Issue 17097: SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 11 (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Rule Solutions, LLC (Mr. Ron Ross, rross(at)brsolutions.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high. Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning – never the case in SBVR – I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement. Note: **This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.** Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves. Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR … I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 5, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Juergen Boldt Subject: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1328476232; bh=YUni6TffcIoOKP7stUu80ZHwxaiGlse+BNMTtbvnR3I=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:X-Priority:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=pY21wsphOLPwRkW1CAxMdD/34eZkWTHyMp0+RZMuKuvYttUCfl1wu+YeJ6KKBk3m47J/5aHhdbpj49+0PzcQIE+BmzcO3hjGLLSEV3nBb2B9FT9GsCRo0nFLt/5e3IjKoWn47/43fdHbrUeSu7tdAJMvuil6gQsAq/NyAKXNm40= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: zmU090IVM1kOr68KGsrUa4vVPeEDGVpG1YHMGzbqb8Mo2eo XZblHTnNDYH4n_jMaM__qXlg4t4SOmermC21AsO9zRgBH0ZUZ5Y9cZADQk1j gS3v2ph9gQqKfY3U.AXAoFltUYTxt1q1.9YXvW5PGM4xIuHAY8rIsPJ4raAi TNx9Hk0FZxKx9coIQQH8vFjplo280c6n_NsSSbZh5e_pJbXdoHG0v3wPbLnQ 6CfaJC9J6DFwlbe8VgQgpCFEbQ.kqoCiEZYGbWWLXnTFbk.L7YwG0UMDLth1 ryHZ.NkxbzbFQ75aPcLfe.1dRbuNKPARTmhc8xmahC_tKHwmg71x7vNeJ8O9 qcluJWbxBog.ekkjCtqBcVfjUk1hd_a37ojJkcYtuK2dArfFWzH7isffLPiz cVlESUSWISQQYS.N74j85mwHPqRwP6jUZrntkKcLcCzNMtN85G7WzjNDLQjp AgnM.C51Z5M4gGaZUB_7iFl5qy7c_ZWXKwyMnK3nUYqw1HFUIvDT18VlKSrO 26Ee932SiTPRVU7Sq_EM6RCpF71phakPZTVIJ7wRawXWi4lbPrPEzVDf_pnU gUT.bMNOJ8E4BloYjpLLlTglpBECgGDcSSs2LtaRLehBeOYbna5UNAGPh42h VXL9i.e9j5.r6yCsuXyM_eVAlXpUbB0VV2mDM1zz8z1_rHTIrqSNrdqds0XU zPJZYpt9AwvNuLODB5Cgw_tc_6PzmA8U- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:09:26 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 11 Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high. Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning . never the case in SBVR . I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement. Note: **This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.** Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves. Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR . I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material. 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 chp11 - numbered v12.rtf chp11 - resequenced v12.rtf Best regards, -Juergen 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 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 935662.73024.bm@omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1329446424; bh=7Ls/RMfmB4ztK6AnBIW9++E1s5aOo+bAK+a3nxSRdoU=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=D6O6Eu/2AgYEff4XCNLO3ZXZ3saCUhH9bRzRSAmlWyZuEbYAYZhy7FRHdWlqrahtHdN7RaKv8005Bg1wJ+zu3OWxlKT5S4zozzMUE2HGVbXWfu8nXl0x6fIzEvelSWKK17sQhvzOcJOAPR3h/8oKAYtTCPoEfsevsv1yElA90ro= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: uGgjdcwVM1lwL5qhBj57TGjPOK_y0nEe_T_i1swfa8jd4Jh HeD89Xcw3N0j4MgTHOSGQUB.3LLuNLvCT2isdEw0vJ.TlgpFzokJG6JBlCBy 1WBQQHmXoKjkmKwTo5G94vo.pTPjh5xWNQf8waG6fWnnzhuyfazkBW3Yn.2p _GIdQBqY.hsOMS2B_UTWd1uKyX7ENbwa_8iq_t1zqKVhYMbXRuxfRTvvfJ74 V2zEyjA9UMDW8o0COhRUeD37Zc87rrjek6XXU6gsmufw7mijiY60Ysdd98g6 XKon5nv8DcKEKAk0BeOjF9YaWbuh..fjNGBrDDVZtDFOlidio2zpS1CADE2T 5sDEpXEYwAgBuoapfUjvKDi0HQozwG5a432P_Zh01g8llgknyugmk9jdVMq2 kyMl9b1TrFlPkof2WcDnr5dBIVHP4Em_B4uglL_lyElYN1jATK3SPw79Lr5D Zsp6WZF5Ca4oHnkdhcSgK1FkIP9qfcdh9At33KPA8XHhZBB5BMrNYFA9JFtr qrmkA7sktVychYHWQdyMPx4TmNz2AWVFdt95SiL0VroExEVvnrjkyURGT6ci eimBVdxAhFQlIDxlB2J.fiWVPLR3Xc01ZptMBSiUEVsyuDl7deeQ0roVpT9I wu562Lx.JxFzM2Jqe2SaoS2KHadjkzXFanPManZ025OWsxg-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:40:16 -0600 To: "Linda Heaton" From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Cc: