Issue 17414: Clarify Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Title: Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: Since SBVR v1.0 was published in January 2008 there has been widespread misinterpretation and misrepresentation of SBVR as a data modeling specification that is not easy to refute with finality because Clause 1 “Scope’ does not make it clear that the authority for the content of an SBVR Vocabulary is the usage of terms and other designations in a corpus of business documentation. Further contributing to the problem is the fact that the Subclause 10.1 formal semantics for SBVR is one that is based on a fact-oriented data modeling paradigm. Even though the formal interpretation is meant to be specified only in terms of formal logic there is wide reference to “facts”. Since the representations of facts are what data is, without statements to the contrary this can be used as a basis for incorrectly interpret the SBVR vocabularies in Clause 7, 8, 9, 1 & 12 as a collection of vocabularies for fact-oriented data modeling rather than documentation of the business language used by business people. Resolution: 1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation. 2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR 3. Explain that “Semantic Anchors” are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data. 4. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models models for and reasoning over data.. 5. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks. 6. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word “fact”. Revised Text: … to follow Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 8, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== iler: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:50:52 -0400 To: issues@omg.org, sbvr-rtf@omg.org From: Juergen Boldt Subject: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:13:32 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1FZ72FFCnPiysrRD6FdCZXDgQtGA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4FD1DE61.0175, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.6.8.105415:17:7.944, X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4FD1DE63.005A,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald Issue nnnnn - Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Busine (as submitted)1.doc 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 Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 17414 Title: Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: Since SBVR v1.0 was published in January 2008 there has been widespread misinterpretation and misrepresentation of SBVR as a data modeling specification that is not easy to refute with finality because Clause 1 .Scope. does not make it clear that the authority for the content of an SBVR Vocabulary is the usage of terms and other designations in a corpus of business documentation. Further contributing to the problem is the fact that the Subclause 10.1 formal semantics for SBVR is one that is based on a fact-oriented data modeling paradigm. Even though the formal interpretation is meant to be specified only in terms of formal logic there is wide reference to .facts.. Since the representations of facts are what data is, without statements to the contrary this can be used as a basis for incorrectly interpret the SBVR vocabularies in Clause 7, 8, 9, 1 & 12 as a collection of vocabularies for fact-oriented data modeling rather than documentation of the business language used by business people. Resolution: 1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation. 2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR 3. Explain that .Semantic Anchors. are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data. 4. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models models for and reasoning over data.. 5. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks. 6. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word .fact.. Revised Text: . to follow Disposition: Resolved To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" X-KeepSent: 324AB1B2:E1377489-85257A17:0042B768; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:24:59 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 06/08/2012 08:25:00, Serialize complete at 06/08/2012 08:25:00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12060812-8974-0000-0000-000009E01881 Two comments about this: 1) I don't know what "Semantic Anchors" are. I do know that this is a new term, one that has not been discussed up to now. Is there background information that explains how Semantic Anchors "... are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data"? Otherwise, I'll need some education on this topic before I can agree to it. 2) I question the claim that "fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks". I think there are some examples of business facts that are permanent features of a business. Capturing these in a vocabulary, and interchanging them between tools, seems like a very useful capability. Otherwise you would have to re-enter them in each tool. Here's a business example: "Company xyz was incorporated in 20xx". Maybe this and other such examples could be incorporated into Definitions or Necessities, but that seems like a circumlocution. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 06/08/2012 07:17 AM Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue nnnnn - Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Busine (as submitted).