Issue 17439: Individual Verb Concept (sbvr-rtf) Source: Rule ML Initiative (Mr. John Hall, john.hall(at)modelsystems.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR Source: RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk) Summary: SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically: • ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ • ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ – i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’ There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say: • ‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’) • ‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’) If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed. It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”. Resolution: 1. Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only 2. Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’. Revised Text: On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1 REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept” On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’: individual verb concept Definition: proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept Note: … some explanatory comments Example: … some illustrative examples REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’) • … to be identified and added REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”: • Figure 8.1 • Figure 9.3 • Figure 11.2 … plus fixes for any additional side effects: Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 29, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== sposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 17439 Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of .concept. to include .individual verb concept. in SBVR Source: RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk) Summary: SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically: . .concept. generalizes .noun concept. and .verb concept. . .noun concept. generalizes .general concept. and .individual concept. . i.e. .general concept. means .general noun concept. and .individual concept. means .individual noun concept. There are no equivalents for .verb concept.. SBVR does not explicitly define .individual verb concept., so cannot say: . .individual concept. generalizes .individual noun concept. and .individual verb concept. (inheriting from: .concept. generalizes .noun concept. and .verb concept.) . .verb concept. generalizes .general verb concept. and .individual verb concept. (paralleling: .noun concept. generalizes .general noun concept. and .individual noun concept.) If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed. It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as .EU-Rent. and .Luxembourg., are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included .individual verb concept., an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as .EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg.. Resolution: 1. Change the preferred term that is currently .individual concept. to .individual noun concept. to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only 2. Add the concept .individual verb concept. for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of .concept.. Revised Text: On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1 REPLACE the current term heading .individual concept. WITH .individual noun concept. And REPLACE .concept., the first term in the definition, WITH .noun concept. On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for .individual verb concept.: individual verb concept Definition: proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept Note: . some explanatory comments Example: . some illustrative examples REPLACE the signifier .individual concept. WITH .individual noun concept. in the following places (but not in the .Source. subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed .individual concept.) . . to be identified and added REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier .individual concept. with .individual noun concept.: . Figure 8.1 . Figure 9.3 . Figure 11.2 . plus fixes for any additional side effects: Disposition: Resolved X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 267922.34835.bm@omp1028.