQnhvP1feoXZdOChK_HsgCcTAuLu9wwXT9L_uWozUw71AX9 VDr0ZzqJ32j.nFp17sT_25K7GiklNRjla53Lk2UOgH__wwBkdasVXTQoVN8B UUGookkPVFFnb.lc5yb53z878V3TnAXPovAL05TyKyur6x0fwgYfcovSM1cd OH_cm03qX.IeljZs_Pf4_xZ6DXt0thj51jh8W.5uF4_RBpUUt4gwNwvFIKjl twslENJ4zeaCZP5XDxabxVUIj_U4pIe5DwvQ- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:36 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Nominalization" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Nominalization" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.8 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) "Nominalization" can be used to mean the 'process' of nominalizing, rather than the *result* of nomalization, as usually preferred in SBVR. (3) "Nominalization" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "nominalization" in Clause 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 to "nominalizing formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "nominalization" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a nominalizing formulae" or to the process of nominalization ("nominalizing"), and adjust accordingly. ***Note: This includes the definition of the critical term "state of affairs" (in the convenience document available as of 8/2011). 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of nominalization, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called nominalization). Note: It needs to be determined where in SBVR these entries should be included. Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:14:20 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: SBVR RTF Subject: Re: SBVR Issues 16522-16525 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: p7UHEPpg001796 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1315329266.15117@kW1oN0agryd9tbJkVN22Bg X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov I would point out three things: 1) these 'concepts' are used solely in producing a technical logical formulation of the meaning of an SBVR statement or definition. They are not intended for any business audience, and thus the primary objection -- that they are counterintuitive to people who are not toolsmiths -- is misdirected. 2) the terms for these concepts become the XML terms for the formal exchange representation of the technical logical formulation. Changing them now will change the required XML representation of SBVR statements and definitions and invalidate all SBVR implementations that actually produce logical formulations. 3) the effect of changing these terms would be to make SBVR v1.0 implementations wholly incompatible with SBVR v1.1 in the area of valid XML exchanges, and wreck communication between tools that support SBVR. These issues do not indicate that there is an existing communication problem between SBVR tools in this area, e.g., because the intent of any of these constructs is ambiguous or they are being misinterpreted by the toolsmiths. So, however well-intentioned these issues may be, changing these terms adds significant cost for implementors and will create a period of instability for users, with no clear benefit to either. Apart from possible improvements to the wording of the sections that express the intent of these constructs, I would recommend that these issues be closed without change. -Ed -- 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." X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 188582.23853.bm@omp1007.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1314725613; bh=Mxdr0uqtSMBCXZ4qEPl2gDTNFXvTYJrfCbMUrNOD1Uk=; 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=2fsbdOefSP81dtruLU34dSl2pximJ4h4U/5W8rVBA3VGPOVvHfUZ5mfbC1sIjerFWUvAjDLY6wKDqy4HJO+kL2F7CoPSbwxhP3TZUkQP0IkF7jZRBxb7JVx8f33Ut9DoIgfPb7Aaw27+ZDCSfTUAohunugE84HHApOejqP3SwVQ= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: WX.DoXIVM1mHunjx0hdKNO0Oo0P4iPpap3AYqQYR4jJXxld 76Gi.OuZR5miXyUL7sbM2sw2KZnUpJfWqS5o_SfnezwnY1Bd1jWFg4_HSlBm rIbrt67ya6FVKuND3JGnIW1E5BrJ4W3hrTTLx6rCkMtrdOiSn_UkUQDDbKUw m5XS4r.J6st4kMmevV.vthFT6AUykGKnZWXhVasxhM4m0r.W_iey1uAxAtpL kfC5_71ItY8FcuAr651mOua9m25CkE2DiwR6d1fxjMQQsD_RRMnTpytZvitb GatuyeflWGLzGgFVe7qYgEwc_kfDDK5XbRziiGgpf_w6CH2kqGLPAcb9iGa8 VNPHo1eRlfpNFxkaL_vwyKL87mfZT.olR2ZnLGq4sggFmS6XBQXE1FE4_OW8 - X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:33:24 -0500 To: edbark@nist.gov, SBVR RTF From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: SBVR Issues 16522-16525 At 12:14 PM 8/30/2011, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: I would point out three things: 1) these 'concepts' are used solely in producing a technical logical formulation of the meaning of an SBVR statement or definition. They are not intended for any business audience, and thus the primary objection -- that they are counterintuitive to people who are not toolsmiths -- is misdirected. We use "objectification" with business people and business analysts all the time. It's not hard to understand the idea of turning a verbish thing into a nounish thing. Happens all the time. FWIW ... The issue regarding "objectification" arose in one of the meetings. The other three were all my doing, for consistency. I simply believe calling things by their right names can never be a bad thing to do (except maybe in politics ... and love and war). Ron 2) the terms for these concepts become the XML terms for the formal exchange representation of the technical logical formulation. Changing them now will change the required XML representation of SBVR statements and definitions and invalidate all SBVR implementations that actually produce logical formulations. 