Issue 16630: Actuality demonstrates Proposition (sbvr-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, mlinehan(at)us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: SBVR says (in clause 8.6.2, as of ballot RTF 1 ballot 5) that "Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs." For example, the proposition "each driver of a rental is qualified" (as may be embedded within an obligation statement) corresponds to a single state of affairs in which all drivers of a rental are qualified. Per clause 8.1.2, such a proposition is true or is false according to whether the corresponding state of affairs is actual. This idea is meaningful to logicians but not to business people. Business users of SBVR will not care about a state of affairs in which "all drivers of a rental are qualified". What is meaningful to business users is the actualities that comprise that state of affairs – in this case, whether each driver, taken individually, is qualified. If the overall proposition is false, an immediate question will be, "which driver is not qualified, and why not?" To support this kind of analysis, SBVR should have a verb concept that relates a proposition to the actualities that make the proposition true or false. The relationship already exists indirectly through the "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2" verb concept introduced by the disposition of issue 16526. The current issue proposes a direct relationship, built on and consistent with "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2", that avoids the need for business users to understand the logician's idea of "proposition corresponds to state of affairs". Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 19, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 16630 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:01:14 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac11bfIGp7+GWRfZR5SXC0Ljqdow2w== 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=0001.0A0B020A.50227137.0062,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 16630 that is part of the package of five that addresses the .state of affairs. question. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 19 October 2011 18:09 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 16630 -- SBVR RTF issuue To: juergen@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: sbvr-rtf issue: actuality demonstrates proposition X-KeepSent: A0E26B06:8DF5B423-8525792E:0054E788; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:36:14 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 10/19/2011 12:36:15 x-cbid: 11101916-1976-0000-0000-0000003473B6 Juergen, please assign an issue number: -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Issue 16630 'Actuality Demonstrates Proposition' (2012-08-08).doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16630 Title: Actuality demonstrates Proposition Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Mark H. Linehan, mlinehan@us.ibm.com) Summary: SBVR says (in clause 8.6.2, as of ballot RTF 1 ballot 5) that "Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs." For example, the proposition "each driver of a rental is qualified" (as may be embedded within an obligation statement) corresponds to a single state of affairs in which all drivers of a rental are qualified. Per clause 8.1.2, such a proposition is true or is false according to whether the corresponding state of affairs is actual. This idea is meaningful to logicians but not to business people. Business users of SBVR will not care about a state of affairs in which "all drivers of a rental are qualified". What is meaningful to business users is the actualities that comprise that state of affairs . in this case, whether each driver, taken individually, is qualified. If the overall proposition is false, an immediate question will be, "which driver is not qualified, and why not?" To support this kind of analysis, SBVR should have a verb concept that relates a proposition to the actualities that make the proposition true or false. The relationship already exists indirectly through the "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2" verb concept introduced by the disposition of issue 16526. The current issue proposes a direct relationship, built on and consistent with "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2", that avoids the need for business users to understand the logician's idea of "proposition corresponds to state of affairs". Proposed Resolution: actuality demonstrates proposition Definition: the proposition corresponds to some state of affairs and the state of affairs includes the actuality Example: Consider the proposition "Each driver of a rental is qualified" (as might be embedded within a business rule of obligation). Also consider an actuality "the driver 123 of the rental 456 is qualified". Applying the definition of "state of affairs1 includes state of affairs2", substituting the state of affairs that corresponds to "Each driver of a rental is qualified" as state of affairs1, and substituting the actuality "the driver 123 of the rental 456 is qualified" as state of affairs2, produces "it is impossible that 'each driver of a rental is qualified' is actual and 'driver 123 of the rental 456 is qualified' is not actual". Clearly the result of the substitution is correct: it certainly is impossible that each driver is qualified and a particular driver is not qualified. Therefore the state of affairs1 "Each driver of a rental is qualified" includes the state of affairs2 "the driver 123 of the rental 456 is qualified". Applying the definition given here, the actuality "the driver 123 of the rental 456 is qualified" demonstrates