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1340313206; bh=LgcDnBcJOZ8EK6kKtARC2lNTdBD+lEqk3tmdFXtFBPQ=; 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=Mok5nxMsTdP8jb0SBdbD9ZIx8tlYOC11UKIOxlTQq619wjWXczZgmuCg1euTFhAC5rQf8tcfg/0/fruDxrpoRLzKefGtF7ybuuwynI3srFXqbGepUKH/gthB1k8EJPJAiy10BCtL4BKSVrCWa8x0U9onVr7w1vvaVlVH9p7/rkA= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: zxXFXO4VM1l6JG4m89Q23Csk0MTG1uzI_Iq3iOKo7J1OkWs U8lmNm4NAi3X6teRa2_XyAbrFs6_3.E3K_kLF4L0IT8YBArIANHZ.63N8UhT OCecVVzAGZ0mwJrKOKJvSceR2a31KG4lqsV1Q16U77gd.dVjhyJWe42OZ5nK 8CrostTUVaj3oV0T_ii0tomlE2H7aIjYC6szwBY.a5R_5_kGQSbJFiyl80Hy XIFrDE4SOUdKmfecQawl0u0agYebz8T.tuy1v23AB50uUb3GhNGgSQgXKE80 XxZcnM_AFH0y7vO30Cl70Rap9nezAXv8PhdpthOPQSLHWlD2Ty6TEPoGi8dh j.l7hfHHuAZsYNmxK2TpcW4EfA.XiqtvJ0Ru65SWAteAV1drg2U1MNBHGzw7 TNVktVOcFwiqKB7ii.nOEeNnQD6ZI4lykd6qgqGvtWMouDhcEVsUDI4NS5Cl YqEJdM92QmV5EXOMZc1CK3Oy6SdqxD_H5kEra_XZ51_M2MPxIpfqmBnTzKtL vUZwM9C642ycPzJ9UTifMMUUNZpknps0EehFTgO9FfTJzVblWYlD.fGF9_co bJuKzSQ13mDnhZyH7WLO4uHBWhsHovJ._oMI.SkCzh0wZfB9SuXkPzP3Mazp vS3HJMq04yYB8LTX6ZNdLNHySBUf3viW4vUCSsx8VHvx4WcT6x61SEptrmUc okEyol2gFwZc35M227JhLPSZ4brcegA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:13:18 -0500 To: John Hall , SBVR RTF From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: [SBVR 1.2] New issue: Individual Verb Concept John, In an quick first-pass review of this issue, I see the proposed definition for "individual verb concept" Is "proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept." But when I look at the definition of "verb concept" (pdf p. 35), the emphasis is on actuality, not proposition. And the definition of "actuality" (pdf p. 54) is on state of affairs, not proposition. So it seems to me there is a fundamental misalignment in the proposed definition. but perhaps I am missing something? Ron At 09:30 AM 6/21/2012, John Hall wrote: Hi Juergen, Would you, please, enter a new SBVR Issue as described in the attached document. Thanks, John 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: 289828.19538.bm@omp1014.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1340355932; bh=T6Cmy+bpmKW5FFeBAr7VDLBZFQa9wRU4WwJvSxiCAI8=; h=Message-ID:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=fUK1Mj1tmHwUWrhpBQGykzSClLJkDAm8V4+6QptlYXA6O3fSdeK0iF56RVN9G9DgTD+Ean+ZCc9BPh3xfBZt11tKr5y5OCyLvKEyFbnYnmDbh2p7/9vRn+4M9r/vZatqAFU2L5H6vMKRZnrlVt5LcysuXesD567QB47cdNRKVOo= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: cRl_MqEVM1kp70jXF.INBVsHH_7jagrQy63pAdz_.nlOv7k Dqe7ODG6yn4VBdQAmqy2ZOFzqXpmSMSlqZfaxodi5VrIqugV311Hw7_nPOE8 xHMtMO_NcR9pRUjYeuAcpl0YVEWv_BAJCJmGFpeQDdjWMVPe.Wbgl8kl7V5T CFyeQL2JPaZcn4yeuSwby6yxY4ruJ_I6M3LE4BS4wUQx_eAckDEGJlh3h4bZ 3Hao_k8h1ZovYZ4javET9U_I69uqGSM7kmk3JbDC5phwNtCgCoGiX8w2P8Al __gmhpJAIgAXDoo1jmEZaI501f45Fr6J0MsRSngZ5zHK3iZT7z2xUjxfriYZ DeRJcM8q5FKxH2DTLS04dryIZ6I15p2VjMHC_Wz8gZh7CaXQMkCq_Vu1xrKl ax.XAlpwqkjgDeoq4SFLdvOFqvDsXLVrKFGVEvHfhssZgccSKeyhnbvq9vAp ENA_BLdDrCwH7VzLzCx68MoqXxVClMAxbYz7oieZsP8MY_ar3CZPupWm3RRn M_cuvpaUdW4HTzfSbabHK4aw7RNS0kzMAWlPYh9VHOzkgv1kdsVfD21ttxH9 uJwOEHgLZ7gJKGcrJZvEg5kMzF0KkvosUh1MiErae.q5OpWTklcRozojZaOJ o1tnxtgDrJqt5TnQXEtw7wr_mbGUzU6F3LLg96.OXZUkEfFnx7GTp5g-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 04:05:26 -0500 To: John Hall From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: Re: [SBVR 1.2] New issue: Individual Verb Concept Cc: SBVR RTF John, I missed about 50% of the first half of the meeting due to the thunderstorm, so I probably missed that you said that. Sorry. Ron At 06:09 PM 6/21/2012, John Hall wrote: Thanks, Ron, I said in the teleconference today that I was a little embarrassed that I had too hastily reused a definition drafted in SBVR meetings about a year ago. I realized just before the meeting that I'd got it wrong, when I looked more carefully at the definition. In Clause 8.1, 'proposition' and 'verb concept' are distinct specializations of 'meaning', so I should have a definition of 'individual verb concept' that starts with 'verb concept that ...' rather than 'proposition that ...' What I'm trying to do is create symmetry between how noun concepts and verb concepts (as specializations of 'concept') are modelled in SBVR. I want something analogous to 'individual (noun) concept', which is defined as '(noun) concept that corresponds to only one thing' (Clause 8.1.1). The direct analogy would be 'individual verb conceptdefined as 'verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept', but there is a necessity in the entry for 'individual (noun) concept' that 'No individual (noun) concept is a verb concept role.' So, I'll retire to do a little more work on this. Donald has told me that there are a couple of other issues that might have some influence, and I'll check them out first. Attached is an update of the issue, with a comment that the definition of individual verb conceptneeds to be replaced. Regards, John On 21/06/2012 22:13, Ronald G. Ross wrote: John, In an quick first-pass review of this issue, I see the proposed definition for "individual verb concept" Is "proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept." But when I look at the definition of "verb concept" (pdf p. 35), the emphasis is on actuality, not