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] X-Originating-IP: [81.149.51.65] X-Originating-Email: [donald_chapin@msn.com] From: Donald Chapin To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:17:44 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLYh50I+bkDHEKU0SnHGv68kTynUAIqMo/wlMiQhqA= X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2012 13:17:50.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[1ACD6480:01CD4579] Mark, Did you not receive not receive the background information on .Semantic Anchors.? that I sent out at 7:58AM your time? I receive that email back from the OMG at 8:00 AM your time. I.ll forward it directly to you again. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 08 June 2012 13:25 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Two comments about this: 1) I don't know what "Semantic Anchors" are. I do know that this is a new term, one that has not been discussed up to now. Is there background information that explains how Semantic Anchors "... are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data"? Otherwise, I'll need some education on this topic before I can agree to it. 2) I question the claim that "fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks". I think there are some examples of business facts that are permanent features of a business. Capturing these in a vocabulary, and interchanging them between tools, seems like a very useful capability. Otherwise you would have to re-enter them in each tool. Here's a business example: "Company xyz was incorporated in 20xx". Maybe this and other such examples could be incorporated into Definitions or Necessities, but that seems like a circumlocution. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 06/08/2012 07:17 AM Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue nnnnn - Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Busine (as submitted).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Subject: RE: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:48:56 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Ac1FfkhEFmTYR2CwQHylFLL0QUg6jwAFlW/w From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Juergen Boldt" , I think this proposal goes too far in some aspects and not enough in others . Ø 3. Explain that .Semantic Anchors. are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data. While I like what David Frankel is proposing (though have not seen technical detail behind it) I don.t think SBVR should tie itself to endorsing/being used in one way for things like this (conversely I don.t think a Semantic Anchors approach should tie itself only to SBVR for providing the semantics, and should allow use of ontologies or other semantic models). What SBVR should to concern itself with is making its definitions available in a federated manner so that they can be referenced from other models. Then it doesn.t matter whether people are using semantic anchors, linked data, or any other sort of approach. That requires dealing with aspects of unique identification and linked data. While XMI already provides some coverage, I think more may well be needed: even if only best practices for using SBVR XMI in this manner. Other relevant work is already progressing in response to the SIMF and MOF2RDF RFPs. Though this is where the proposal does not go far enough, I.d question whether this is in the scope of an SBVR RTF: it seems a significant architectural undertaking. It certainly does not belong in the same issue as the other points in this document. I.d also advise having separate issues for a) clarifying scope of SBVR and b) cleaning up .fact. language. Regards Pete From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 6:51 AM To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:13:32 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1FZ72FFCnPiysrRD6FdCZXDgQtGA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4FD1DE61.0175, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.6.8.105415:17:7.944, X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4FD1DE63.005A,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:49:33 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) CC: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: [SBVR-RTF] -- Issue 17414 - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR..." X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q58GndPU014481 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1339778981.35762@Hm1XUfIBK4xMEN0aFxAAVA X-Spam-Status: No Mark H Linehan wrote: Two comments about this: 1) I don't know what "Semantic Anchors" are. I do know that this is a new term, one that has not been discussed up to now. Is there background information that explains how Semantic Anchors "... are the best way to relate SBVR vocabularies to data models and models for reasoning over data"? Otherwise, I'll need some education on this topic before I can agree to it. 2) I question the claim that "fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks". I think there are some examples of business facts that are permanent features of a business. Capturing these in a vocabulary, and interchanging them between tools, seems like a very useful capability. Otherwise you would have to re-enter them in each tool. Here's a business example: "Company xyz was incorporated in 20xx". Maybe this and other such examples could be incorporated into Definitions or Necessities, but that seems like a circumlocution. SBVR clause 2.3 (conformance of an exchange document) says that an SBVR