Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated (dtv-rtf) Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > “Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:” > “It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.” > “This rule is not entirely correct….” I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: “A person must not be married to more than one person.” This section argues that the rule statement is “not entirely correct” because it doesn’t say “at the same time”. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as “A person must not be married to more than one person” is perfectly correct and it logically implies that “A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.” “occurrence” is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that’s what is intended. But “occurrence” is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 16, 2011: received issue April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF Discussion: End of Annotations:===== mssue16663.swp msue16663.swp Gmp osition: ??? X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 920350.28014.bm@omp1013.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1338135936; bh=FwrClc0KFyhNs4nFyai2d2/B3blYnUK3SPzXZYMr4t0=; 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=08tZuM/zRffyFHZmSMa9VfCvmtV4Lcut2b7+iTtHmsgWVtriTw+w6J1ZeusQxjfVzRpZ4thm72FgoOP4zR6kiKJu1uupNEIbb+OVdJJqLGGRfepice5Rl0ISa8wOcg80qtmGtPuC/lLeXvTsgYgHOQRKJxLjcZgvYeXEZzAdZro= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 69ZGQIoVM1ns0ZlzsscIi869dLaYRQwnqPXi16aMfWEOoab sXppYeRWMxR_UhpFnlI64RHthBVwUeF6bfATsuOC1f8KxXd8O1mQ_2vjQvXD vVk.mVjll9VAZmHd72zormYhnOhvKzcrU9svsNR3xWJoNe_7mMPR4FzddL_p UeJpmFjmPRzhP2xsOMH0XtIV.pj_3IfFEVqveaizaHdgZb5MSQE5f_.fymrK invULJbcmg9CCCbo8L7vxYf5uRdDgF_Nb.1Iaw0vDuIxM_VSPH2zNM5nw19G melOJpAQzzZYim1Q6vE6h7vGwlCLf64HGVpTU54DJJ4Sqt7YI7vTX6e_Shyj CIPTeYIXg2rkV9V452nIXswHu4lhJuZfjajvu_OzSzBxa6hLcYErxLLM0u6v XaJKQvbXQ1QmYNKkshk5vWXRMWSEJUMWM_LDX.2GeCPqMw6XirON03_9Vgcn BnE2fEGUzKavjMrYYC6ziVN5XXBZ0jy8EEU.BMKsLF29lhzcMsRmAwgYUq52 VNt3X9pocj.9nQT5R6nHUK9SunyfjSP88oToyGPg34kNKi337USCnCljGgqg EHHKZ2XyGjM7VN83pCgRzZONtydt7K.6Qdx9fGJF_cQhDrJtwneqgZavCx_9 cHeFPJqBh7Q-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:25 -0500 To: Mark H Linehan , date-time-ftf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Mark, Some concerns in the last iteration have been addressed, but I have more concerns. See attached. Ron At 04:33 PM 5/10/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here's an updated version, responding to Ron's comments. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/07/2012 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example All, I have some feedback re: the business rule examples (and related description) used in the discussion. See attached. Ron At 02:06 PM 5/7/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is another try on issue 16663. I tried to write a Rationale section that captures the various aspects of this issue that have come up during our discussion. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example3 - RGR.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16663 Title: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated Source: Donald Baisley . Microsoft - don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > .Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:. > .It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.. > .This rule is not entirely correct... I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: .A person must not be married to more than one person.. This section argues that the rule statement is .not entirely correct. because it doesn.t say .at the same time.. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as .A person must not be married to more than one person. is perfectly correct and it logically implies that .A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.. .occurrence. is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that.s what is intended. But .occurrence. is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Resolution: Chose a different example from EU-Rent that illustrates the point. Add a new Rationale section that discusses in more detail different techniques for writing rules that refer to situations and time. Revised Text: ADD a new clause 7.15, after clause 7.14 added by issue 16921: 7.15 Temporal Aspects of Rules Broadly speaking, all business rules define, constrain, or guide situations RGR: Definite improvement over .constrain situations.. But I still find the wording awkward. Business rules do not really .guide situations.. What does .guide a situation. mean? People don.t really talk like that. To be accurate, rules define or shape concepts, or constrain or guide business activity. Behavioral business rules might *indirectly* constrain or guide situations . Perhaps it would be accurate to say .Behavioral business rules have the effect of restricting situations.(?). However, I have a hard time thinking about what definitional rules might do with respect to situations. Situations are out there in the real world. Definitional rules shape concepts about what is out there in the real world. Situations exist no matter what definitional rules say, don.t they? But I admit I.m in over my head at this point. in some way. Some rules require a temporal relationship among situations, for example forbidding two situations from occurring concurrently: A person who is driving must not be texting. SBVR clause 10 states that rules apply to possible worlds, and that each possible world captures a 'fact population'. As time progresses, the fact population evolves. Rules, such as the example given above, are evaluated with respect to an individual fact population at a specific time, the reference or current time. In the example given above, the verbs 'is driving' and 'be texting' use the present progressive tense as described in clause 10.3: the activities are unfinished at some reference time interval. The "reference time interval" is understood to be any time that the rule is considered. This can be made explicit with the following wording: A person who is driving for some time interval must not be texting during the time interval. RGR: It *could* be made explicit like this, but I don.t see any need for it to be. Certainly I.ve never heard any business person say something like that. What is the business need for this kind of expression? Unless otherwise stated, rules apply at all times. To limit a rule to some time interval, a behavioral rule can state when it applies. For example: After January 1, 2012, each expense that costs more than $1,000 must be approved by a director. The examples given above are all behavioral (deontic) rules: prohibitions and obligations. By their nature, structural (alethic) rules (necessities, impossibilities) apply to all times in all possible worlds, but they can still specify relationships among the times of situations. For example: It is necessary that the birth date of each person is after the birth dates of the parents of the person. Similarly, advices of permission and advices of possibility can indicate the times of situations. Advices of permission can be effective during a specified time interval, RGR: I.m not sure I agree with that statement. If an advice of permission is restricted in any way, including the times at which it applies, then it.s not really (blanket) permission . it.s a *restricted* permission . i.e., a behavioral rule. while advices of possibilities apply at all time intervals. Each example rule given above applies to occurrences of two different situation models. When behavioral and structural rules relate multiple occurrences of a single situation model, RGR: This sounds strange to me. Situations are in the real world. But models (in the way used here) aren.t, are they?? And the rules might *pertain* to different situations, but that don.t *relate* them in the normal sense, do they? the rules may be abbreviated. For example: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of more than one rental car. What is prohibited is a possible world in which a renter possesses multiple rental cars. This is equivalent to the following much more complex rule: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of a rental car1 at a time interval1 and the renter has possession of a rental car2 at a time interval2 and time interval1 overlaps time interval2. RGR: Again, I suppose it could be made explicit like this, but I don.t see any need for it to be. Certainly I.ve never heard any business person say something like that. What is the business need for this kind of expression? SBVR clause 10 distinguishes between static constraints and dynamic constraints. Static constraints "impose[s] a restriction on what fact populations are possible or permitted, for each fact population taken individually." [SBVR clause 10.1.1.2] Dynamic constraints "impose[s] a restriction on transitions between fact populations." [ibid] The examples given above are static constraints. The previous example may also be stated as a dynamic constraint: It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car2. ... where the verb concept 'renter has possession of rental car' uses the present progressive tense to indicate an ongoing situation and 'renter takes possession of rental car' uses the simple present tense to identify an event. RGR: I have to say I find this syntax or interpretation of .takes possession of. to be disconcerting and perhaps dangerous. In general SBVR has *always* taken verbs to represent states of affairs (we used to say .facts.), not events in the active or transitional sense of the word. We might interpret certain facts to be .memory traces. of events that have happened, but that.s just an interpretation (read .methodology. perhaps). My question about the example would be: How do I know to interpret the verb concept as indicating an event (in the active or transitional sense), rather than a state of affairs? In RuleSpeak, we use .when. to indicate point-in-time applicability of rules, rather than overloading verb concepts. The rule above becomes something like. A renter must not have possession of a rental car1 *when* the renter takes possession of a rental car2. I would bet that.s the safest thing to do across all natural languages . but that.s a question for a linguist. Actually, we would simply say .A renter must not have possession of more than one rental car.. and defer to a smart SBVR-style rule analyzer to validate with the specifier that he/she meant .at the same time . no overlapping time interval(s).. (Or allow the tool to document that this 99%-safe natural business interpretation was allowed to default). Domain modelers have the choice of writing static or dynamic constraints, but static constraints are recommended in SBVR because static constraints capture the complete business requirement, whereas dynamic constraints tend to address specific aspects of the business practice . possibly ignoring other aspects. RGR: This last point seems like a strong argument for not supporting it . In the third paragraph of clause 8.3, change the text: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3. This rule is not entirely correct as it ignores some temporal aspects: it is perfectly legal that a person is married to two different persons at different times. Expressing this rule correctly requires the concepts discussed in this section. Given the verb concepts defined in this section, the law of monogamy can be stated correctly, as: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval1, it is prohibited that person1 is married to some person3 during time interval1 and person2 is different from person3. to: Consider the following rule that could exist in EU-Rent: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of more than one rental car. Rules are evaluated with respect to possible worlds, each of which has a particular current time. The prohibition is of a renter possessing more than one rental car in any possible world, that is, at any particular current time. Rationale clause 7.15 further discusses the meaning of rules with respect to time. Disposition: Resolved From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313K)" To: "Ronald G. Ross" , Mark H Linehan , "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Thread-Topic: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Thread-Index: AQHNLISt2qFj04ExCkKmrGr/nWcQUpa/OPypgATMb4CAGeyp0YAAhUkA Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 00:24:14 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.114] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized I echo Ron's reservations about relying on verb tense to distinguish situations vs. events: (1) It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car2 ... where the verb concept 'renter has possession of rental car' uses the present progressive tense to indicate an ongoing situation and 'renter takes possession of rental car' uses the simple present tense to identify an event. After all, one could write (1) in slightly different ways: (2) It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 has possession of a rental car2 (3) It is prohibited that a renter who takes possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car2 (4) It is prohibited that a renter who takes possession of a rental car1 has possession of a rental car2 Although (1) and (4) are symmetric while (2) and (3) are symmetric, it's unclear if the order matters. Adding a connective in the middle breaks the apparent symmetry and would allow us to say that the example below fits the pattern: [situation] when [event] A renter must not have possession of a rental car1 *when* the renter takes possession of a rental car2. Although such connectives would be relevant to DTV . see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar#Conjunctions, they are out of scope per DTV Annex E. Nicolas. From: "Ronald G. Ross" Date: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:25 AM To: Mark H Linehan , "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Mark, Some concerns in the last iteration have been addressed, but I have more concerns. See attached. Ron At 04:33 PM 5/10/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here's an updated version, responding to Ron's comments. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/07/2012 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example All, I have some feedback re: the business rule examples (and related description) used in the discussion. See attached. Ron At 02:06 PM 5/7/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is another try on issue 16663. I tried to write a Rationale section that captures the various aspects of this issue that have come up during our discussion. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example X-KeepSent: F1DB585B:271EC2F4-85257A0D:000906D9; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:40:46 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 05/28/2012 21:40:48 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12052901-8974-0000-0000-00000989D4FE Hi, Ron - I responded to your embedded comments with my own replies. Let's discuss during the Date-Time phone call on Wednesday at noon EDT. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/27/2012 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, Some concerns in the last iteration have been addressed, but I have more concerns. See attached. Ron At 04:33 PM 5/10/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here's an updated version, responding to Ron's comments. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/07/2012 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example All, I have some feedback re: the business rule examples (and related description) used in the discussion. See attached. Ron At 02:06 PM 5/7/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is another try on issue 16663. I tried to write a Rationale section that captures the various aspects of this issue that have come up during our discussion. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 [attachment "Date-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example3 - RGR.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Date-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example3 - RGR MHL.doc To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example X-KeepSent: BF7D4A53:6BBA6600-85257A0D:000975F0; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:50:28 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 05/28/2012 21:50:31, Serialize complete at 05/28/2012 21:50:31 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12052901-3534-0000-0000-000008D2647C Nicolas, We discuss the use of language tense and aspect in DTV clause 10.3. In this proposed Rationale section, perhaps we should use other words than "situation" and "event" and instead talk about "continuing occurrence" and "accomplished occurrence" per 10.3. One point that I am trying to make in this Rationale section is that the same rule can be written in different ways -- but some ways are better than others. The example that Ron and you don't like are intended to show ways of writing rules that are not recommended. Perhaps the text needs to be clearer about what forms are preferred. Annex C Structured English does not have "when" but I wouldn't mind suggesting (but not standardizing) it in this Rationale section. We could say something like "Some textual expression forms for rules may support a 'when' keyword, which might be used as follows ....." -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313K)" To: "Ronald G. Ross" , Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Date: 05/27/2012 08:24 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I echo Ron's reservations about relying on verb tense to distinguish situations vs. events: (1) It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car2 ... where the verb concept 'renter has possession of rental car' uses the present progressive tense to indicate an ongoing situation and 'renter takes possession of rental car' uses the simple present tense to identify an event. After all, one could write (1) in slightly different ways: (2) It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 has possession of a rental car2 (3) It is prohibited that a renter who takes possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car2 (4) It is prohibited that a renter who takes possession of a rental car1 has possession of a rental car2 Although (1) and (4) are symmetric while (2) and (3) are symmetric, it's unclear if the order matters. Adding a connective in the middle breaks the apparent symmetry and would allow us to say that the example below fits the pattern: [situation] when [event] A renter must not have possession of a rental car1 *when* the renter takes possession of a rental car2. Although such connectives would be relevant to DTV . see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar#Conjunctions, they are out of scope per DTV Annex E. Nicolas. From: "Ronald G. Ross" Date: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:25 AM To: Mark H Linehan , "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Mark, Some concerns in the last iteration have been addressed, but I have more concerns. See attached. Ron At 04:33 PM 5/10/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here's an updated version, responding to Ron's comments. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/07/2012 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example All, I have some feedback re: the business rule examples (and related description) used in the discussion. See attached. Ron At 02:06 PM 5/7/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is another try on issue 16663. I tried to write a Rationale section that captures the various aspects of this issue that have come up during our discussion. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 98669.9863.bm@omp1014.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1338337321; bh=rpDVfB/s63BjYCEgA1wv89kjpe2pfU2oawwTZnepNh4=; 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=IZJSMM3v93k0t+hkQoF7cy6RrbPqMOiyjjO9OL9FlVODkUBfBbgGxCKdX6H3+HITdwcKSZUZWwnVckPhCYKPHOET2KoPJk2IeS5JiXxY4K6xUM9jjqAPYLznm7xVEcYQc0HynCg9ROVYmdQKHzDbpQCCa7jOMdE46LUBDWIELnw= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 6vmZ6XMVM1ld0wLwC99q2XsPQ71f3.FBAoywaDMaOOxZwWA nkgTXCyigUrZeAmxvQltcAr5C5FboEkdeQzpcilVa1SBBUtvISNcuLkMr26f _ihv5ycO0u8.dtjC0mMD6GLEqRTrYPFKX3v_ooMydpxRZFG6s6TzK25nrbtJ HIFI8suAhOdfwz0Xjn_7ubFlMeLyO27gBnqDdEx7VTucczVyM7KLsgZ0O9HQ Us59zCNELEIfLOuwOPL6BTE4mQ5.9lqLvvHFGdukIyTbokjfD2X82RB_d1pQ jVsgomL.oYdyRAMiNqta3SZPMRe_ygDbhe8.pmW8mAalR07a7VfRSbY40I4f .C.aEkEavZY6Pizm73Syc8GWZDS0SBZNBU0khJ62dFhpYJ57y1aO02bQ3F81 Zw4vrl1dXYfthLYqY59LHbg.UU09OeY5FG0Z.l6Enq52HosZOP3n1xZCbs4Z Y7EcnDR5d0vAwAUfFww3qFCPFdzOziEte.pMtPy3P_T0dq7CPKPPdtNGkVPc d7j2rgmlDhMyfsYI5WAXIb1WN6XkUg33crsGu7Yymf370Af4NpPH2biNrMU0 r0tdSCdZtjKneWHnvk0SPJxue3lYHiECD8OonOMHyG2tabmeu_DLakpCV9cf _3eVtrC6_4WY- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:21:55 -0500 To: Mark H Linehan , date-time-ftf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Mark, My responses to your comments in the attached. Ron At 08:40 PM 5/28/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Hi, Ron - I responded to your embedded comments with my own replies. Let's discuss during the Date-Time phone call on Wednesday at noon EDT. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/27/2012 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example Mark, Some concerns in the last iteration have been addressed, but I have more concerns. See attached. Ron At 04:33 PM 5/10/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here's an updated version, responding to Ron's comments. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: "Ronald G. Ross" To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 05/07/2012 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Date-Time Issue 16663 - Law of Monogamy Example All, I have some feedback re: the business rule examples (and related description) used in the discussion. See attached. Ron At 02:06 PM 5/7/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is another try on issue 16663. I tried to write a Rationale section that captures the various aspects of this issue that have come up during our discussion. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 [attachment "Date-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example3 - RGR.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] 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-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example3 - RGR MHL -RGR.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16663 Title: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated Source: Donald Baisley . Microsoft - don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > .Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:. > .It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.. > .This rule is not entirely correct... I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: .A person must not be married to more than one person.. This section argues that the rule statement is .not entirely correct. because it doesn.t say .at the same time.. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as .A person must not be married to more than one person. is perfectly correct and it logically implies that .A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.. .occurrence. is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that.s what is intended. But .occurrence. is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Resolution: Chose a different example from EU-Rent that illustrates the point. Add a new Rationale section that discusses in more detail different techniques for writing rules that refer to situations and time. Revised Text: ADD a new clause 7.15, after clause 7.14 added by issue 16921: 7.15 Temporal Aspects of Rules Broadly speaking, all business rules define, constrain, or guide situations RGR: Definite improvement over .constrain situations.. But I still find the wording awkward. Business rules do not really .guide situations.. What does .guide a situation. mean? People don.t really talk like that. To be accurate, rules define or shape concepts, or constrain or guide business activity. Behavioral business rules might *indirectly* constrain or guide situations . Perhaps it would be accurate to say .Behavioral business rules have the effect of restricting situations.(?). However, I have a hard time thinking about what definitional rules might do with respect to situations. Situations are out there in the real world. Definitional rules shape concepts about what is out there in the real world. Situations exist no matter what definitional rules say, don.t they? But I admit I.m in over my head at this point. in some way. Some rules require a temporal relationship among situations, for example forbidding two situations from occurring concurrently: A person who is driving must not be texting. SBVR clause 10 states that rules apply to possible worlds, and that each possible world captures a 'fact population'. As time progresses, the fact population evolves. Rules, such as the example given above, are evaluated with respect to an individual fact population at a specific time, the reference or current time. In the example given above, the verbs 'is driving' and 'be texting' use the present progressive tense as described in clause 10.3: the activities are unfinished at some reference time interval. The "reference time interval" is understood to be any time that the rule is considered. This can be made explicit with the following wording, which is shown here to make the meaning clear. The previous phrasing is shorter, clearer, and recommended.: A person who is driving for some time interval must not be texting during the time interval. RGR: It *could* be made explicit like this, but I don.t see any need for it to be. Certainly I.ve never heard any business person say something like that. What is the business need for this kind of expression? Unless otherwise stated, rules apply at all times. To limit a rule to some time interval, a behavioral rule can state when it applies. For example: After January 1, 2012, each expense that costs more than $1,000 must be approved by a director. The examples given above are all behavioral (deontic) rules: prohibitions and obligations. By their nature, structural (alethic) rules (necessities, impossibilities) apply to all times in all possible worlds, but they can still specify relationships among the times of situations. For example: It is necessary that the birth date of each person is after the birth dates of the parents of the person. Similarly, advices of permission and advices of possibility can indicate the times of situations. Advices of permission can be effective during a specified time interval, RGR: I.m not sure I agree with that statement. If an advice of permission is restricted in any way, including the times at which it applies, then it.s not really (blanket) permission . it.s a *restricted* permission . i.e., a behavioral rule. while advices of possibilities apply at all time intervals. Each example rule given above applies to occurrences of two different situation models. When behavioral and structural rules relate multiple occurrences of a single situation model, RGR: This sounds strange to me. Situations are in the real world. But models (in the way used here) aren.t, are they?? And the rules might *pertain* to different situations, but that don.t *relate* them in the normal sense, do they? the rules may be abbreviated. For example: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of more than one rental car. What is prohibited is a possible world in which a renter possesses multiple rental cars. This is equivalent to the following much more complex rule, which is not recommended because it is much more complex, and significantly harder to understand: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of a rental car1 at a time interval1 and the renter has possession of a rental car2 at a time interval2 and time interval1 overlaps time interval2. RGR: Again, I suppose it could be made explicit like this, but I don.t see any need for it to be. Certainly I.ve never heard any business person say something like that. What is the business need for this kind of expression? SBVR clause 10 distinguishes between static constraints and dynamic constraints. Static constraints "impose[s] a restriction on what fact populations are possible or permitted, for each fact population taken individually." [SBVR clause 10.1.1.2] Dynamic constraints "impose[s] a restriction on transitions between fact populations." [ibid] The examples given above are static constraints. The previous example may also be stated as a dynamic constraint: It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car2. ... where the verb concept 'renter has possession of rental car' uses the present progressive tense to indicate an ongoing situation and 'renter takes possession of rental car' uses the simple present tense to identify an event. See clause 10.3 for a discussion of the tense and aspect of verbs. RGR: I have to say I find this syntax or interpretation of .takes possession of. to be disconcerting and perhaps dangerous. In general SBVR has *always* taken verbs to represent states of affairs (we used to say .facts.), not events in the active or transitional sense of the word. We might interpret certain facts to be .memory traces. of events that have happened, but