proposition. And the definition of "actuality" (pdf p. 54) is on state of affairs, not proposition. So it seems to me there is a fundamental misalignment in the proposed definition. but perhaps I am missing something? Ron At 09:30 AM 6/21/2012, John Hall wrote: Hi Juergen, Would you, please, enter a new SBVR Issue as described in the attached document. Thanks, John 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: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:19:00 +0100 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: SBVR RTF Subject: [SBVR] Issue 17439 Individual Verb Concept X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Hello all, Attached is my latest draft of 17439. I have used 'unitary verb concept' rather than 'individual verb concept', but 'individual verb concept' could be added, if needed. John Issue 17439 - Individual Verb Concept [20120713 1430 BST].doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 17439 Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of .concept. to include .individual verb concept. in SBVR Source: RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk) Summary: SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically: . .concept. generalizes .noun concept. and .verb concept. . .noun concept. generalizes .general concept. and .individual concept. . i.e. .general concept. means .general noun concept. and .individual concept. means .individual noun concept. There are no equivalents for .verb concept.. SBVR does not explicitly define .individual verb concept., so cannot say: . .individual concept. generalizes .individual noun concept. and .individual verb concept. (inheriting from: .concept. generalizes .noun concept. and .verb concept.) . .verb concept. generalizes .general verb concept. and .individual verb concept. (paralleling: .noun concept. generalizes .general noun concept. and .individual noun concept.) If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed. It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as .EU-Rent. and .Luxembourg., are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included .individual verb concept., an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as .EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg.. Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions Issue 14849: .Instances of Clause 8 fact type [now .verb concept.] should be states of affairs.. If the resolution is not accepted, the revised text for this issue will show .actuality. instead of .state of affairs.. Un-numbered issue: .Correct ambiguities in signifiers and definitions of noun concepts.. If the resolution is not accepted, the revised text for this issue will show .unitary concept. instead of .unitary noun concept.. Discussion: After some discussion between RTF members, it was recognized that .unitary verb concept. (analogous to .unitary noun concept.) would meet the requirement. Resolution: Add to Clause 8: . unitary verb concept: a verb concept that has at most one instance (which can change over time) in its extension Revised Text: On printed page 21 in Clause 8.1.1 following the entry for .verb concept. ADD this entry for .unitary verb concept.: unitary verb concept Definition: verb concept that has roles that range over unitary noun concepts Necessity: Each role of a unitary verb concept ranges over a unitary noun concept. Note: Unitary verb concepts allow individual states of affairs that are needed in a business vocabulary to be included in a body of shared meanings. Example: .EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg. and .EU-Corp is incorporated in Geneva. are unitary verb concepts that specialize the verb concept .company is incorporated in jurisdiction.. Example: .EU-Rent is wholly owned by EU-Corp. is a stand-alone unitary verb concept. CHANGES TO DIAGRAMS Detail to be provided Disposition: Resolved Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:59:11 +0100 From: John Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 To: SBVR RTF , issues@omg.org Subject: [SBVR RTF] Issue 17527 and Issue 17439 drafts X-Mailcore-Auth: 4600872 X-Mailcore-Domain: 13170 Hello all, Attached are updated drafts of issues 17527 and Issue 17439 after thinking through the discussion on them in last week's teleconference (20 July) Regards, John Content-Type: application/msword; name="SBVR issue 17527 Ambiguities in definitions of noun concepts ]20120726 1500" BST].doc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="SBVR issue 17527 Ambiguities in definitions of noun concepts"; filename*1=" ]20120726 1500 BST].doc" SBVR issue 17527 Ambiguities in definitions of noun concepts ]20120726 1500.doc Issue 17439 - Individual Verb Concept [20120726 1700 