exchange document is a representation of a 'fact model' as specified in clause 13. Clause 13 says a 'fact model' is as defined in clause 10. And Clause 10.1.2 defines 'fact model' to be a conceptual schema and a set of facts that use only the concepts in the conceptual schema. Clause 8, and clause 10.1.1.2 says a 'fact' is a proposition that is taken to be true. 10.1.1.2 defines 'fact model' slightly differently, saying that a "model" is a conceptual schema and a population, and that a population is a set of 'ground facts'. It also says that the term 'ground fact' explicitly excludes "rules". Clause 10 actually never defines the term 'ground fact'. I conclude that it means "a proposition that is taken to be true and that is not a rule (an element of guidance)". It does say (p.90): "A fact model is represented by a set of sentences, each of which connotes either a rule or a ground fact." (Note that, in formal logic, the term 'connotes' means 'signifies' -- it is the relationship between an expression and a meaning.) Nothing in SBVR v1.1 constrains the set of facts, and clause 10 makes it clear that a 'fact model' may contain facts that are not rules. So the "claim" that Mark cites is clearly a CHANGE in the intent of SBVR v1.1, and it is a restrictive change, which is not upward-compatible. -Ed -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Date: 06/08/2012 07:17 AM Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue nnnnn - Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Busine (as submitted).doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:34:29 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1V6xmgcbEl/wxnStW1DZp52FKWOA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4FED92C6.00B0, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=12/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.6.9.195417:17:12.455, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, URI_HOSTNAME_CONTAINS_EQUALS, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=12/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4FED92C7.010A,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All . Attached is a revised resolution for Issue 17414 updated to incorporate the feedback from last week.s SBVR RTF telecon. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 08 June 2012 14:51 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:13:32 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1FZ72FFCnPiysrRD6FdCZXDgQtGA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4FD1DE61.0175, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.6.8.105415:17:7.944, X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4FD1DE63.005A,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald Issue 17414 - Revised Resolution for Purpose and Scope of SBVR (2012-06-29).docx From: "Donald Chapin" To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: FW: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:51:47 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1xh3to117dbhOHRSipBjvNEHSPQA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.501BE58A.000C, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=12/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.8.3.141515:17:12.455, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, URI_HOSTNAME_CONTAINS_EQUALS, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __CP_NOT_1, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=12/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020A.501BE58B.006F,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All -- Attached in a revision of the resolution for SBVR Issue 14714 updated based on the discussion in the July 13th SBVR RTF telecon as follows: 1. Re-sequenced the wording in Section 1.2 SBVR Specification Files to make the content flow more smoothly. 2. Added Section 1.5 Conformance for SBVR Tool Vendors with two intro sentences from Clause 2. And reference to files provided with the SBVR specification. 3. Added requested clarification about assertion of truth-values. 4. Added wording as requested to make it clear that SBVR contains all the business semantics needed for the design transformation to IT data and other system models. 5. Added a sentence that business meaning can be provided to data elements in IT models by SBVR as requested. 6. Added a sentence contrasting the relationship between .SBVR ß things in the world of the business. with .Data & Reasoning Models ß recorded business data in some form. as requested. 7. Added references to the Clause 15.1-3 files at the first use of their names in Clause 13. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 08 June 2012 14:51 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:13:32 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1FZ72FFCnPiysrRD6FdCZXDgQtGA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4FD1DE61.0175, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.6.8.105415:17:7.944, X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4FD1DE63.005A,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald Issue 17414 - Revised Resolution for Purpose and Scope of SBVR (2012-08-03-1530-BST.docx Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 17414 Title: Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: Since SBVR v1.0 was published in January 2008 there has been widespread misinterpretation and misrepresentation of SBVR as a data modeling specification that is not easy to refute with finality because Clause 1 .Scope. does not make it clear that