Issue 5645: Rename stereotype from <<SAschedulable>> to <<SAschedRes>> (scheduling-ftf) Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: There is a stereotype called<<SAschedulable>> and a tag definition called SAschedulable in the SAprofile package - to avoid potential problems with name clashes (UML is unclear whether this is allowed) the stereotype should be renamed <<SAschedRes>>. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 19, 2002: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== sposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 18172 Title: Add Generic Occurrence to SBVR to Support Other Specifications for Occurrence in Time, Space or Other Dimensions Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Summary: The DTV RTF has pointed out the value of adding to SBVR a very generic concept for all kinds of occurrences so that all specifications that define a particular kind of occurrence, e.g. occurrence in time, occurrence in space, can be consistent if they adopt and specialize the SBVR generic occurrence concept. This approach also provides the ability of specifications that deal with occurrence to constrain the generic concepts adopted from SBVR to fit their specification. Resolution: 1. Incorporate that a state of affairs is not a meaning in its definition. 2. Add a generic, overarching .occurrence. noun concept. 3. Add a .what happens. noun concept that is a role of .state of affairs.. 4. Add a verb concept that defines the multiple relationship between .what happens. and .occurrence.. 5. Fix the definiiton of .state of affairs is actual. 6. Clarify the Note for .actuality.. 7. Remove confusing and unnecessary wording in the entry for .situation.. Revised Text: REPLACE Figure 8.8 in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40 WITH: In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'state of affairs', REPLACE the Definition: Definition: event, activity, situation, or circumstance with Definition: res that is an event, activity, situation, or circumstance In clause 8.5, immediately before the entry for 'state of affairs is actual', INSERT three new entries: occurrence Definition: state of affairs that is the happening of another state of affairs for a given time interval and/or at a given location and/or in some other dimension what-happens state of affairs Definition: state of affairs that can happen for a given time interval and/or at a given location and/or in some other dimension what-happens state of affairs has occurrence Definition: the occurrence is the realization of the state of affairs In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'state of affairs is actual', REPLACE the existing Definition: Definition: the state of affairs happens (i.e., takes place, obtains) with: Definition: the state of affairs is happening (i.e., takes place, obtains) In clause 8.5, in the entry for 'actuality', REPLACE the Note: Note: Actualities are states of affairs that actually happen, as distinct from states of affairs that don.t happen but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned. with: Note: Actualities are states of affairs that are actually happening, as distinct from states of affairs that are not happening but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned. In clause 11.1.5.2, in the entry for 'situation' on printed page 154, REMOVE . The phrase .that provides the context from which roles played may be understood or assessed. at the end of the Definition as it is about purpose and not essential meaning. . the words .a state of affairs. at the end of the first Dictionary Basis. ADD two noun concepts, .occurrence. and .what-happens state of affairs., to the following line in the 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 ADD two noun concepts, .property. and .viewpoint., to the following line in the paragraph beginning with .The classes in the metamodel that mirror .. in 13.2.2 .MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts.: Clause 11: community, situation, res Disposition: Resolved Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:25:51 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: issue 18172 -- SBVR RTF issue X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q9GGPute012536 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1351009560.50912@N8Hkgo1G/9ugBQTYtv3YvQ X-Spam-Status: No The model proposed in Issue 18172 retains the confusion that is the source of the SBVR-DTV disconnect. It can be resolved by removing the idea that 'occurrence' is a category of 'state of affairs' as defined. Remove that generalization arrow, and we have agreement. No 'occurrence' -- the happening itself -- is ever 'what happens'; it cannot play that role. No occurrence is realized by other occurrences. Thus no occurrence can ever 'be actual', i.e., be a thing that 'is happening'; it cannot play the role of subject in that verb concept. All occurrences are by definition actual happenings in the world of interest, but a 'what happens' can happen or not, depending on whether it has an active realization (occurrence). Further, no proposition corresponds to exactly one 'occurrence'. A proposition corresponds to exactly one 'what happens', but the what happens is realized by a set of zero or more occurrences. The proposition corresponds to the 'what happens' in every world in which the proposition is false, as well as the worlds in which it is true. If it corresponds to an occurrence, it corresponds to nothing in the worlds in which it is false, the worlds that do not include that occurrence. If it corresponds to the 'what happens state of affairs', then it corresponds to the same thing in all possible worlds. The relationship between propositions and occurrences is 1 to zero or more, but it isn't SBVR 'corresponds to' in this model; it is an indirect relationship via the 'what happens state of affairs'. 'What happens' is shown in the diagram to be a role relative to an occurrence, and it is. But it is the nature of 'state of affairs' itself to play such roles. Each occurrence is a realization of one or more of them, while no occurrence is a realization of another occurrence. Thus, an occurrence has none of the characteristics of a state of affairs. I would propose to change the definition of 'state of affairs' to: res that is a kind of event, activity, situation or circumstance and the definition of 'occurrence' to: res that is the happening of a state of affairs Occurrences/happenings are real things, and they have whatever properties they have -- location, duration, placement in time, things involved in them, effects on other things, etc. Some of those properties characterize categories of occurrences; other/additional properties characterize individual occurrences. There is no reason to call out time and location as particularly interesting properties in the definition, since they may or may not be part of any particular characterization. Consider the proposition "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris". It corresponds to a state of affairs that has exactly one occurrence -- the state of the Eiffel Tower actually taking up space in Paris. That occurrence has a placement in time -- 1881 to present (at least). Does that occurrence have a location? The Tower has a