Issue 17098: "Three Editing Instructions Overlooked in Issue 17017 Resolution (sbvr-rtf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Problem: The Revised Text of 17017 makes no mention of clause 13.2.2. In clause 13.2.2, the first paragraph contains the sentence: "The signifier of each synonym of the designation is an alias for the class." Nothing is said in 13.2.2 about how to encode the "alias", but the diagram in 13.2.2 shows an "element import". The revised text does not, but should, delete this drawing element as well. Further, under the Rationale subhead in 13.2.2, the first sentence reads: "Use of aliasing, though not common in MOF-based metamodels, keeps a strong alignment of the SBVR Metamodel with the SBVR vocabulary." Presumably, that will no longer be the case if the element imports are deleted. I suggest it should rather read: "In general, MOF does not provide a mechanism for declaring synonyms. Therefore, the Synonym elements of the SBVR vocabularies do not have counterparts in the SBVR MOF metamodel. They are, however, captured in SBVR vocabularies that are instances of the SBVR MOF metamodel." Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 1, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" Subject: FW: NEW ISSUE -- [SBVR 1.1 RTF] -- VOTE - SPECIAL Ballot 9 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Monday, February 6, 2012 ( 1 WEEK) -- Special SBVR 1.1 RTF Ballot Hi Juergen, I.ve forwarded the email I sent last Wednesday and highlighted the parts that define the Issue. I.m assuming that an Issue and a ballot are required. Do you think that Ed.s points can be handled as edit corrections? The ballot on Pete Rivett.s two .urgent. Issues is complete and both resolutions agreed with him were approved by the ballot. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com] Sent: 01 February 2012 15:53 To: Juergen Boldt (juergen@omg.org) Cc: issues@omg.org; Ed Barkmeyer (edbark@nist.gov) Subject: FW: [SBVR 1.1 RTF] -- VOTE - SPECIAL Ballot 9 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Monday, February 6, 2012 ( 1 WEEK) -- Special SBVR 1.1 RTF Ballot Hi Juergin,, Could you make Ed's email below an SBVR Issue, title it: "Three Editing Instructions Overlooked in Issue 17017 Resolution," and let me know the Issue number as soon as you can fit it in? I want to send out another SBVR 1.1 RTF ballot today so there are no unturned stones to cause problems down the line. Ed, thanks for pointing these out. Your email arrived after I had already sent out the ballot. I don't know how I missed them as I searched on the relevant words three different times. Many Thanks, Donald -----Original Message----- From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@nist.gov] Sent: 30 January 2012 22:21 To: Donald Chapin Cc: sbvr-rtf Subject: Re: [SBVR 1.1 RTF] -- VOTE - SPECIAL Ballot 9 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE Monday, February 6, 2012 ( 1 WEEK) -- Special SBVR 1.1 RTF Ballot I do not vote in RTF 1.1. I do think this is a good solution. Problem: The Revised Text of 17017 makes no mention of clause 13.2.2. In clause 13.2.2, the first paragraph contains the sentence: "The signifier of each synonym of the designation is an alias for the class." Nothing is said in 13.2.2 about how to encode the "alias", but the diagram in 13.2.2 shows an "element import". The revised text does not, but should, delete this drawing element as well. Further, under the Rationale subhead in 13.2.2, the first sentence reads: "Use of aliasing, though not common in MOF-based metamodels, keeps a strong alignment of the SBVR Metamodel with the SBVR vocabulary." Presumably, that will no longer be the case if the element imports are deleted. I suggest it should rather read: "In general, MOF does not provide a mechanism for declaring synonyms. Therefore, the Synonym elements of the SBVR vocabularies do not have counterparts in the SBVR MOF metamodel. They are, however, captured in SBVR vocabularies that are instances of the SBVR MOF metamodel." I respectfully suggest that you may want to revise the Revised text for 17017 to include changes to 13.2.2 before balloting it. -Ed Donald Chapin wrote: > > To SBVR *_1.1_* RTF Voting Members . > > > > Two Issues have arisen about the content of the SBVR Clause 15.1 > Metamodel file. This is a special SBVR *_1.1_* RTF ballot is needed > to complete the generation of the SBVR Clause 15.2 XSD file. > > > > > > 88solutions Manfred Koethe > > Adaptive Pete Rivett > > Business Rule Solutions LLC Ronald Ross > > Business Semantics Ltd Donald Chapin > > Deere & Company Duane Clarkson > > e-Business Management Sect. Davide Storelli > > Fujitsu Ltd Hiroshi Miyazaki > > Hewlett-Packard Company Jishnu Mukerji > > Inferware John Hall > > International Business Machines Mark Linehan > > KDM Analytics Nick Mansourov > > KnowGravity Inc Markus Schacher > > MEGA International Antoine Lonjon > > PNA Group Sjir Nijssen > > Rule ML Initiative John Hall > > Thematix Partners LLC Elisa Kendall > > TIBCO Paul Vincent > > > > > > Please vote by reply to SBVR-RTF@omg.org for > each of the following recommended SBVR *_1.1_* RTF Issue Dispositions > by MONDAY, February 6, 2012 (1 WEEK) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Issue Dispositions for the Issues listed below are in the attached > file, and on the server at > > (ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-rtf/FilesForVoting/SBVRIssueDispositions-B > allot9.doc) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _.RESOLVED. ISSUES_ > > > > Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 16913 > > > > "'org.omg.sbvr.sameRole' Use of .MOF Tag." > > > > ____ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain > > > > > > Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 17017 > > > > "elementImports Cannot be from the Same Package" > > > > ____ Yes ____ No ____ Abstain > > > > > > > > Many Thanks, > > > > Donald > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."