the authority for the content of an SBVR Vocabulary is the usage of terms and other designations in a corpus of business documentation. Further contributing to the problem is the fact that the Subclause 10.1 formal semantics for SBVR is one that is based on a fact-oriented data modeling paradigm. Even though the formal interpretation is meant to be specified only in terms of formal logic there is wide reference to .facts.. Since the representations of facts are what data is, without statements to the contrary this can be used as a basis for incorrectly interpret the SBVR vocabularies in Clause 7, 8, 9, 1 & 12 as a collection of vocabularies for fact-oriented data modeling rather than documentation of the business language used by business people. Resolution: 1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation. 2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR 3. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models and models designed for reasoning over instance data. 4. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks. 5. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word .fact.. Revised Text: Clause 1 . editing instructions to follow agreement of changes to Clause 1 .Scope. . NOTE: The proposed changes to the Introduction of Clause 1: .Scope. can be seen as tracked changes in the section below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This specification defines the vocabulary and rules (see Clause 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12) for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies, business facts, and business rules ; as well as an XMI schema for the interchange of business vocabularies and business rules among organizations and between software tools. This specification is interpretable in predicate logic with a small extension using modal logicoperators. This specificationIt supports linguistic analysis of text for business vocabularies and business rules, with the linguistic analysis itself being outside the scope of this specification. 1.1 Applicability This specification is applicable to the domain of business vocabularies and business rules of all kinds of business activities of in all kinds of organizations. It provides an unambiguous, meaning-centric, multilingual, and semantically rich capability for defining meanings of the language used by people in an industry, profession, discipline, field of study, or organization. It This specification is conceptualized optimally for business people rather than automated rules processing., and It is designed to be used for business purposes, independent of information systems designs. , to serve these business purposes: . Unambiguous definition of the meaning of business concepts and business rules, consistently across all the terms, names and other representations used to express them, and across the natural languages in which those representations are expressed, so that they are not easily misunderstood either by "ordinary business people" or by lawyers. . Expression of the meanings of concepts and business rules in the wordings used by business people, who may belong to different communities, so that each expression wording is uniquely associated with one meaning in a given context. . Transformation of the meanings of concepts and business rules as expressed by humans into forms that are suitable to be processed by tools, and vice versa. . Interpretation of the meanings of concepts and business rules in order to discover inconsistencies and gaps within an SBVR Content Model (see below) using logic-based techniques. . Application of the meanings of concepts and business rules to real-world business situations in order to enable reproducible decisions and to identify conformant and non-conformant business behavior. . Exchange of the meanings of concepts and business rules between humans and tools as well as between tools without losing information about the essence of those meanings. 1.2 SBVR Specification Files This specification provides that SBVR business vocabulary and business rule content is interchanged among organizations and between software tools in .SBVR Content Model. files (see Clause 13.1.2). The full SBVR vocabulary and rules (see Clause 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12) for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies and business rules in contained in the .SBVR Content Model for SBVR. file (see Clauses 13.1.1 figure and 15.3), which is an example of an SBVR Content Model interchange file. The MOF/XMI XML Schema for SBVR Content Model interchange files (e.g. Clause 15.3) is the .SBVR XMI XML Schema. file (see Clauses 13 Intro and 15.2). This SBVR XML Schema is generated from the SBVR XMI Metamodel file based on transform rules in Clause 13 and the OMG XMI Specification. This specification also provides an .SBVR XMI Metamodel. file (see Clauses 13.1 and 15.1) that is generated from the content of Clauses 8, 9, 11 & 12 based on transform rules in Clause 13 and Annex C. 1.3 Terminological Dictionaries and Rulebooks The capability has two major areas of support: . SBVR Terminological Dictionary: the business vocabulary part of an SBVR Content Model. As with all kinds of dictionaries, it contains business data content that defines terms and other representations, including definitional business rules. Dictionaries in general are not metamodels. Dictionaries have no metamodel levels. All terms in a dictionary - including the terms that define the dictionary content itself - are at the same level. Dictionaries are easily and naturally extendable, as happens all the time in the culture. This is also true for SBVR Content Models. . SBVR Rulebook: an SBVR Content Model that includes behavioral guidance. It comprises an SBVR Terminological Dictionary and business data content that defines elements of guidance, including behavioral business rules. An SBVR Content Model documents the meaning of terms and other representations that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, such as contracts, product/service specifications, and governance and regulatory compliance documents. Such documents are the authoritative source for the content of an SBVR Content Model. 