the proposition "Each driver of a rental is qualified". Example: Consider the proposition "flight 123 takes off at 2:00 p.m. daily", where "flight 123" identifies a flight, and " takes off" is a characteristic, and "... at 2:00 p.m. daily" means that the flight repeats each calendar day at the time specified. The actuality "flight 123 took off at 2:00 p.m. today" demonstrates the proposition "flight 123 takes off at 2:00 p.m. daily". Resolution: The SBVR .meaning corresponds to thing. verb concept is one of three foundational verb concepts of the SBVR architecture. It is one of three sides of the Semiotic / Semantic Triangle. For the subcategory verb concept SBVR .proposition corresponds to state of affairs., each proposition corresponds to exactly on state of affairs. The proposed resolution would break one of the cornerstones of the SBVR architecture. States of affairs never go in SBVR models. The way SBVR provides to accomplish the function needed is to use a .material implication. logical formulation to connect two propositions. The way the SBVR concept .material implication. works and how it relates to .state of affairs includes state of affairs. is part of the resolution of Issue 16486 .SBVR Relationships between States of Affairs.. 1. Add a paragraph and a diagram showing the Semiotic / Semantic Triangle and how .meaning corresponds to thing. is part of it. 2. Add a reference to John Sowa.s paper, .Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics. to the Bibliography in Annex M and provide a footnote to it in the parapraph added in item 1. Revised Text: REPLACE the figure number .Figure 8.9. WITH .Figure 8.10. in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40. ADD the following paragraph as an introduction to Clause 8.5.1 on printed page 42: Sub-clause 8.5.1 introduces the concepts that comprise one leg, .meaning corresponds to thing., of the Semiotic/Semantic Triangle which was first introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce at the beginning of the twentieth century and later by (Ogden and Richards 1923). See .Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics. [Sowa]. Figure 8.9 The Semiotic/Semantic Triangle is the theoretic basis for SBVR.s linguistics-based architecture in general and for the fundamental separation of representation (expression) from meanings in SBVR.s architecture. Being a linguisitic-based standard the instances of concepts are the things in the universe of discourse, i.e. the world of the organization that uses the SBVR Business Vocabluary, and not concepts in the SBVR model. ADD the following entry to Annex M after the entry .[SOED]. on printed page 419 [Sowa] . " Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics ". John Sowa Ontology Website. Available from http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/ontometa.htm Disposition: Resolved From: "Barkmeyer, Edward J" To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:26:47 -0400 Subject: RE: issue 16630 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 16630 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Ac15BLWBjfmyYpAnTqi4cJBVX0wdrwAZZlUf Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id q7DGSaw9009565 Mark wrote: The semantic triangle diagram seems to be wrong since it says that there is a 1:1 relationship between a meaning and a thing, when SBVR says that general concepts correspond to many things. Perhaps this aspect of the semantic triangle is intended to be specifically about the relationship of propositions to states of affairs, but the diagram is unclear if so. What is obvious is that there seems to be a real difference between propositions and other kinds of meanings. Propositions in SBVR have a 1:1 (previously 1:0..1) relationship to things, whereas other meanings have an 1:n relationship to things. Shouldn't this suggest that there's something fundamentally different about propositions? Maybe they don't fit this diagram. Or maybe the 1:1 relationship is wrong. Sowa apparently thinks of situations as concepts, not as things: in figures 14-16, he shows situations in context boxes that participate in relations just like other concepts. I note that this is quite different from SBVR, which considers states of affairs to be things, not concepts. >EJB: I don't see this in Sowa's Conceptual Graphs language. There 'situations' are things, as in Davidson, and they are said to be "described by" propositions. But CG has a different view of possibilia. That is, CG has two concepts: Theme and Situation. A situation is what SBVR calls an'actuality' -- an event, situation or circumstance in the actual world. A Theme is a proposition made into a thing, so that it can play roles in verbs. CG treats explicit 'possible states' as 'themes'. You can "want" a theme, or "prevent" a theme. On the other hand, CG has no problem with the idea that 'proposition describes situation' is many-to-many, and that for a false proposition there is no situation that satisfies it. So the CG 'theme' seems to be almost exactly the SBVR idea of 'state of affairs' and 'objectification' (in clause 9), but in CG, that is distinct from the handling of 'actualities'. SBVR's view that states of affairs are things forces SBVR to explain how the same expression can be the statement of a proposition that corresponds to one thing, but defines a verb concept objectification that can correspond to many things. It would be simpler for SBVR if it said that a 'state of affairs' is a synonym for a 'verb concept objectification', i.e. a concept as in Sowa. Then the state of affairs/verb concept objectification can correspond to multiple actualities, which are located in time or space by expressions such as "during