3) the effect of changing these terms would be to make SBVR v1.0 implementations wholly incompatible with SBVR v1.1 in the area of valid XML exchanges, and wreck communication between tools that support SBVR. These issues do not indicate that there is an existing communication problem between SBVR tools in this area, e.g., because the intent of any of these constructs is ambiguous or they are being misinterpreted by the toolsmiths. So, however well-intentioned these issues may be, changing these terms adds significant cost for implementors and will create a period of instability for users, with no clear benefit to either. Apart from possible improvements to the wording of the sections that express the intent of these constructs, I would recommend that these issues be closed without change. -Ed -- 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: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16522 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:44:39 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHOPBuVVgGq6ZBNtOmJ39631gByC5WZZjZg X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EB3DE3A.0045, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.11.4.95715:17:9.975, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, DOC_ATTACHED, __ANY_URI, LINK_TO_IMAGE, __FRAUD_CONTACT_NUM, __STOCK_PHRASE_24, ECARD_KNOWN_DOMAINS, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __IMGSPAM_BODY, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_50_70, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, IMGSPAM_BODY X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4EB3DEB1.0003,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false The .Closed, No Change Required. disposition for Issue 16522 is attached as per Meeting Notes of the October 21, 2001 SBVR RTF teleon. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 30 August 2011 16:17 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16522 -- SBVR RTF issue X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 617937.48406.bm@omp1003.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1314398515; bh=51H5I0DJWm9EanK1iNGswFjGOX+RENj4pi/fFcBVQxg=; 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=d4K7nhXvc+jVg14gxxbWdTYF7tLlZx5NVqRi71Wn53Zf/0fxnbA5eoAOn0KhulYc87miH9zs7a3ND7x1NxSjCErcOT6OS5XnR/58INbKybv0kS9ZcwFL7ULeQLNrC6HYnHPCpFYq+LhfyAEQ6WzrcMXq3hAQpsYKoocU52u+jkY= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: VrK.sJsVM1luFLE_iZyfVoVR9v.oDyG3Msx_VyWotYHcP51 RzETXcKBSS8HVGmLqY0VKQXdt7LV7s.r_ra2jtQ07u.4ZiDsuimpDaoCgEek Wvdvn6UiVng_arow6eeXWjlJkZzEGnFfk1E.zUdFX5MJG1djyuwQo1nl35V6 J9tRIzLzZqHmyWQnhvP1feoXZdOChK_HsgCcTAuLu9wwXT9L_uWozUw71AX9 VDr0ZzqJ32j.nFp17sT_25K7GiklNRjla53Lk2UOgH__wwBkdasVXTQoVN8B UUGookkPVFFnb.lc5yb53z878V3TnAXPovAL05TyKyur6x0fwgYfcovSM1cd OH_cm03qX.IeljZs_Pf4_xZ6DXt0thj51jh8W.5uF4_RBpUUt4gwNwvFIKjl twslENJ4zeaCZP5XDxabxVUIj_U4pIe5DwvQ- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:41:36 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: SBVR issue - Please post (Thanks) Issue: "Nominalization" Needs to Be Renamed Problem Statement: "Nominalization" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.8 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) "Nominalization" can be used to mean the 'process' of nominalizing, rather than the *result* of nomalization, as usually preferred in SBVR. (3) "Nominalization" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning. Resolution: 1. Change each instance of "nominalization" in Clause 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 to "nominalizing formulae". 2. Inspect every other instance of "nominalization" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a nominalizing formulae" or to the process of nominalization ("nominalizing"), and adjust accordingly. ***Note: This includes the definition of the critical term "state of affairs" (in the convenience document available as of 8/2011). 3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of nominalization, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called nominalization). Note: It needs to be determined where in SBVR these entries should be included. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org