Juergen Boldt Linda, Haven't heard back from you on this message. Just want to make sure you got it. Thanks, Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linda, Could I get a copy of the source doc for SBVR ... or at least Clause 11 ... to work on this issue? Thanks, Ron At 08:47 AM 2/8/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, Anyone in the world can submit an SBVR Issue to the OMG that includes its proposed resolution, so of course you may do that. Linda Heaton is the custodian of the SBVR files and would be the one who is able to provide you with it in Word format. I think you would probably want to use the latest version which is the Convenience Document submitted with the SBVR 1.1 RTF Report. Alternatively you could take this same Convenience Document, which is on the OMG website in PDF form, and run it through one of the PDF to Word converters. These products have now reached quite a high standard of accuracy for converting from PDF to Word. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 08 February 2012 03:09 To: Donald Chapin Subject: Fwd: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Donald, Is there any reason this work cannot get underway immediately? I would like to request a copy of the source Word file and work on it as time permits. Naturally I will ask Keri to help out and oversee ... Haven't asked her yet, of course. Thanks, Ron Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:09:26 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 11 Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high. Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning . never the case in SBVR . I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement. Note: **This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.** Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves. Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR . I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material. 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 Best regards, -Juergen 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 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: 680813.22635.bm@omp1021.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1329855865; bh=DILzhVrUKD8hIgjTMcj0y92eICFvNKQ+gcY2lC4tCoU=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Z7gNmwH3thtcnKps2gQ2155qWeplzDlATL3E+y3EejKZlP0gbvjTX/VKOUyS9dcUcgLOKptBwdVeWeQcix386U2HW2R84cELubJ73NHLqJLvZqqTQzSht6xudLU4e8CGsuDbUKXSPKa+vCU6BQQLYL5BtGsB+NLOn7rqm9IsrqQ= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 6QIZVg4VM1mjWQd1TTzi2r3id_geaysJJM.M_bPpYstpX0k age30yr8QDPA2_jVPm08MsOhmiNNLnaN6Xs4h3j4PGH3GklnMWrzrD99.bDx AKiCZQBLO4jYnChYpfU8mFie5rei6K7kNNrs8PD4GMvu_MYADVAh0s6T5NBX qU2ayXKsDZiw_V_F.kCd1bTcpdmB85DiCUTrX7pU.cRMv1dZOziAfR2xAjVw kMjZQ0vxV0tLvht0RrWCWo.5mm1.K2UzICYSpKzGi0WjVB3sFrSa4zNJyw5K .KaS5xT039KK.OPPrVw9APuU..NsEgM0zjisUyY2zdzpIc9dnvBz_23csSIr WdIKT7RdstoGK55T6XQcvs4enNjn4umHip5zmgI_IO5cGSR1ofvtWpKAL4l7 .EuVkTu9l042Xj6XeIO3d3G4duOSablf0ZpepS4F80L93WS7TJo8PNP0vmBW oR8_3bR4wK4ZGDXJV8uVtaAiO4_aaEH7yc3hPU0XjEuDKiMaUEP1tWMiRxAO EYj6YMqVOAvmpPw9BFJCw8Nwbpp_RPKAfoqpFlA3LgtFWdtHvy76rtWpQlxN HtbUyOTwkUjZ59MZGznX3zeyugaIljG51Mmk1EWYtIdVahvrSywfoQShefiC BBwR4Qff4GfHcnJDtiEMRhpfghT1lzKtX5DLLMy2_1jCH4w-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:24:20 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Fwd: RE: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Juergen, I haven't heard back on these requests. Am I barking up the wrong tree?? Ron Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:40:16 -0600 To: "Linda Heaton" From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Cc: Juergen_Boldt Linda, Haven't heard back from you on this message. Just want to make sure you got it. Thanks, Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linda, Could I get a copy of the source doc for SBVR ... or at least Clause 11 ... to work on this issue? Thanks, Ron At 08:47 AM 