that.s just an interpretation (read .methodology. perhaps). My question about the example would be: How do I know to interpret the verb concept as indicating an event (in the active or transitional sense), rather than a state of affairs? In RuleSpeak, we use .when. to indicate point-in-time applicability of rules, rather than overloading verb concepts. The rule above becomes something like . A renter must not have possession of a rental car1 *when* the renter takes possession of a rental car2. I would bet that.s the safest thing to do across all natural languages . but that.s a question for a linguist. Actually, we would simply say .A renter must not have possession of more than one rental car.. and defer to a smart SBVR-style rule analyzer to validate with the specifier that he/she meant .at the same time . no overlapping time interval(s).. (Or allow the tool to document that this 99%-safe natural business interpretation was allowed to default). Domain modelers have the choice of writing static or dynamic constraints, but static constraints are recommended in SBVR because static constraints capture the complete business requirement, whereas dynamic constraints tend to address specific aspects of the business practice . possibly ignoring other aspects. RGR: This last point seems like a strong argument for not supporting it . In the third paragraph of clause 8.3, change the text: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3. This rule is not entirely correct as it ignores some temporal aspects: it is perfectly legal that a person is married to two different persons at different times. Expressing this rule correctly requires the concepts discussed in this section. Given the verb concepts defined in this section, the law of monogamy can be stated correctly, as: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval1, it is prohibited that person1 is married to some person3 during time interval1 and person2 is different from person3. to: Consider the following rule that could exist in EU-Rent: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of more than one rental car. Rules are evaluated with respect to possible worlds, each of which has a particular current time. The prohibition is of a renter possessing more than one rental car in any possible world, that is, at any particular current time. Rationale clause 7.15 further discusses the meaning of rules with respect to time. Disposition: Resolved To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Date-Time Issue 16663 - "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated X-KeepSent: 443332CD:D018490B-85257A13:000C9BC3; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:19:41 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 06/03/2012 22:19:42 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12060402-1976-0000-0000-00000DCC4F01 Here's yet another try on this issue. I believe I took into account all the comments previously made. I also converted the "takes possession" example to use a new verb concept "occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2" which I propose to add. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Date-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16663 Title: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated Source: Donald Baisley . Microsoft - don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > .Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:. > .It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.. > .This rule is not entirely correct... I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: .A person must not be married to more than one person.. This section argues that the rule statement is .not entirely correct. because it doesn.t say .at the same time.. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as .A person must not be married to more than one person. is perfectly correct and it logically implies that .A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.. .occurrence. is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that.s what is intended. But .occurrence. is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Resolution: Chose a different example from EU-Rent that illustrates the point. Add a new Rationale section that discusses in more detail different techniques for writing rules that refer to situations and time. Add new verb concepts 'occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2' and 'situation model1 overlaps situation model2' to simplify rules that talk about two situation models occurring at the same time. Revised Text: ADD a new clause 7.15, after clause 7.14 added by issue 16921: 7.15 Temporal Aspects of Rules Broadly speaking, all business rules define, constrain, or guide situations in some way. Some rules require a temporal relationship among situations, for example forbidding two situations from occurring concurrently: A person who is driving must not be texting. SBVR clause 10 states that rules apply to possible worlds, and that each possible world captures a 'fact population'. As time progresses, the fact population evolves. Rules, such as the example given above, are evaluated with respect to an individual fact population at a specific time, the reference or current time. In the example given above, the verbs 'is driving' and 'be texting' use the present progressive tense as described in clause 10.3: the activities are unfinished at some reference time interval. The "reference time interval" is understood to be any time that the rule is considered. This can be made explicit with the following wording, which is shown here to make the meaning clear. The previous phrasing is shorter, clearer, and recommended. A person who is driving for some time interval must not be texting during the time interval. Unless otherwise stated, rules apply at all times. To limit a rule to some time interval, a behavioral rule can state when it applies. For example: After January 1, 2012, each expense that costs more than $1,000 must be approved by a director. The examples given above are all behavioral (deontic) rules: prohibitions and obligations. By their nature, structural (alethic) rules (necessities, impossibilities) apply to all times in all possible worlds, but they can still specify relationships among the times of situations. For example: It is necessary that the birth date of each person is after the birth dates of the parents of the person. Each example rule given above applies to occurrences of two different situation models. When behavioral and structural rules pertain to multiple occurrences of a single situation model, the rules may be abbreviated. For example: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of more than one rental car. What is prohibited is a possible world in which a renter possesses multiple rental cars. This is equivalent to the following rule, which is not recommended because it is much more complex, and significantly harder to understand: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of a rental car1 at a time interval1 and the renter has possession of a rental car2 at a time interval2 and time interval1 overlaps time interval2. SBVR clause 10 distinguishes between static constraints and dynamic constraints. Static constraints "impose[s] a restriction on what fact populations are possible or permitted, for each fact population taken individually." [SBVR clause 10.1.1.2] Dynamic constraints "impose[s] a restriction on transitions between fact populations." [ibid] The examples given above are static constraints. The previous example may also be stated as a dynamic constraint: It is prohibited that a renter who has possession of a rental car1 takes possession of a rental car12 while the renter has possession of a rental car2.. ... where the verb concept 'renter takes possession of rental car' uses the simple present tense to identify an event and 'renter has possession of rental car' uses the present progressive tense to indicate an ongoing situation and 'renter takes possession of rental car' uses the simple present tense to identify an event. See clause 10.3 for a discussion of the tense and aspect of verbs. Domain modelers have the choice of writing static or dynamic constraints, but static constraints are recommended in SBVR because static constraints capture the complete business requirement, whereas dynamic constraints tend to address specific aspects of the business practice . possibly ignoring other aspects. In the last example, there might be other ways that a renter could end up possessing two rental cars, but the example rule only addresses one such way. Neither SBVR nor this specification standardize any particular form of "Structured English". Tools may choose to offer a In the third paragraph of clause 8.3, change the text: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3. This rule is not entirely correct as it ignores some temporal aspects: it is perfectly legal that a person is married to two different persons at different times. Expressing this rule correctly requires the concepts discussed in this section. Given the verb concepts defined in this section, the law of monogamy can be stated correctly, as: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval1, it is prohibited that person1 is married to some person3 during time interval1 and person2 is different from person3. to: Consider the following rule that could exist in EU-Rent: It is prohibited that a renter has possession of more than one rental car. Rules are evaluated with respect to possible worlds, each of which has a particular current time. The prohibition is of a renter possessing more than one rental car in any possible world, that is, at any particular current time. Rationale clause 7.15 further discusses the meaning of rules with respect to time. Replace figure 8.15 with this version, which adds 'occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2': Add this new glossary entry at the end of clause 8.3.3: occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2 Synonymous Form: occurrence1 while occurrence2 Definition: the occurrence interval of occurrence1 overlaps the occurrence interval of occurrence2 CLIF Definition: (forall (o1 o2) (if ("o1 overlaps o2") (and (occurrence o1) (occurrence o2) (forall ((t1 "time interval") (t2 "time interval")) (if (and ("occurrence occurs for time interval" o1 t1) ("occurrence occurs for time interval" o2 t2)) ("time interval1 overlaps time interval2" t1 t2)))))) OCL Definition: context "occurrence" def: "occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2" (o2: "occurrence") : Boolean self."occurs for".overlaps(o2."occurs for") Replace figure 8.17 with this version, which adds 'situation model1 overlaps occurrence2': Add this new glossary entry at the end of clause 8.3.5: situation model1 overlaps situation model2 Synonymous Form: situation model1 while situation model2 Definition: each occurrence of situation model1 overlaps some occurrence of situation model2 CLIF Definition: (forall (s1 s2) (iff ("situation model1 overlaps situation model2" s1 s2) (and ("situation model" s1) ("situation model" s2) (forall (o1 o2) (and (occurrence o1) (occurrence o2) (if (and ("situation model has occurrence" s1 o1) ("situation model has occurrence" s2 o2)) ("occurrence1 overlaps occurrence2" o1 o2))))))) OCL Definition: context "situation model" def: "situation model1 overlaps situation model2" (s2: "situation model") : Boolean self."occurrence".overlaps (s2."occurrence") Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16663 Title: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated Source: Donald Baisley . Microsoft - don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > .Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:. > .It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.. > .This rule is not entirely correct... I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: .A person must not be married to more than one person.. This section argues that the rule statement is .not entirely correct. because it doesn.t say .at the same time.. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as .A person must not be married to more than one person. is perfectly correct and it logically implies that .A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.. .occurrence. is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that.s what is intended. But .occurrence. is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Resolution: Revised Text: Disposition: ??? From: Markus Schacher To: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Issue 16663 Thread-Topic: Issue 16663 Thread-Index: AczPdxiMpVO6BSMIQcWUuYxCEX3y7g== Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:33:28 +0000 Accept-Language: de-CH, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [62.2.161.170] Hi all, I started to work on issue 16663. First I was a little confused as the text that should be replaced according to Don.s proposed resolution was identical to the new text., but this is probably due to a Word .feature.. Then, I started to think about the example and the proposed resolution and thought that the proposed resolution isn.t correct either. I.ve identified a number of issues/questions that I wrote into the attached draft. Maybe they are caused by my missing SBVR-knowledge due to my absence in the past year, maybe they are somehow relevant and worth to be discussed. Furthermore, when I worked on the example, a totally different issue came to my mind: what happens, if it NOT KNOWN that a person is already married to another person? Is it then permitted to marry a third person? This is a question from epistemic logic that I still thing is not properly reflected in SBVR. Do we need to include something like a general rule saying that .not knowing something doesn.t protect you against rule violations/punishments.? Best regards, Markus ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bridging the gap between Business and IT: Check-out KnowEnterprise the enterprise repository that brings business and IT together ------------------------------------------------------------------- Markus Schacher, Senior Consultant & Partner, KnowGravity Inc., Hohlstrasse 534, CH-8048, ZĂĽ +41 44 43 42 000 oder per Skype Xing Profile Date-Time Issue - law of monogamy example - MS1.doc Disposition: ??? OMG Issue No: 16663 Title: "Law of Monogamy" example is poorly stated Source: Donald Baisley . Microsoft - don.baisley@microsoft.com Summary: Regarding the "monogamy" example in clause 7.3 > .Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries:. > .It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3.. > .This rule is not entirely correct... I cannot imagine a country with the law of monogamy stated like that. It is not proper English nor is it proper SBVR SE. How about this: .A person must not be married to more than one person.. This section argues that the rule statement is .not entirely correct. because it doesn.t say .at the same time.. But that is nonsense. Based on that argument, every rule would need to explicitly tie every relation it uses to time. E.g.: Rule A: It is prohibited that a drunk driver operate a EU-Rent vehicle. Rule B: It is prohibited that there exists a time interval such a driver is drunk throughout that time interval and the driver operates a vehicle throughout that time interval and the vehicle is a EU-Rent vehicle throughout that time interval. It would be better to point out that in any situation there is at most one present time. Therefore, the law of monogamy stated as .A person must not be married to more than one person. is perfectly correct and it logically implies that .A person must not be married to more than one person at the same time.. .occurrence. is defined in the introduction to be a possible state of affairs. This is OK, if that.s what is intended. But .occurrence. is defined differently later. Proposed Resolution: Change the text at the start of the clause from: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. to: Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Resolution: Change the example to match the suggested resolution, but revise the second version of the rule so that it is semantically correct. Revised Text: In clause 7.3, change the text Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person1 is married to person2, if that person1 is married to another person3 and person2 is different from person3. This rule is not entirely correct as it ignores some temporal aspects: it is perfectly legal that a person is married to two different persons at different times. Expressing this rule correctly requires the concepts discussed in this section. Given the verb concepts defined in this section, the law of monogamy can be stated correctly, as: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval1, it is prohibited that person1 is married to some person3 during time interval1 and person2 is different from person3. to Consider the law of monogamy as it exists in some countries: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. This rule is correct only on the understanding that the rule is evaluated at a point in time, as specified in this document. A version of the rule that uses the concepts defined in this section to make this understanding explicit is: ========== Incorrect suggestion (I believe): If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. ========== Issues: . another is ambiguous as it may refer to person1 or person2. . The operands of during should both be time intervals, but I think person1 is married to another person3 is not a time interval. . during is not the correct temporal operator, it should be some combination of is during and overlaps. I assume the qualifier properly is not required here? . What happens if time interval1 is open, i.e. it is not (yet) finished? If an "open" time interval is considered as a time interval with an end in the infinite future or as a time interval with a start in the infinite past (not relevant for this example), there is no problem here. . I assume that and binds stronger than or. Suggested version: If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval1, it is prohibited that person1 is married to some person3 occurs for some time interval2 and person2 is different from person3 and time interval1 is during the time interval2 or time interval1 overlaps the time interval2. Disposition: ??? To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy' example is poorly stated X-KeepSent: 80BB7C12:57B6D5DD-85257981:00714BCF; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:37:41 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 01/10/2012 15:37:43 x-cbid: 12011020-5806-0000-0000-000011421BE3 Here is a proposed "Closed, No Change" resolution to this issue. It turns out that I included this example change in the beta specification, and thus this issue is no longer applicable. Sorry for wasting folks's (particularly Markus') time on this one. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Date-Time Issue 16663 - law of monogamy example.doc Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:21:57 +0000 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: Mark H Linehan CC: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy' example is poorly stated X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Mark, For me, the problem is that the example does not accurately represent the law of monogamy. Two versions of the rule are discussed: It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Both misrepresent the semantics of the law of monogamy, which has two parts: Structural (definitional) rule: It is impossible that (at any given time) a person is married to more than one person. Necessity: A person is married to another person only if he/she was unmarried at the time of participating in a marriage ceremony to become the spouse of the other person. Operative (behavioral) rule: It is prohibited that a married person participates in a marriage ceremony as a spouse in the intended union. If a married person participates in a marriage ceremony as a spouse in the intended union then, not only has he/she broken the law, but the outcome is not a marriage. It is a liaison fraudulently represented as a marriage. If and when this is recognized, no divorce or annulment is needed. The liaison is simply declared as illegal, and any outcomes of the privileges of marriage (such as tax breaks, shared ownership of assets, intestate inheritance, .divorce. settlements) have to be revisited and, where necessary, corrected. The error occurs in the informal use of .married. to refer both to marriage and to bigamous liaisons represented as marriages. It.s important to recognize this kind of usage, especially when interpreting regulations and developing policies and rules for compliance, and remedial actions to be taken when violations are detected. Regards, John On 10/01/2012 20:37, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is a proposed "Closed, No Change" resolution to this issue. It turns out that I included this example change in the beta specification, and thus this issue is no longer applicable. Sorry for wasting folks's (particularly Markus') time on this one. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy' example is poorly stated X-KeepSent: 81A9EA74:000C2C21-85257984:005F14B6; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:41:52 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 01/13/2012 12:41:54, Serialize complete at 01/13/2012 12:41:54 x-cbid: 12011317-1976-0000-0000-000009788C7F John, What's important for the purposes of the Date-Time Vocabulary is to get a clear and accurate example that shows the relationship between states of affairs/solution models and time. We don't have to cover every detail of whatever example we use, but it should be correct. It sounds to me like we can accomplish that by converting the current behavioral rule statement to a structural rule statement along the lines of the one you give, below. Do you agree. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: John Hall To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS Cc: date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 01/11/2012 06:24 AM Subject: Re: Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy' example is poorly stated -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, For me, the problem is that the example does not accurately represent the law of monogamy. Two versions of the rule are discussed: 1. It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. 2. If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Both misrepresent the semantics of the law of monogamy, which has two parts: Structural (definitional) rule: It is impossible that (at any given time) a person is married to more than one person. Necessity: A person is married to another person only if he/she was unmarried at the time of participating in a marriage ceremony to become the spouse of the other person. Operative (behavioral) rule: It is prohibited that a married person participates in a marriage ceremony as a spouse in the intended union. If a married person participates in a marriage ceremony as a spouse in the intended union then, not only has he/she broken the law, but the outcome is not a marriage. It is a liaison fraudulently represented as a marriage. If and when this is recognized, no divorce or annulment is needed. The liaison is simply declared as illegal, and any outcomes of the privileges of marriage (such as tax breaks, shared ownership of assets, intestate inheritance, âdivorceâ settlements) have to be revisited and, where necessary, corrected. The error occurs in the informal use of âmarriedâ to refer both to marriage and to bigamous liaisons represented as marriages. Itâs important to recognize this kind of usage, especially when interpreting regulations and developing policies and rules for compliance, and remedial actions to be taken when violations are detected. Regards, John On 10/01/2012 20:37, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is a proposed "Closed, No Change" resolution to this issue. It turns out that I included this example change in the beta specification, and thus this issue is no longer applicable. Sorry for wasting folks's (particularly Markus') time on this one. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 55387.75454.bm@omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1326477548; bh=xxYQxq/N1Py0hD4fjSB+OpibLa3qGClEq0MnY4hJ114=; 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:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=R4IWi5AigBrNd1KWMigp+/6Xd2S5wXHNHehMd7ejIJRgxsppxKXzcf4oVS2ITLlSwiQjZecwBdDtHQjMXgyVmM79H4TLKpIOim4BYtGZl/oM3rn2fi2xyNMlZjcxVujqcnuk+Kw4O4GUsRnP6Q597n974Jv274ZQOfBmMzb3bc8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: TI6TLNIVM1mI5SqwgqKwV488psMGBy7uLE9uun0lU8npdEZ 3BiSiCsWwCC34JEt7Cownj6YDTze2iWgmDcKZTWZR3n9X_ugehOhK3nlykJ4 LcytOl8TbzC3YkGvZb7i2TKZODCpPgS6YgspHPaApzYXJ6ZtQkjwrqbXLGM8 _gllDF9eLnCgJ802jS4m6mCePw7RIdI5OfkFRL3ngFLrgt4aGE2kfnx3cFSV 1RE2qp8FM1MTQDVrfMrvM.QTf6Ta25XwamQW6JQvRQv_Ar.3WVQLg_HaN1sX KDTQEW4sSkMY9YPNwqVr93QHhOEQtAVhQAEP6PcwE2QmKIc1KKZwFmJls9Si Uhe3M2SybrQ54486MJJLV17vslIgQg.3OUXfsAY3gla4.TDhXUVWflhx2xup KYRdSH3vkoXu4fAHlnpFCzZnX8szuvfDM3SqnsO_6P7Dy7rPH4SCcm4rJPb0 ZWECoahcfiH_MYyio.5E58eCYIaxXat8Wr2FVFfWpSFMiMEqX48duJ_fk_BM X3s6KgT5qs1Pyod168Rbvz4kqnWoGQfTgF7MGjAdoM1DM2g_tXzIKT1VtQk5 izrhN2EfHXjmPyjR7NOnLrZMnwXTCIGNXZ8EpyeqmHdhdZYONtThY4X8CXHV mYrUV4sFG2hXoYxx1CY44DCXSOMX6.TUpuhnqJqxL X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:58:47 -0600 To: Mark H Linehan , date-time-ftf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy' example is poorly stated At 11:41 AM 1/13/2012, Mark H Linehan wrote: John, What's important for the purposes of the Date-Time Vocabulary is to get a clear and accurate example that shows the relationship between states of affairs/solution models and time. We don't have to cover every detail of whatever example we use, but it should be correct. It sounds to me like we can accomplish that by converting the current behavioral rule statement to a structural rule statement along the lines of the one you give, below. Do you agree. Mark, John and I have had an on-going discussion about this matter for a good length of time, and basically have agreed to disagree. (Marriage, of course, is no easy matter(!).) I don't think you're interested in the details here. You should do what you think best for date-time purposes. I believe the behavioral version is fine in most contexts. Ron -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: John Hall To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS Cc: date-time-ftf@omg.org Date: 01/11/2012 06:24 AM Subject: Re: Issue 16663: "Law of Monogamy' example is poorly stated Mark, For me, the problem is that the example does not accurately represent the law of monogamy. Two versions of the rule are discussed: 1. It is prohibited that a person is married to more than one person. 2. If a person1 is married to some person2 occurs for some time interval, it is prohibited that person1 is married to another person3 during the time interval. Both misrepresent the semantics of the law of monogamy, which has two parts: Structural (definitional) rule: It is impossible that (at any given time) a person is married to more than one person. Necessity: A person is married to another person only if he/she was unmarried at the time of participating in a marriage ceremony to become the spouse of the other person. Operative (behavioral) rule: It is prohibited that a married person participates in a marriage ceremony as a spouse in the intended union. If a married person participates in a marriage ceremony as a spouse in the intended union then, not only has he/she broken the law, but the outcome is not a marriage. It is a liaison fraudulently represented as a marriage. If and when this is recognized, no divorce or annulment is needed. The liaison is simply declared as illegal, and any outcomes of the privileges of marriage (such as tax breaks, shared ownership of assets, intestate inheritance, âdivorceâ settlements) have to be revisited and, where necessary, corrected. The error occurs in the informal use of âmarriedâ to refer both to marriage and to bigamous liaisons represented as marriages. Itâs important to recognize this kind of usage, especially when interpreting regulations and developing policies and rules for compliance, and remedial actions to be taken when violations are detected. Regards, John On 10/01/2012 20:37, Mark H Linehan wrote: Here is a proposed "Closed, No Change" resolution to this issue. It turns out that I included this example change in the beta specification, and thus this issue is no longer applicable. Sorry for wasting folks's (particularly Markus') time on this one. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research 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 To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 16663 X-KeepSent: 17F16F11:AB88BC43-85257984:00626368; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:15:43 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF6|May 2, 2011) at 01/13/2012 13:15:37, Serialize complete at 01/13/2012 13:15:37 x-cbid: 12011318-8974-0000-0000-00000531E726 Markus, Regarding "another" -- I don't see the ambiguity. In this example, it is used in the phrase "... person1 is married to another person3 ...." It seems clear to me that "another" must be with respect to "person2" from the previous clause, not "person1". See the definition of "another" as a keyword in SBVR Annex C. Regarding "during" -- the verb concept wording used in this example is " during