1.4 Usage of an SBVR Content Model Concepts in an SBVR Content Model can have as members in their extension only things that are in the real or planned world of the organization. The extension of each of these concepts never contains anything in the SBVR Content Model. The terms and other representations in an SBVR Content Model name and describe the concepts. SBVR Content Models focus exclusively on defining meaning and the expressions that represent meaning. They do not concern themselves with or contain assertions of the truth-value of propositions. Such concerns and assertions are outside the scope of SBVR and belong to the domain of data and rules enforcement. While putting business vocabulary in a published SBVR Business Vocabulary and business rules in a published SBVR Rulebook is often used by organizations to communicate that, in fact, this vocabulary is the vocabulary in use and these rules are the rules in force, such assertions are outside the scope of the SBVR metamodel. SBVR Content Models therefore do not contain any kind of business data except business vocabulary and business rules content. While this specification contains the SBVR XMI Metamodel for interchanging the documentation of business vocabulary and business rules content, the SBVR Metamodel is not a metamodel for any form of data model, message model, business information, or model designed for reasoning over business information. A transformation is required to bridge from an SBVR Content Model to a data model, message model, business information, model for reasoning over business information, or any other IT system model. An SBVR Content Model provides all the business semantics needed as This specification is applicable as input to such transformations by IT staff into information system designs, using a combination of decisions from system architects and Platform Independent Model designers together with software tool function. By use of Semantic Anchor URIs, SBVR Content Models can provide the business meaning for any data element for which business vocabulary has been defined. In SBVR Content Models the key relationship is between meanings in the business vocabulary / rulebook and things in the world of the business; whereas in IT systems the key relationship is between classes in the data/reasoning model and recorded business data in some form. 1.5 Conformance for SBVR Tool Vendors The SBVR XMI Metamodel file is provided as part of this specification (see Clause 15.1). The SBVR XMI XML Schema file is also provided as part of this specification (see Clause 15.2). This specification defines conformance (see Clause 2) for an SBVR Content Model interchange file (see Clause 15.3 for an example); for software that produces SBVR Content Model interchange files, and for software that processes SBVR Content Model interchange files. Conformance of software is defined in terms of: . the nature of its use of SBVR . its support for SBVR concepts that are defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12 of this specification. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of revised Clause 1:.Scope. Clause 4 In Clause 4 terms and Definitions, in the entry for Terminological Dictionary, REPLACE .representations of facts related to. with .specifications of.. Clause 9 In the sixth (last) sentence in third paragraph after the Clause 9 Logical Formulation of Semantics vocabulary heading, REPLACE .representations of facts related to. with .specifications of.. In the first sentence in 8th paragraph after the Clause 9 Logical Formulation of Semantics vocabulary heading, DELETE .as a collection of facts about it. at the end of the sentence. Clause 11 In the definition in the entry for .terminological dictionary. in Clause 11.1.1 REPLACE .representations of facts related to. (styled) with .specifications of. (un-styled). In the definition in the entry for .rulebook. in Clause 11.2.2.4 REPLACE .representations of facts related to. (styled) with .specifications of. (un-styled). Clause 13 ADD the following right after .SBVR Metamodel. at the beginning of the first introductory parapgraph in Clause 13 on printed page 187 and at the beginning of the second parapgraph in Clause 13.1.1 on printed page 188: (see Clause 15.1) ADD the following right after .XMI-based XML schema. in the middle of the third introductory parapgraph in Clause 13 on printed page 187: (see Clause 15.2) ADD the following right after .MOF-based SBVR Model of SBVR. near the beginning of the second parapgraph in Clause 13.1.2 on printed page 188: (see Clause 15.3) REPLACE the following line in paragraph beginning with .The classes in the metamodel that mirror .. in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts.: Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set WITH: Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set, fact In the third paragraph at the beginning of Clause 13 on printed page 185 REPLACE the phrase .. an XMI-based. WITH . the SBVR XMI. Throughout the SBVR Specification REPLACE the characters .