Issue 18317: Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (sbvr-rtf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, Donald.Chapin(at)BusinessSemantics.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Summary: During recent in-depth SBVR RTF discussion on the topic of state of affairs a number of clarifications and fixes were identified as needed: 1. Add a missing Reference Scheme for ‘state of affairs’. 2. Add a Necessity to unambiguously distinguish states of sffairs from propostions. 3. Add a Note to clarify how the representations of the meanings in the reference schemes of state of affairs serve as definite descriptions of the state of affairs. 4. Clarify the relationship between 'is actual' and 'exists', and the relationship between actualities and potential states of affairs. Resolution: Makr the the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above. Revised Text: ADD the following Reference Scheme, Necessity and Note to the “state of affairs” entry in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40: Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs Necessity: No state of affairs is a proposition. Note: Any representation of a proposition may be used to denote the state(s) of affairs that it corresponds to. A proposition statement serves as a definite description for the state of affairs that the proposition coressponds to. In the entry for “state of affairs is actual” in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40, REPLACE the Note and the Example: Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’should not be confused with ‘exists,’ meaning existential quantification. A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens. Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether it is ever actual. The state of affairs is actual only when the branch is profitable, but it exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept ‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable. WITH: Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’should not be confused with logical existence, which just means being a thing in the possible world that is of interest. A potential state of affairs can 'exist' as a 'thing' in the possible world and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens. Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the desired state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The desired state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether there is ever an actual state of profitability. It exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept ‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable. The nature of the desired state of affairs is that it is a 'desired state of affairs' -- conceived, not perceived. The actual state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable exists only when the branch is profitable. The nature of the actual state of affairs, if it exists, is that it is a happening in the world. It is perceived, not conceived. In the list of Necessities” in Clause 8.5.2 on printed page 41, REPLACE: Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs. WITH: Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 13, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== sposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 18317 Title: Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Summary: During recent in-depth SBVR RTF discussion on the topic of state of affairs a number of clarifications and fixes were identified as needed: 1. Add a missing Reference Scheme for .state of affairs.. 2. Add a Necessity to unambiguously distinguish states of sffairs from propostions. 3. Add a Note to clarify how the representations of the meanings in the reference schemes of state of affairs serve as definite descriptions of the state of affairs. 4. Clarify the relationship between 'is actual' and 'exists', and the relationship between actualities and potential states of affairs. Resolution: Makr the the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above. Revised Text: ADD the following Reference Scheme, Necessity and Note to the .state of affairs. entry in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40: Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs Necessity: No state of affairs is a proposition. Note: Any representation of a proposition may be used to denote the state(s) of affairs that it corresponds to. A proposition statement serves as a definite description for the state of affairs that the proposition coressponds to. In the entry for .state of affairs is actual. in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40, REPLACE the Note and the Example: Note: The meaning of .is actual.should not be confused with .exists,. meaning existential quantification. A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens. Example: .The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable.. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether it is ever actual. The state of affairs is actual only when the branch is profitable, but it exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept .company wants state of affairs.) even when the branch is unprofitable. WITH: Note: The meaning of .is actual.should not be confused with logical existence, which just means being a thing in the possible world that is of interest. A potential state of affairs can 'exist' as a 'thing' in the possible world and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens. Example: .The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable.. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the desired state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The desired state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether there is ever an actual state of profitability. It exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept .company wants state of affairs.) even when the branch is unprofitable. The nature of the desired state of affairs is that it is a 'desired state of affairs' -- conceived, not perceived. The actual state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable exists only when the branch is profitable. The nature of the actual state of affairs, if it exists, is that it is a happening in the world. It is perceived, not conceived. In the list of Necessities. in Clause 8.5.2 on printed page 41, REPLACE: Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs. WITH: Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs. Disposition: Resolved From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue - Ready for Ballot Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:45:49 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac4K43eaP8yTZvIKRa6SGln8HHTWjw== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Good-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.511D30E3.006F, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=12/50, refid=2.7.2:2013.2.14.180619:17:12.455, 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=c2beaomr08.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0201.511D30E4.0075,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 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org All . Attached is the resolution to SBVR Issue 18317 ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries.docx Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 18317 Title: Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com) Summary: During recent in-depth SBVR RTF discussion on the topic of state of affairs a number of clarifications and fixes were identified as needed: 1. Add a missing Reference Scheme for .state of affairs.. 