BST].doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 17439 Title: Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of .concept. to include .individual verb concept. in SBVR Source: RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk) Summary: SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically: . .concept. generalizes .noun concept. and .verb concept. . .noun concept. generalizes .general concept. and .individual concept. . i.e. .general concept. means .general noun concept. and .individual concept. means .individual noun concept. There are no equivalents for .verb concept.. SBVR does not explicitly define .individual verb concept., so cannot say: . .individual concept. generalizes .individual noun concept. and .individual verb concept. (inheriting from: .concept. generalizes .noun concept. and .verb concept.) . .verb concept. generalizes .general verb concept. and .individual verb concept. (paralleling: .noun concept. generalizes .general noun concept. and .individual noun concept.) If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed. It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as .EU-Rent. and .Luxembourg., are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included .individual verb concept., an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as .EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg.. Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions Issue 14849: .Instances of Clause 8 fact type [now .verb concept.] should be states of affairs.. If the resolution is not accepted, the revised text for this issue will show .at most one actuality. instead of .exactly one state of affairs.. It also separates .verb concept. and general verb concept, which affects the definition of .unitary verb concept. in this issue. Un-numbered issueIssue 17527: .Correct ambiguities in signifiers and definitions of noun concepts.. If the resolution is not accepted, the revised text for this issue will show, respectively .unitary concept. and .individual concept. instead of .unitary noun concept. and .individual noun concept.. Discussion: After some discussion between RTF members, it was recognized that .unitary verb concept. (analogous to .unitary noun concept.) would meet the requirement. Resolution: Add to Clause 8: . unitary verb concept: a general verb concept that has at most one instance (which can change over time) in its extension . individual verb concept: a proposition that is derived from a general verb concept by closing each of its roles with an individual noun concept, so that it has one instance (which cannot change over time) in its extension Revised Text: On printed page 21 in Clause 8.1.1 following the entry for .verb concept. ADD this entry for .unitary verb concept.: unitary verb concept Definition: general verb concept that corresponds to exactly one state of affairs in a possible world at a given time Necessity: Each role of a unitary verb concept ranges over a unitary noun concept . Necessity: At least one role of a unitary verb concept ranges over a unitary noun concept that is a general concept. Note: Unitary verb concepts allow individual states of affairs that are needed in a business vocabulary to be included in a body of shared meanings. Note: Changes in the extensions of the unitary noun concepts that fill the roles of a unitary verb concept cause the unitary verb concept to correspond to a different state of affairs. Example: .The President flies to the alternate seat of government on Air Force One.. The single state of affairs in the extension changes as, over time, different people, places and aircraft fill the roles. Example: .the consolidated global account is filed in the base currency in the compliant format. specializes the verb concept .account is filed in currency in acceptable format.. It defines the unitary verb concept that currently has the extension .the consolidated global account is filed in Swiss Francs in XBRL. individual verb concept Concept Type: verb concept, proposition Definition: verb concept that corresponds to exactly one state of affairs in all possible worlds at all (relevant) times Definition: proposition that is derived by closing each role of a verb concept with an individual noun concept Note: Individual verb concepts allow individual states of affairs that are needed in a business vocabulary to be included in a body of shared meanings. Necessity: Each role of an individual verb concept is filled by an individual noun concept. Example: .EU-Rent iswas incorporated in Luxembourg in 1991. and .EU-Corp is was incorporated in Geneva in 1993. are unitary individual verb concepts that specialize are derived from the verb concept .company is was incorporated in jurisdiction in calendar