2/8/2012, Donald Chapin wrote: Ron, Anyone in the world can submit an SBVR Issue to the OMG that includes its proposed resolution, so of course you may do that. Linda Heaton is the custodian of the SBVR files and would be the one who is able to provide you with it in Word format. I think you would probably want to use the latest version which is the Convenience Document submitted with the SBVR 1.1 RTF Report. Alternatively you could take this same Convenience Document, which is on the OMG website in PDF form, and run it through one of the PDF to Word converters. These products have now reached quite a high standard of accuracy for converting from PDF to Word. Donald From: Ronald G. Ross [ mailto:rross@BRSolutions.com] Sent: 08 February 2012 03:09 To: Donald Chapin Subject: Fwd: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Donald, Is there any reason this work cannot get underway immediately? I would like to request a copy of the source Word file and work on it as time permits. Naturally I will ask Keri to help out and oversee ... Haven't asked her yet, of course. Thanks, Ron Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:09:26 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 11 Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high. Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning . never the case in SBVR . I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement. Note: **This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.** Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves. Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR . I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material. 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 Best regards, -Juergen 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 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 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-Originating-IP: [76.93.4.87] From: Don Baisley To: Subject: RE: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:31:39 -0800 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Feb 2012 05:31:39.0963 (UTC) FILETIME=[69A820B0:01CCF6A3] I think Ron's recommendation for clause 11 makes good sense. Best regards, Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:35:39 -0500 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: juergen@omg.org Subject: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:09:26 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 11 Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high. Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning � never the case in SBVR � I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement. Note: **This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.** Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves. Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR � I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material. 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 Best regards, -Juergen 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 [] Best regards, -Juergen 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 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 791178.89042.bm@omp1013.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1335746111; bh=ZexIrX35Ez9lJSdpFTa4055qKu0PN2tixI/ljN/t5M4=; 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=0apt4bQyxJA0Y+Ca4Uj2b7aK252J1enDuekXhAwAxZYpcOd5l/c2MMTFpkJIDXyOm6Ge6POvWxCqxjXUfIIVZ/ogxJVjtY5ykgg+PXRVfG8ddSt9hZH1GFqVySVNrqk5ecrIDx/9R7sFtEoQsNLlkjATq0qFKsj4R7wXydUbeyk= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: egmXY3AVM1lTrmAcfYnwAI3sGnkFuC4U7C3QAAf7i9Ux4Yf 1CQlxe6JgWHT4ccSAN3lm93EgLbGXa4eauaQvjr0pf6rBcFTVmeSth6Dd6iC GlWQ6FdGbn1ZT278DH8q3D3TdVl9zRJpINHICxzaYF_dAIGzjm9P5mwPm.Cb zG5fspssWmLTYoBk4AxUQ6yn89tCIKhvjyUSySj_Gny6KOLZc4SU_XN1gcpd 29WMtxDIWLkOFdzl8UG4sTnbp3XWmCQpXetuCGD_bP5qfY0eybCVe9XMhLXQ Tsyml9U_GUQ9OTfukxTSuSLkhf8L2RC._Qt5aKlz5RWJ4rtns8ikrqtdikmU