location, but the occurrence is not the Tower. The state and the occurrence are completely characterized by three concepts: The Eiffel Tower, Paris and 'is located in'. And for comparison, consider "The World Trade Center is in New York". The state of affairs is similarly characterized, and it has an occurrence, but the placement in time of that occurrence does not include the present. We want the semantic formulation and interpretation of these two statements to be structurally identical, with the difference being that 'is actual' is true for the one and false for the other. -Ed "We must strive to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration Division, Engineering Laboratory 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: , "sbvr-rtf " Subject: RE: issue 18172 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:09:40 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2rwQZ2yLhePs0iRrm0gj5CtEq7zw== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.507D94D6.006F, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.10.16.164847:17:7.944, 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_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_6000_6999, 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, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0209.507D94D7.012A,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 Ed, On 16 October 2012 17:26 Ed Barkmeyer wrote: The model proposed in Issue 18172 retains the confusion that is the source of the SBVR-DTV disconnect. It can be resolved by removing the idea that 'occurrence' is a category of 'state of affairs' as defined. Remove that generalization arrow, and we have agreement. No 'occurrence' -- the happening itself -- is ever 'what happens'; it cannot play that role. No occurrence is realized by other occurrences. A spatial occurrence can be the .what-happens state of affairs. in a temporal occurrence. A temporal Occurrence can be the .what-happens state of affairs. in a spatial occurrence. Also, you are free to add additional constraints in DTV as needed. Thus no occurrence can ever 'be actual', i.e., be a thing that 'is happening'; it cannot play the role of subject in that verb concept. All occurrences are by definition actual happenings in the world of interest, but a 'what happens' can happen or not, depending on whether it has an active realization (occurrence). Further, no proposition corresponds to exactly one 'occurrence'. John threw his football to Bill at 5:55:30 PM on Saturday, October 13, 2012. Donald To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 18172 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: 728002F0:ED8ADE2A-85257A99:006A7A8A; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:34:13 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2IF1|July 25, 2012) at 10/16/2012 15:34:15, Serialize complete at 10/16/2012 15:34:15 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12101619-5806-0000-0000-00001AB2FC2C Comments like this. ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: , "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 10/16/2012 01:19 PM Subject: RE: issue 18172 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed, On 16 October 2012 17:26 Ed Barkmeyer wrote: The model proposed in Issue 18172 retains the confusion that is the source of the SBVR-DTV disconnect. It can be resolved by removing the idea that 'occurrence' is a category of 'state of affairs' as defined. Remove that generalization arrow, and we have agreement. No 'occurrence' -- the happening itself -- is ever 'what happens'; it cannot play that role. No occurrence is realized by other occurrences. A spatial occurrence can be the .what-happens state of affairs. in a temporal occurrence. A temporal Occurrence can be the .what-happens state of affairs. in a spatial occurrence. Also, you are free to add additional constraints in DTV as needed. Consider an example: "The CEO signs the contract in London on Tuesday". Assuming that the proposition is true, are there 1 or 2 occurrences: one temporal occurrence and one spatial occurrence? Thus no occurrence can ever 'be actual', i.e., be a thing that 'is happening'; it cannot play the role of subject in that verb concept. All occurrences are by definition actual happenings in the world of interest, but a 'what happens' can happen or not, depending on whether it has an active realization (occurrence). Further, no proposition corresponds to exactly one 'occurrence'. John threw his football to Bill at 5:55:30 PM on Saturday, October 13, 2012. DTV would say that the proposition corresponds to one 'what-happens SOA' which has one occurrence. We suggest defining the concept 'individual what-happens SOA' to simplify writing rules about the occurrences of such SOAs. Donald To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: follow-up on issue 18172 X-KeepSent: F2584D57:1F654795-85257A9A:0069B210; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:17:17 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2IF1|July 25, 2012) at 10/17/2012 15:17:18, Serialize complete at 10/17/2012 15:17:18 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12101719-9360-0000-0000-00000BC9B92B One change that really needs to be made in the proposed resolution of 18172 is to reconcile the diagram to the text. The diagram shows 'whats-happening SOA' as a role of the 'whats-happening SOA has occurrence' verb concept, while the text says that 'whats-happening SOA' is a specialization of 'state of affairs'. The DTV interpretation will depend partly on the choice made, so we would like to know. ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: follow-up on issue 18172 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:50:02 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIbfleMJ8bSULpu1ilZEdNgdbm6vJciQ0+w X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.507F0BEC.00E0, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.10.17.192121:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY, __CTYPE_MULTIPART, __HAS_X_MAILER, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __C230066_P5, __HTML_MSWORD, __HTML_FONT_BLUE, __HAS_HTML, 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=10/50, host=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.507F0BED.0088,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 Mark, Keri is already fixing the diagram to fit the text; i.e. .what-happens state of affairs. is a subcategory of state of affairs and not a role. Also the missing second reference scheme for .state of affairs. that Terry pointed out is being added (the definition of an individual noun concept is a definite description): Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 17 October 2012 20:17 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: follow-up on issue 18172 One change that really needs to be made in the proposed resolution of 18172 is to reconcile the diagram to the text. The diagram shows 'whats-happening SOA' as a role of the 'whats-happening SOA has occurrence' verb concept, while the text says that 'whats-happening SOA' is a specialization of 'state of affairs'. The DTV interpretation will depend partly on the choice made, so we would like to know. ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research