Issue 18824: SBVR Issue: Problematic necessity in 8.5.2 (sbvr-rtf)
Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: 
Summary: In SBVR clause 8.5.2, the following Necessity appears:  

Necessity: If a concept[sub]1 is coextensive with a concept[sub]2 then the extension of the concept[sub]1 is the extension of the concept[sub]2.

(where [sub] is used to show subscripts).

 

There are three problems with this Necessity:

1.  This Necessity just restates the definition of ‘concept is coextensive with concept’ in 8.1.1.1.  It adds nothing.

2.  It is the only occurrence in SBVR v1.1 of the use of a subscript outside of a placeholder term, and that use is not defined in Annex C.

3.  The meaning of the article ‘a’ before concept (1) and concept (2) is universal in this case, not existential, which contradicts Annex C.

 

Delete it!


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
July 18, 2013: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====

m: "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov>
To: "issues@omg.org" <issues@omg.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:10:05 -0400
Subject: SBVR Issue: Problematic necessity in 8.5.2
Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue: Problematic necessity in 8.5.2
Thread-Index: Ac6DMfiL0pszIqUqREe9jPjk9rAXMg==
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org


OMG Specification: SBVR

Version: 1.1

Title:  Problematic necessity in 8.5.2

Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov

 

Summary:

 

In SBVR clause 8.5.2, the following Necessity appears:  

Necessity: If a concept[sub]1 is coextensive with a concept[sub]2 then the extension of the concept[sub]1 is the extension of the concept[sub]2.

(where [sub] is used to show subscripts).

 

There are three problems with this Necessity:

1.  This Necessity just restates the definition of .concept is coextensive with concept. in 8.1.1.1.  It adds nothing.

2.  It is the only occurrence in SBVR v1.1 of the use of a subscript outside of a placeholder term, and that use is not defined in Annex C.

3.  The meaning of the article .a. before concept (1) and concept (2) is universal in this case, not existential, which contradicts Annex C.

 

Delete it!