Issue 17452: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 8 (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Rules Group (Mr. Ronald G. Ross, rross(at)BRSolutions.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: All, The re-sequencing of Clause 11 has initially proven quite worthwhile, so I have been encouraged to do similar work on Clause 8. As before, I made no changes to the entries themselves whatsoever. (If I did, it was purely an error and should be corrected. Also, my work should be double-checked for any entries inadvertently omitted.) I used a Word version kindly supplied by Linda Heaton, which I believe is from the latest convenience document. (It does have some styling problems, which I have noted.) I hope we can move forward with this revision expeditiously. By the way, I found this re-sequencing much harder than Clause 11, which I am much more familiar with. Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Problem Statement: 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 8 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. Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves (but does suggest some). 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. New subheadings are suggested. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 27, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== hoo-Newman-Id: 309315.73847.bm@omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1340853240; bh=fjuCErayjD4E8f6nzzEctybGR6AGye4/AkXFX5P/g54=; 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; b=ld0GvYfhHQzEbVSTxvlm6zyKsNnM2ViGzlFYs3l8Q5dSBSb52jjB8Kqc+jfBs42HWgf/0q2FjSQKHVaX3ff+qWn+///BQ1eNymwgzVUM2CC0XMxNXk3LV5w0wMHJEt59JcKJCkUCQ+5R2F1q1e2vRfr0uFxaLhjcgqG1jKRagjA= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: oyEwJ_wVM1kDGgSXBNA.wHMH8AYxrNLAUnTqjXR5zn9kOKN ehoIZEVcr0.kg3fZS5SjR0_BP8d53V0Oo6VKpfbzej.qeai5WQB5LRt19NZR lz2RAhcRt5oq7GP3lQF5hcR2ZdFmDRJoPiKRDr7Rk2e7rH8vTE8eFKEg8nQK Y4XXLqa9v7ayzjqWp.zHZhh3KKdMoxd8l.Cw8D.Wg3vvUD5BMzJ4GdQh1tqZ Abt6TdqsQTlQgEQU2GXhsFokJLZwViLxSyYqgX6dgW49XeaS5h_blJzOC198 W4mW7kEcboZkJKsNhdqUDsct3sCwW2Se_3hrzk6Z1rqvc.eMyocCFf826wkT UYtZSxd75eu17MHfqAO4eqXGc0cj7aq.68QBBauGWBaMiy9jsVrzLCtuy0iw v_p_uR9Pgml770Hu11pOQs4lDav9clwZfUnNezdb53E1qAOYnBfkO0E838w2 6ej0fcL9GyZOR32mrYE4gmABnnkTzidimg1PM09tdIVyMptZCeVEJpEBc4.v 8iLlf3FKqZ9xFsMueMMsvDsFJKbDyByjIRdIkX_eY7BYy6qtC5aTULhBLLAs 2Ld1Z1E5DaXDdyXVdj2rc1IPtJGHE6AAs1LcujF3tbvzUZhVfIofvY_cwIlO _.VHbkTAGTFQ1sxUwsKC..cZLw_aYHjggygmAl8cxb2P2kGUHJtD49vg- X-Yahoo-SMTP: MhfrpU2swBDLgYiYhNQDHBu0cE4o.vu2We1FRN9o X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:13:42 -0500 To: Juergen Boldt From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: New SBVR issue - Re-sequencing Clause 8 Cc: sbvr-rtf@omg.org **Juergen, Please record this as a new SBVR issue. The problem statement is below in this message. **All, The re-sequencing of Clause 11 has initially proven quite worthwhile, so I have been encouraged to do similar work on Clause 8. As before, I made no changes to the entries themselves whatsoever. (If I did, it was purely an error and should be corrected. Also, my work should be double-checked for any entries inadvertently omitted.) I used a Word version kindly supplied by Linda Heaton, which I believe is from the latest convenience document. (It does have some styling problems, which I have noted.) I hope we can move forward with this revision expeditiously. By the way, I found this re-sequencing much harder than Clause 11, which I am much more familiar with. Ron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Problem Statement: 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 8 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. Resolution: Apply the ISO 1087 rule about sequencing vocabulary entries rigorously. This re-sequencing requires no changes in the entries themselves (but does suggest some). 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. New subheadings are suggested. 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 chp8 - revised sequence v2.doc SBVR chp8 - original sequence.doc