Issue 18187: Definition of 'time interval is current' (date-time-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In clause 15.1 page 154 DTV defines 'time interval is current' as: "time interval that includes a time interval1 that is past and that includes a time interval2 that is not past" That definition is ambiguous and the most likely parse is nonsense. The problem is that 'and that includes' might be parsed to refer to time interval1, which is not what was intended. The intent is "time interval that includes both a time interval that is in the past and a time interval that is not past". I believe SBVR SE might support this latter formulation (perhaps without the 'both'). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 19, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:53:56 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: "issues@omg.org" Subject: new DTV issue: Definition of 'time interval is current' X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q9JLs1fG031303 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1351288443.87736@y44clbp8/1cre+KmtPfZoQ X-Spam-Status: No Specification: DTV Version: Beta-2 Title: Definition of 'time interval is current' Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov' Summary: In clause 15.1 page 154 DTV defines 'time interval is current' as: "time interval that includes a time interval1 that is past and that includes a time interval2 that is not past" That definition is ambiguous and the most likely parse is nonsense. The problem is that 'and that includes' might be parsed to refer to time interval1, which is not what was intended. The intent is "time interval that includes both a time interval that is in the past and a time interval that is not past". I believe SBVR SE might support this latter formulation (perhaps without the 'both'). -- 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