-model. WITH .-XMI-Metamodel. REPLACE the phrase .SBVR Metamodel XML Schema. WITH .SBVR XMI XML Schema. REPLACE the phrase .MOF-based SBVR Model of SBVR. WITH .SBVR Content Model for SBVR. REPLACE the phrase .MOF-based SBVR Model. WITH .SBVR Content Model. Disposition: Resolved To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: SBVR Issue 17414 - proposed text for clause 1.5 "For SBVR Tool Vendors" X-KeepSent: 9B694B94:3120879E-85257A4F:0059B55B; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:59:37 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 08/03/2012 14:59:38, Serialize complete at 08/03/2012 14:59:38 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12080318-7182-0000-0000-0000022AE38F Here's some proposed text for this new sub-clause: SBVR tools generate and process SBVR Content Model interchange files that validate according to the "SBVR XMI XML Schema" files of clause 15.2. The "SBVR Content Model for SBVR" file of clause 15.3 can be used as an example SBVR Content Model interchange file. The "SBVR XMI Metamodel" file of clause 15.1 is a machine-readable metamodel that may be employed in the development of SBVR tools. An additional suggestion: we should make sure that the headings of clauses 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3 use the terms that we have picked for each of these files: 15.1 SBVR XMI Metamodel 15.2 SBVR XMI XML Schema 15.3 SBVR Content Model for SBVR Also, add to 15.2 a sentence such as this: SBVR tools generate and process SBVR Content Model interchange files that validate according to one or more of the SBVR XMI XML Schema files described here. This will help to further tie together the relationships among these files. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:02:25 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2RyR3VnzjBPq53TbaoIAYDik7W8g== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.50520394.00C1, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=12/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.9.13.152125:17:12.455, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, URI_HOSTNAME_CONTAINS_EQUALS, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODY_SIZE_10000_PLUS, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS, __MIME_HTML, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML, __STYLE_RATWARE_2, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_70_90, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK X-Junkmail-Status: score=12/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.50520395.01A9,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false All . Attached is the revised resolution for SBVR Issue 17414 (SBVR Scope) updated as per the Meeting Notes from the last discussion in an SBVR RTF telecon, plus input from Mark Linehan. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 08 June 2012 14:51 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17414 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: [SBVR-RTF] -- New Issue - "Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data" Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:13:32 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1FZ72FFCnPiysrRD6FdCZXDgQtGA== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4FD1DE61.0175, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.6.8.105415:17:7.944, X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4FD1DE63.005A,ss=1,re=0.000,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Juergen, Please enter a new SBVR Issue as per the contents of the attached Word Document. Thanks, Donald Issue 17414 - Revised Resolution for Purpose and Scope of SBVR (2012-09-13).docx Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 17414 Title: Clarify the Purpose and Scope of SBVR, the Authority for SBVR Vocabulary Content, and SBVR Vocabularies Do Not Include Business Instance Data Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com) Summary: Since SBVR v1.0 was published in January 2008 there has been widespread misinterpretation and misrepresentation of SBVR as a data modeling specification that is not easy to refute with finality because Clause 1 .Scope. does not make it clear that the authority for the content of an SBVR Vocabulary is the usage of terms and other designations in a corpus of business documentation. Further contributing to the problem is the fact that the Subclause 10.1 formal semantics for SBVR is one that is based on a fact-oriented data modeling paradigm. Even though the formal interpretation is meant to be specified only in terms of formal logic there is wide reference to .facts.. Since the representations of facts are what data is, without statements to the contrary this can be used as a basis for incorrectly interpret the SBVR vocabularies in Clause 7, 8, 9, 1 & 12 as a collection of vocabularies for fact-oriented data modeling rather than documentation of the business language used by business people. Resolution: 1. Clarify the Scope of SBVR in Clause 1 to be explicit that SBVR does not include business instance data; and make it clear that the content of an SBVR vocabulary documents the meaning of terms that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, especially governance documentation. 2. Add a list of purposes / uses of SBVR 3. Make it clear that SBVR vocabularies are different from all forms of data models and models designed for reasoning over instance data. 4. Make fact an abstract concept in Clause 13.2.2 as instances of business facts (instance data) and fact statements do not go into an SBVR Vocabularies or Rulebooks. 5. Clean up miscellaneous uses of the word .fact.. Revised Text: Clause 1 . editing instructions to follow agreement of changes to Clause 1 .Scope. . NOTE: The proposed changes to the Introduction of Clause 1: .Scope. can be seen as tracked changes in the section below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This specification defines the vocabulary and rules (see Clause 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12) for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies and business rules for the exchange of business vocabularies and business rules among organizations and between software tools. This specification is interpretable in predicate logic with a small extension using modal operators. It supports linguistic analysis of text for business vocabularies and business rules, with the linguistic analysis itself being outside the scope of this specification. 1.1 Applicability This specification is applicable to the domain of business vocabularies and business rules of all kinds of business activities in all kinds of organizations. It provides an unambiguous, meaning-centric, multilingual, and semantically rich capability for defining meanings of the language used by people in an industry, profession, discipline, field of study, or organization. This specification is conceptualized optimally for business people rather than automated processing. It is designed to be used for business purposes, independent of information systems designs , to serve these business purposes: . Unambiguous definition of the meaning of business concepts and business rules, consistently across all the terms, names and other representations used to express them, and across the natural languages in which those representations are expressed, so that they are not easily misunderstood either by "ordinary business people" or by lawyers. . Expression of the meanings of concepts and business rules in the wordings used by business people, who may belong to different communities, so that each expression wording is uniquely associated with one meaning in a given context. . Transformation of the meanings of concepts and business rules as expressed by humans into forms that are suitable to be processed by tools, and vice versa. . Interpretation of the meanings of concepts and business rules in order to discover inconsistencies and gaps within an SBVR Content Model (see below) using logic-based techniques. . Application of the meanings of concepts and business rules to real-world business situations in order to enable reproducible decisions and to identify conformant and non-conformant business behavior. . Exchange of the meanings of concepts and business rules between humans and tools as well as between tools without losing information about the essence of those meanings. 1.2 SBVR Specification Files This specification provides that SBVR business vocabulary and business rule content is exchanged among organizations and between software tools in .SBVR Content Model. files (see Clause 13.1.2). The full SBVR vocabulary and rules (see Clause 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12) for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies and business rules in contained in the .SBVR Content Model for SBVR. file (see Clauses 13.1.1 figure and 15.3), which is an example of an SBVR Content Model exchange document. The MOF/XMI XML Schema for SBVR Content Model exchange documents (e.g. Clause 15.3) is the .SBVR XMI XML Schema. file (see Clauses 13 Intro and 15.2). This SBVR XML Schema is generated from the SBVR XMI Metamodel file based on transform rules in Clause 13 and the OMG XMI Specification. This specification also provides an .SBVR XMI Metamodel. file (see Clauses 13.1 and 15.1) that is generated from the content of Clauses 8, 9, 11 & 12 based on transform rules in Clause 13 and Annex C. 1.3 Terminological Dictionaries and Rulebooks The capability has two major areas of support: . SBVR Terminological Dictionary: the business vocabulary part of an SBVR Content Model. As with all kinds of dictionaries, it contains business data content that defines terms and other representations, including definitional business rules. Dictionaries in general are not metamodels. Dictionaries have no metamodel levels. All terms in a dictionary - including the terms that define the dictionary content itself - are at the same level. Dictionaries are easily and naturally extendable, as happens all the time in the culture. This is also true for SBVR Content Models. . SBVR Rulebook: an SBVR Content Model that includes behavioral guidance. It comprises an SBVR Terminological Dictionary and business data content that defines elements of guidance, including behavioral business rules. An SBVR Content Model documents the meaning of terms and other representations that business authors intend when they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, such as contracts, product/service specifications, and governance and regulatory compliance documents. Such documents are the authoritative source for the content of an SBVR Content Model. 