JoBKWFiNTFEHIcGrY2r4z53Uja7mqB.ji5zFykJx_lRDzmcPMMWVj6LEtO1x s77b9KaE0_c9YYQsqH1VTvAvhfbulISvEVR1_.NSxibuQo1x4Xal8R6QUwWc .vIcwu79ACTzGKr5lEoUUdRQQJoGZCaz9Ec8wv6WH6to_2qZ2nLgUWXuOmpE vDu0C3YtC6nGJFz32Uxzkw22HTDhPObIQNicYs.5XUPtGr8sFf5c28IrVoET yE2Kzd7sZcqxOG3YA1xaJtUfRrzv_jOeW7BWDB5jL.OeWwDk3.6EpDPF6NFS Nrfc2XPspCA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:35:05 -0500 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: issue 17097 -- SBVR RTF issue All, In the attached rendering of Clause 11, I have rigorously applied the ISO 1087 convention that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined. I made no changes to the entries themselves whatsoever. (If I did, it was purely an error and should be corrected.) As I have said before, this issue is purely editorial. It's objective is to make the material more approachable. I used the latest Word version of Clause 11 available (which I believe originated from John Hall?). I checked to make sure it had all the Ballot 8 changes, and I believe it does. So no one is surprised, the re-sequencing indicates clearly that a new clause is needed after Clause 12. The new clause addresses roughly what Mark has referred to as 'containers'. That topic clearly deserves attention of its own. To review this document, I suggest you *not* look at the existing Clause 11 material first, but rather review this newly re-sequenced material first, top-down. I think you will be pleased to find how smoothly (logically) it 'flows'. Please keep an open mind. There is no hidden agenda in this work. When you look back at the original Clause 11 material, I expect you will be staggered to see how disorganized it is (not a criticism) and how much material it actually covers -- way *too* much material for one Clause. I hope we can move forward with this revision expeditiously. Ron P.S. I spotted a few things not related to this issue per se that I think could use some attention and inserted notes about them. At 09:35 AM 2/7/2012, Juergen Boldt wrote: Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:09:26 -0600 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 11 Problem: SBVR adheres to ISO 1087 as much as possible. Clearly evident in the structure of ISO 1087 is that no definition should appear until all terms within it have been defined (as needed). This best practice (rule) results in a logical, easy-to-follow presentation. Clause 11 of SBVR is clearly broken in this regard. The result is significant lack of clarity, making detection of errors unnecessarily difficult. The possibility of misinterpretation (or non-comprehension) by software engineers and other readers is high. Aside: Personally I think this solution amounts to simple editing because anyone could apply the ISO 1087 rule without understanding a thing about the content. However, since some might see new headings or groupings as somehow conveying meaning . never the case in SBVR . I have nonetheless requested an issue. There are also a few choices about optimizing placement. Note: **This issue can be resolved without using any meeting time.** Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves. Attachments: Two files containing all Clause 11 entries are attached. One file is unchanged except that entries are numbered. The other file is re-sequenced. The entry numbers reappear in the re-sequenced file indicating the original location of each entry. Unfortunately, this working version does not use the latest version of SBVR . I did not have the source file for that. However, since no changes to the entries themselves are covered by this issue, the version used is largely immaterial to illustrate the proposed resolution. The lay-out simply needs to be re-done for the newer material. 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 Best regards, -Juergen 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 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 SBVR 1.1 - chp11 resequenced v1.doc