2. Add a Necessity to unambiguously distinguish states of sffairs from propostions. 3. Add a Note to clarify how the representations of the meanings in the reference schemes of state of affairs serve as definite descriptions of the state of affairs. 4. Clarify the relationship between 'is actual' and 'exists', and the relationship between actualities and potential states of affairs. Resolution: Makr the the fixes and add the clarifications as identified as being needed in the Issue Summary list above. Revised Text: ADD the following Reference Scheme, Necessity and Note to the .state of affairs. entry in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40: Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs Necessity: No state of affairs is a proposition. Note: Any representation of a proposition may be used to denote the state(s) of affairs that it corresponds to. A proposition statement serves as a definite description for the state of affairs that the proposition coressponds to. In the entry for .state of affairs is actual. in Clause 8.5 on printed page 40, REPLACE the Note and the Example: Note: The meaning of .is actual.should not be confused with .exists,. meaning existential quantification. A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, and perceptions) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens. Example: .The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable.. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether it is ever actual. The state of affairs is actual only when the branch is profitable, but it exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept .company wants state of affairs.) even when the branch is unprofitable. WITH: Note: The meaning of .is actual.should not be confused with logical existence, which just means being something that is of interest in the universe of discourse. A potential state of affairs can 'exist' as a 'thing' in the universe of discourse and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, perceptions, etc.) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens. Example: .The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable.. Even when that branch is unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the desired state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The desired state of affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether there is ever an actual state of profitability. It exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept .company wants state of affairs.) even when the branch is unprofitable. The nature of the desired state of affairs is that it is a 'desired state of affairs' -- conceived, not perceived. The actual state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable exists only when the branch is profitable. The nature of the actual state of affairs, if it exists, is that it is a happening in the world. It is perceived, not conceived. In the list of Necessities. in Clause 8.5.2 on printed page 41, REPLACE: Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to at most one state of affairs. WITH: Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs. Disposition: Resolved X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.250.69;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:AMXPRD0711HT003.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -11 X-BigFish: PS-11(z21cR551bizc89bh936eIdbeehc857h4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz17326ah18c673h8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd24he5bhf0ah10d2h1249h1288h12a5h12bdh137ah139eh1441h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh34h1155h) Reply-To: From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 16:31:28 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJ4yqJp0sq7W2mfPWdHdVmMKAg/3Jec/lcg X-Originating-IP: [157.56.250.117] X-FOPE-CRA-SourceIpAddress: 157.56.250.69 X-FOPE-CRA-DRYRUN: 1207119;1 X-FOPE-BFA-SENDER: donald.chapin@btconnect.com X-FOPE-BFA-RECEIVER: sbvr-rtf@omg.org X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related" Entries (2013-02-08).docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue 18317 - Clarifications and" Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Issue 18317 - Clarifications and To: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: Re: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: 1459BE6B:25509B37-85257B62:000725FD; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP3 November 16, 2012 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 21:24:57 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2 ZX853FP2HF5|February, 2013) at 05/04/2013 21:25:03, Serialize complete at 05/04/2013 21:25:03 X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13050501-5806-0000-0000-000021010E78 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== I suggest that it would be helpful to add an explanation of WHY an individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for a state of affairs. An example would also help. Otherwise, this detail will be "lost" to most readers of the SBVR specification. Please fix the typo: "coressponds". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 05/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP _GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA _OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.253.69;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:DB3PRD0210HT001.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -14 X-BigFish: PS-14(z21cR551bizbb2dI9371I936eIc85fhdbeeh10e3I4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz17326ah18c673h8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd24he5bhf0ah1249h1288h12a5h12bdh137ah139eh1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh34h1155h) From: Donald Chapin To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , "'sbvr-rtf '" Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:23:20 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJ4yqJp0sq7W2mfPWdHdVmMKAg/3AFYDVezAjnSeNaXhpPE0A== X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.85] X-OriginatorOrg: businesssemantics.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Mark, Attached is an updated resolution to SBVR Issue 18317 with a Note added to provide the explanation and example you requested. The spelling errors are also fixed. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 05 May 2013 02:25 To: sbvr-rtf Subject: Re: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue I suggest that it would be helpful to add an explanation of WHY an individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for a state of affairs. An example would also help. Otherwise, this detail will be "lost" to most readers of the SBVR specification. Please fix the typo: "coressponds". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 05/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP _GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA _OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related" Entries (2013-05-06).docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue 18317 - Clarifications and" Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-05-06).docx" Issue 18317 - Clarifications and1 Issue 18317 - Clarifications and1 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue X-KeepSent: 60331327:B2B79E12-85257B63:004DCA90; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP3 November 16, 2012 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:14:33 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2 ZX853FP2HF5|February, 2013) at 05/06/2013 10:14:14, Serialize complete at 05/06/2013 10:14:14 X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13050614-5806-0000-0000-00002103FEF5 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== The Note certainly helps -- but it also may confuse. The text says "... an individual noun concept by definition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs for all times and in all possible worlds." My perception is that SOME individual noun concepts correspond to a state of affairs. The text implies that ALL individual noun concepts correspond to states of affairs. An example of an individual noun concept that does not obviously correspond to a state of affairs is "New York City", defined as "the city that is located in the United States and that has a larger population than each other city that is located in the United States". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "'sbvr-rtf '" , Date: 05/06/2013 09:26 AM Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, Attached is an updated resolution to SBVR Issue 18317 with a Note added to provide the explanation and example you requested. The spelling errors are also fixed. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 05 May 2013 02:25 To: sbvr-rtf Subject: Re: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue I suggest that it would be helpful to add an explanation of WHY an individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for a state of affairs. An example would also help. Otherwise, this detail will be "lost" to most readers of the SBVR specification. Please fix the typo: "coressponds". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 05/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP _GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA _OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-05-06).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] From: "Barkmeyer, Edward J" To: Mark H Linehan , "sbvr-rtf " Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: Ac5JL5UsHAAZuN9GQki82ErXakWqMQBNfdbg Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== An individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for whatever .thing. it refers to. For .state of affairs., consider Fermat.s Last Theorem, or the Coronation of Elizabeth II. -Ed From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:25 PM To: sbvr-rtf Subject: Re: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue I suggest that it would be helpful to add an explanation of WHY an individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for a state of affairs. An example would also help. Otherwise, this detail will be "lost" to most readers of the SBVR specification. Please fix the typo: "coressponds". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 05/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP _GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA _OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.249.197;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:AM2PRD0210HT005.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -14 X-BigFish: PS-14(z21cR551bizbb2dI9371I936eIc85fhdbeeh10e3I4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz17326ah18c673h8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd24he5bhf0ah1249h1288h12a5h12bdh137ah139eh1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh34h1155h) From: Donald Chapin To: "'Mark H Linehan'" , Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:17:36 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJ4yqJp0sq7W2mfPWdHdVmMKAg/3AFYDVezAjnSeNYCTg5AmQDk3QlLl20b0mA= X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.165] X-OriginatorOrg: businesssemantics.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Mark, I thought I had qualified the last sentence with .individual noun concepts that are defined to have a state of affairs as their extension... The last sentence is not really necessary and the simplest fix is to remove it, which I.ve done in the attached update to the resolution for Issue 18317. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 06 May 2013 15:15 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue The Note certainly helps -- but it also may confuse. The text says "... an individual noun concept by definition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs for all times and in all possible worlds." My perception is that SOME individual noun concepts correspond to a state of affairs. The text implies that ALL individual noun concepts correspond to states of affairs. An example of an individual noun concept that does not obviously correspond to a state of affairs is "New York City", defined as "the city that is located in the United States and that has a larger population than each other city that is located in the United States". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "'sbvr-rtf '" , Date: 05/06/2013 09:26 AM Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, Attached is an updated resolution to SBVR Issue 18317 with a Note added to provide the explanation and example you requested. The spelling errors are also fixed. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 05 May 2013 02:25 To: sbvr-rtf Subject: Re: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue I suggest that it would be helpful to add an explanation of WHY an individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for a state of affairs. An example would also help. Otherwise, this detail will be "lost" to most readers of the SBVR specification. Please fix the typo: "coressponds". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 05/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP _GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA _OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-05-06).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related" Entries (2013-05-06-1615-GMT).docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue 18317 - Clarifications and" Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-05-06-1615-GMT).docx" Issue 18317 - Clarifications and2 Issue 18317 - Clarifications and2 From: "Barkmeyer, Edward J" To: Donald Chapin , "'Mark H Linehan'" , "sbvr-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 12:45:22 -0400 Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Topic: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Thread-Index: AQJ4yqJp0sq7W2mfPWdHdVmMKAg/3AFYDVezAjnSeNYCTg5AmQDk3QlLl20b0mCAAAVHQA== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== There is still an open question in the rewording of the Note in 18317, which reads: .A potential state of affairs can 'exist' as a 'thing' in the universe of discourse and thereby be involved in relationships to other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, perceptions, etc.) even if it is not actual, even if it never happens.. Does it still exist as the plan, desire, fear, etc., when it does happen? If a proposition can correspond to at most one state of affairs, as the text says, I would think some discussion of the relationship between the expectation and the event would be