year.. Example: .EU-Corp has owned EU-Rent since 1993. is an individual verb concept that is derived from the verb concept .company has owned company since calendar year.. Example: .EU-Rent is wholly owned by EU-Corp. is a stand-alone unitary verb concept. CHANGES TO DIAGRAMS Detail to be provided Disposition: Resolved To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR RTF] Issue 17527 and Issue 17439 drafts X-KeepSent: A228B808:BF729F5C-85257A48:00149BD2; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:41:32 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 07/27/2012 00:41:32, Serialize complete at 07/27/2012 00:41:32 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12072704-5930-0000-0000-00000A408B36 John, Regarding 17527: * I think we should add an example for 'unitary noun concept'. I suggest 'Air Force One' defined as "airplane that is carrying the President of the United States". * I disagree with moving this Note from 'unitary noun concept' to 'individual noun concept': "The meaning of a singular definite description is a unitary noun concept". The definite description "the airplane that is carrying the President of the United States" does not describe the same thing across all time but instead a concept that has one instance. * For 'individual noun concept", in the "Source:" caption, "based on" is not a keyword in Annex C and should be dropped. * For 'individual noun concept", you should not drop the "Concept Type" caption. * The Note under 'individual noun concept' that reads "Different definite descriptions of the same individual thing can represent different individual noun concepts that correspond to that thing. If an individual noun concept does not correspond to any thing in some world, it does not correspond to any thing in any possible world." -- applies also to unitary noun concepts. Regarding 17439: * Personally, I think that concept types that derive from both 'verb concept' and 'proposition' create more confusion than they are worth. Intuitively, a verb concept has roles that are "filled in" by propositions. These two new verb concepts are about "pre-filling-in" the roles. So now we have verb concepts where the roles do not have to be filled in because they are already specified. To me this confuses the verbs themselves with the propositions built out of the verbs. * The proposed definition of 'unitary verb concept' is not parallel with the definition of 'unitary noun concept' from 17527. Yet the issue concern is creating parallel structures between 'noun concept' and 'verb concept'. * We already agreed that individual verb concepts are propositions. I think unitary verb concepts are also propositions. * The distinction between 'unitary verb concept' and 'individual verb concept' implies that some uses of verb concepts can correspond to more than one state of affairs at different times in a possible world. The example âThe President flies to the alternate seat of government on Air Force Oneâ shows this. It clearly contradicts the Necessity in 8.5.2 that "Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs". This is EXACTLY the issue that the Date-Time FTF has been complaining about, so I am really pleased to see that you now recognize our concern: a proposition can correspond to multiple states of affairs at different times in a single possible world. * The two examples for 'unitary verb concept' are unclear because they do not distinguish the roles from the verb symbol(s), nor do they give definitions. I think if we had complete examples, we would see how confusing it is to combine 'verb concept' and 'proposition' in one concept type. * It seems to me that unitary and individual verb concepts are always derived from (subtypes of) 'general' verb concepts. Should we say that? * The Necessity for 'individual verb concept' uses a verb symbol "is filled by" that does not exist in SBVR. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: John Hall To: SBVR RTF , issues@omg.org, Date: 07/26/2012 02:07 PM Subject: [SBVR RTF] Issue 17527 and Issue 17439 drafts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello all, Attached are updated drafts of issues 17527 and Issue 17439 after thinking through the discussion on them in last week's teleconference (20 July) Regards, John [attachment "SBVR issue 17527 Ambiguities in definitions of noun concepts ]20120726 1500 BST].doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "Issue 17439 - Individual Verb Concept [20120726 1700 BST].doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: Fw: [SBVR RTF] Issue 17527 and Issue 17439 drafts X-KeepSent: 768B8614:1D12B658-85257A48:0056331A; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:49:10 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 07/27/2012 11:49:11, Serialize complete at 07/27/2012 11:49:11 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12072715-5112-0000-0000-00000A75662B On further thought, I think the concepts named "unitary verb concept" and "individual verb concept" are misnamed. They should be called "unitary proposition" and "individual proposition" or some such. Reason: what 17439 calls "role filled by an individual concept" is formally named (clause 9.2.2) " binds to ", where the bindable target may be an individual concept. But a role binding occurs in the context of an atomic formulation. If all the role bindings of an atomic formulation are bound to individual concepts or expressions, then the atomic formulation can be a "standalone" closed logical formulation that means a proposition. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research ----- Forwarded by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM on 07/27/2012 11:41 AM ----- From: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org, Date: 07/27/2012 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [SBVR RTF] Issue 17527 and Issue 17439 drafts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John, Regarding 17527: * I think we should add an example for 'unitary noun concept'. I suggest 'Air Force One' defined as "airplane that is carrying the President of the United States". * I disagree with moving this Note from 'unitary noun concept' to 'individual noun concept': "The meaning of a singular definite description is a unitary noun concept". The definite description "the airplane that is carrying the President of the United States" does not describe the same thing across all time but instead a concept that has one instance. * For 'individual noun concept", in the "Source:" caption, "based on" is not a keyword in Annex C and should be dropped. * For 'individual noun concept", you should not drop the "Concept Type" caption. * The Note under 'individual noun concept' that reads "Different definite descriptions of the same individual thing can represent different individual noun concepts that correspond to that thing. If an individual noun concept does not correspond to any thing in some world, it does not correspond to any thing in any possible world." -- applies also to unitary noun concepts. Regarding 17439: * Personally, I think that concept types that derive from both 'verb concept' and 'proposition' create more confusion than they are worth. Intuitively, a verb concept has roles that are "filled in" by propositions. These two new verb concepts are about "pre-filling-in" the roles. So now we have verb concepts where the roles do not have to be filled in because they are already specified. To me this confuses the verbs themselves with the propositions built out of the verbs. * The proposed definition of 'unitary verb concept' is not parallel with the definition of 'unitary noun concept' from 17527. Yet the issue concern is creating parallel structures between 'noun concept' and 'verb concept'. * We already agreed that individual verb concepts are propositions. I think unitary verb concepts are also propositions. * The distinction between 'unitary verb concept' and 'individual verb concept' implies that some uses of verb concepts can correspond to more than one state of affairs at different times in a possible world. The example âThe President flies to the alternate seat of government on Air Force Oneâ shows this. It clearly contradicts the Necessity in 8.5.2 that "Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs". This is EXACTLY the issue that the Date-Time FTF has been complaining about, so I am really pleased to see that you now recognize our concern: a proposition can correspond to multiple states of affairs at different times in a single possible world. * The two examples for 'unitary verb concept' are unclear because they do not distinguish the roles from the verb symbol(s), nor do they give definitions. I think if we had complete examples, we would see how confusing it is to combine 'verb concept' and 'proposition' in one concept type. * It seems to me that unitary and individual verb concepts are always derived from (subtypes of) 'general' verb concepts. Should we say that? * The Necessity for 'individual verb concept' uses a verb symbol "is filled by" that does not exist in SBVR. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: John Hall To: SBVR RTF , issues@omg.org, Date: 07/26/2012 02:07 PM Subject: [SBVR RTF] Issue 17527 and Issue 17439 drafts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello all, Attached are updated drafts of issues 17527 and Issue 17439 after thinking through the discussion on them in last week's teleconference (20 July) Regards, John