1.4 Usage of an SBVR Content Model Concepts in an SBVR Content Model can have as members in their extension only things that are in the real or planned world of the organization. The extension of each of these concepts never contains anything in the SBVR Content Model. The terms and other representations in an SBVR Content Model name and describe the concepts. SBVR Content Models focus exclusively on defining meaning and the expressions that represent meaning. They do not concern themselves with or contain assertions of the truth-value of propositions. Such concerns and assertions are outside the scope of SBVR and belong to the domain of data and rules enforcement. While putting business vocabulary in a published SBVR Business Vocabulary and business rules in a published SBVR Rulebook is often used by organizations to communicate that, in fact, this vocabulary is the vocabulary in use and these rules are the rules in force, such assertions are outside the scope of the SBVR metamodel. For example, an organization could propose rules in a rulebook that are never put into force. SBVR Content Models therefore do not contain any kind of business data except business vocabulary and business rules content. While this specification contains the SBVR XMI Metamodel for interchanging the documentation of business vocabulary and business rules content, the SBVR Metamodel is not a metamodel for any form of data model, message model, business information, or model designed for reasoning over business information. A transformation is required to bridge from an SBVR Content Model to a data model, message model, business information, model for reasoning over business information, or any other IT system model. An SBVR Content Model provides all the business semantics needed as input to such transformations by IT staff into information system designs, using a combination of decisions from system architects and Platform Independent Model designers together with software tool function. By use of URIs, SBVR Content Models can provide the business intent of any data element for which business vocabulary has been defined. In SBVR Content Models the key relationship is between meanings in the business vocabulary / rulebook and things in the world of the business; whereas in IT systems the key relationship is between classes in the data/reasoning model and recorded business data in some form. 1.5 For SBVR Tool Vendors The SBVR XMI Metamodel file is provided as part of this specification (see Clause 15.1). The SBVR XMI XML Schema file is also provided as part of this specification (see Clause 15.2). SBVR tools generate and process SBVR Content Model exchange documents that validate according to the "SBVR XMI XML Schema" files of clause 15.2. The "SBVR Content Model for SBVR" file of clause 15.3 can be used as an example SBVR Content Model exchange document. The "SBVR XMI Metamodel" file of clause 15.1 is a machine-readable metamodel that may be employed in the development of SBVR tools. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of revised Clause 1:.Scope. Clause 4 In Clause 4 terms and Definitions, in the entry for Terminological Dictionary, REPLACE .representations of facts related to. with .specifications of.. Clause 9 In the sixth (last) sentence in third paragraph after the Clause 9 Logical Formulation of Semantics vocabulary heading, REPLACE .representations of facts related to. with .specifications of.. In the first sentence in 8th paragraph after the Clause 9 Logical Formulation of Semantics vocabulary heading, DELETE .as a collection of facts about it. at the end of the sentence. Clause 11 In the definition in the entry for .terminological dictionary. in Clause 11.1.1 REPLACE .representations of facts related to. (styled) with .specifications of. (un-styled). In the definition in the entry for .rulebook. in Clause 11.2.2.4 REPLACE .representations of facts related to. (styled) with .specifications of. (un-styled). Clause 13 ADD the following right after .SBVR Metamodel. at the beginning of the first introductory parapgraph in Clause 13 on printed page 187 and at the beginning of the second parapgraph in Clause 13.1.1 on printed page 188: (see Clause 15.1) ADD the following right after .XMI-based XML schema. in the middle of the third introductory parapgraph in Clause 13 on printed page 187: (see Clause 15.2) ADD the following right after .MOF-based SBVR Model of SBVR. near the beginning of the second parapgraph in Clause 13.1.2 on printed page 188: (see Clause 15.3) REPLACE the following line in paragraph beginning with .The classes in the metamodel that mirror .. in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts.: Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set WITH: Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set, fact In the third paragraph at the beginning of Clause 13 on printed page 185 REPLACE the phrase .. an XMI-based. WITH . the SBVR XMI. Clause 13 ADD the following sentence after the second sentence in Clause 15.2: SBVR tools generate and process SBVR Content Model exchange documents that validate according to the SBVR XMI XML Schema files described here. Throughout the SBVR Specification REPLACE the characters .-model. WITH .-XMI-Metamodel. REPLACE the phrase .SBVR Metamodel. WITH .SBVR XMI Metamodel. REPLACE the phrase .SBVR Metamodel XML Schema. WITH .SBVR XMI XML Schema. REPLACE the phrase .MOF-based SBVR Model of SBVR. WITH .SBVR Content Model for SBVR. REPLACE the phrase .MOF-based SBVR Model. WITH .SBVR Content Model. REPLACE the phrase .SBVR exchange document. WITH .SBVR Content Model exchange document. Disposition: Resolved