in order. It seems to me that a proposition can describe both an expectation and an event, and following Davidson.s .mental events. treatise, the expectation itself can cause things to happen, that the event itself does not cause. So if the proposition can only correspond to one of the expectation and the event, it would be helpful to the reader if you explained that. As Mark says, I think examples here would be helpful. There is an example .general noun concept. which apparently corresponds to multiple states of affairs in Clause 9.2.7 Example: .late return. defined as .actuality that a given rental is returned late. This presumably should refer to the state of affairs, not the actuality. Can we talk about the possibility of a late return? Also, I have never been sure how .a given rental. is given. Perhaps this is actually the definition of a role: .rental has late return.? And then the .late return. only exists as a .role playing. in a state of affairs. Or perhaps the extension of .late return. is the set of all occurrences of rental vehicles being returned late . the explicit verb concept objectification, except that it only refers to the actualities, according to the definition given. Note also, that .late return. as intended is different from the state of affairs that .there exists a rental that is returned late., which can have at most one occurrence and is not an instance of the verb concept: .rental is returned late.. -Ed P.S. The common convention of natural language (NL) interpreters is to model every verb concept as its objectification as a general noun concept whose instances are whatever the verb concept is being used to describe, but usually actualities. So, for example, in some NL processors, the military plan for the .coalition forces. to invade Iraq is a .planned invading. whose agent is .the coalition forces. and whose patient (direct object) is Iraq. An actual invasion of Iraq is an .invading. (as opposed to a .planned invading.) with the same roles and role players. .invading. is a subtype of .actuality. (which some of them call .state of affairs.), while .planned invading. is a subtype of .plan.. Other NL processors are more like SBVR in that they treat all such verb concept objectifications as subtypes of an abstract .state of affairs., and then refer to plans characterized by the state of affairs or actual events characterized by the same state of affairs. In this latter approach, the instances of .state of affairs. are only these abstractions, and they are related to actualities, fears, plans, preventions, and so on. (This is the model I had hoped we could agree on last year.) P.P.S. For the record, RECON uses SBVR-like n-ary verbs, and its formal logic model is based on .proposition describes thing.. The .thing. is explicitly subtyped in the text . the fear that P, the event that P, the plan that P. So, .EU Rent reviews each customer account at HQ. is written in RECON: .The event where EU Rent reviews each customer account occurs at EU-Rent HQ.. And it has the IKL form: (forall (?ca) (if (customer_account ?ca) (forall (?event) (if (and (event ?event) (thing.is_described_by.proposition ?event (that (company.reviews.account EU-Rent ?ca)) )) (situation.occurs_at.place ?event EU-Rent_HQ) )))) The idea that the .event. is an actuality depends on the definition of .event.. The .situation. role does not assume that. That is, the distinctions among kinds of .situation. (.state of affairs.) is made by the business vocabulary. From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@businesssemantics.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:18 AM To: 'Mark H Linehan'; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue Mark, I thought I had qualified the last sentence with .individual noun concepts that are defined to have a state of affairs as their extension... The last sentence is not really necessary and the simplest fix is to remove it, which I.ve done in the attached update to the resolution for Issue 18317. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 06 May 2013 15:15 To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue The Note certainly helps -- but it also may confuse. The text says "... an individual noun concept by definition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs for all times and in all possible worlds." My perception is that SOME individual noun concepts correspond to a state of affairs. The text implies that ALL individual noun concepts correspond to states of affairs. An example of an individual noun concept that does not obviously correspond to a state of affairs is "New York City", defined as "the city that is located in the United States and that has a larger population than each other city that is located in the United States". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "'sbvr-rtf '" , Date: 05/06/2013 09:26 AM Subject: RE: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, Attached is an updated resolution to SBVR Issue 18317 with a Note added to provide the explanation and example you requested. The spelling errors are also fixed. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Mark H Linehan [mailto:mlinehan@us.ibm.com] Sent: 05 May 2013 02:25 To: sbvr-rtf Subject: Re: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue I suggest that it would be helpful to add an explanation of WHY an individual noun concept can be a reference scheme for a state of affairs. An example would also help. Otherwise, this detail will be "lost" to most readers of the SBVR specification. Please fix the typo: "coressponds". ----------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Donald Chapin To: "sbvr-rtf " , Date: 05/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: FW: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All . Attached is the resolution for SBVR Issue 18317 as agreed in the February 8, 2013 SBVR RTF telecon. This Issue Resolution is ready for ballot. Donald From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 28 December 2012 19:20 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 18317 -- SBVR RTF issue From: "Donald Chapin" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Cc: "sbvr-rtf " Subject: New SBVR Issue to Clean Up Four Small Loose Ends from the State of Affairs Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:04:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3ZQydh/ayvz7DeTqeZKitx9O/I6Q== X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.50C9EE91.0057, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.12.13.143318:17:7.944, ip=81.149.51.65, rules=__HAS_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __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, __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_90_100, RDNS_SUSP _GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA _OUTLOOK, NO_URI_FOUND X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr07.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.50C9EE92.0102,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 Juergen, Please add the attached as an SBVR Issue. Titled Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries. Thanks, Donald[attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-02-08).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] [attachment "Issue 18317 - Clarifications and Fixes for State of Affairs Related Entries (2013-05-06).docx" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM]