Issue 9344: define 'is less than' on 'quantity' (sbvr-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark@nist.gov edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov) Nature: Severity: Minor Summary: Problem Description: Clause 8.7 defines 'integer' as "a number with no fractional part". But the concept 'number' to which this definition appeals is not defined, and the entry does not cite a source for the definition. 'number' should be defined as well. SBVR clause 8.7 defines the fact-type 'integer is-less-than integer'. This is a narrow definition of the 'less-than' concept, which applies, with the same semantics, to 'numbers' and to arbitrary quantities. 'Quantity' is the general concept on which comparison for less and greater is defined for business purposes. It is the concept for which is-less-than should be defined in 8.7. In Annex D, 'is less than' is used as a fact-type for prices and durations in several places, but it is never defined. This usage requires a wider definition of the is-less-than fact-type that is defined in 8.7, namely a definition on 'quantity'. D.2.3.3 defines 'duration' as "a quantity of time", but the term 'quantity' is not a vocabulary entry in either 8.7 or Annex D. And D.2.3.3 defines the fact-type 'duration is-at-most duration', but it has the same semantics as quantity is-less-than (or equal to) quantity. It is clear that this example is a model for the definition of "measurement" vocabularies, and 8.7 should provide the base term 'quantity' to support that. * Proposed solution: (1) define the term 'quantity' in SBVR, e.g., Definition: a determinate or estimated amount [of a thing] Definition: the aspect in which a thing is measurable in terms of greater, less or equal Source: MW Note: The concept quantity can be elaborated into mathematical systems, such as integer and real numbers, and into systems of measures. This specification elaborates only the concepts for integer, because they are commonly used in structural rules (See x.x). For measurement systems and units of measure there are accepted vocabularies and perhaps standard ontologies, but the specification of such a vocabulary is beyond the scope of this specification. (2) replace the the fact-type 'integer is-less-than integer' with the fact-type 'quantity is-less-than quantity'. (3) add the concept 'number' Definition: a [quantity] belonging to an abstract mathematical system and subject to laws of succession, addition and multiplication Source: MW (4) make integer a subtype of number, and number a subtype of quantity. (5) correct the "term" style for 'number' in the definition of integer in 8.7, and for 'quantity' in the definition of duration in D.2.3.3. (6) In D.2.3.3, add to the definition of duration is at most duration: Synonymous form: duration is less than or equal to duration Resolution: Revised Text: 1) In section 8.7, add the following three entries before the entry for "integer": quantity FL Definition: the aspect in which a thing is measurable in terms of greater, less or equal [MWU] General Concept: noun concept Note: The concept quantity can be elaborated into mathematical systems, such as integers and real numbers, and into systems of measures. This specification elaborates only the concepts for integer, because they are commonly used in structural rules. For measurement systems and units of measure there are accepted vocabularies and perhaps standard ontologies, but the specification of such a vocabulary is beyond the scope of this specification. quantity1 is less than quantity2 FL Definition: the quantity1 is mathematically less than the quantity2 Synonymous Form: quantity1 < quantity2 Synonymous Form: quantity2 is greater than quantity1 Synonymous Form: quantity2 > quantity1 number FL Definition: quantity belonging to an abstract mathematical system and subject to laws of succession, addition and multiplication Dictionary Basis: An arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations [ODE: "number",1] 2) In section 8.7, change the definition of "integer" as shown below. Definition: number that has no fractional part 3) In section 8.7, delete the entry for "integer1 is less than integer2". 4) In E.2.3.3, add to the entry for "duration1 is at most duration2": Synonymous Form: duration1 is less than or equal to duration2 5) Replace figure 8.9 with this updated diagram: Actions taken: January 31, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: Introduce "quantity" as a defined concept. Introduce "number" as a category of "quantity". Define "integer" as a category of "number". End of Annotations:===== te: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:16:38 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: issues@omg.org Subject: SBVR: define 'is less than' on 'quantity' * Title: define 'is less than' on 'quantity' * Submitter: Ed Barkmeyer, edbark@nist.gov * Member: NIST * Notification: No * Specification: SBVR Draft Adopted Specification * Section: 8.7, D.2.3.3 * FormalNumber: sbvr-ftf/06-01-01 * Version: 1.0 * RevisionDate: * Page: - * Nature: Technical inconsistency * Severity: Minor * Problem Description: Clause 8.7 defines 'integer' as "a number with no fractional part". But the concept 'number' to which this definition appeals is not defined, and the entry does not cite a source for the definition. 'number' should be defined as well. SBVR clause 8.7 defines the fact-type 'integer is-less-than integer'. This is a narrow definition of the 'less-than' concept, which applies, with the same semantics, to 'numbers' and to arbitrary quantities. 'Quantity' is the general concept on which comparison for less and greater is defined for business purposes. It is the concept for which is-less-than should be defined in 8.7. In Annex D, 'is less than' is used as a fact-type for prices and durations in several places, but it is never defined. This usage requires a wider definition of the is-less-than fact-type that is defined in 8.7, namely a definition on 'quantity'. D.2.3.3 defines 'duration' as "a quantity of time", but the term 'quantity' is not a vocabulary entry in either 8.7 or Annex D. And D.2.3.3 defines the fact-type 'duration is-at-most duration', but it has the same semantics as quantity is-less-than (or equal to) quantity. It is clear that this example is a model for the definition of "measurement" vocabularies, and 8.7 should provide the base term 'quantity' to support that. * Proposed solution: (1) define the term 'quantity' in SBVR, e.g., Definition: a determinate or estimated amount [of a thing] Definition: the aspect in which a thing is measurable in terms of greater, less or equal Source: MW Note: The concept quantity can be elaborated into mathematical systems, such as integer and real numbers, and into systems of measures. This specification elaborates only the concepts for integer, because they are commonly used in structural rules (See x.x). For measurement systems and units of measure there are accepted vocabularies and perhaps standard ontologies, but the specification of such a vocabulary is beyond the scope of this specification. (2) replace the the fact-type 'integer is-less-than integer' with the fact-type 'quantity is-less-than quantity'. (3) add the concept 'number' Definition: a [quantity] belonging to an abstract mathematical system and subject to laws of succession, addition and multiplication Source: MW (4) make integer a subtype of number, and number a subtype of quantity. (5) correct the "term" style for 'number' in the definition of integer in 8.7, and for 'quantity' in the definition of duration in D.2.3.3. (6) In D.2.3.3, add to the definition of duration is at most duration: Synonymous form: duration is less than or equal to duration -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4482 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:20:58 +0000 From: John Hall Reply-To: john.hall@modelsys.com Organization: Model Systems User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: SBVR-FTF Subject: Issue 9344 SBVR FTF Issue Hello all, Sorry, I mis-addressed this to Donald and Said, not the whole SBVR-FTF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This addresses a a question that came up in discussion of 9344 - whether we need explicit references to dictionary implicitly-understood terms. I suggest that we don't. SBVR includes the characteristic .term is implicitly understood. (.the term is generally understood within by its owning community without an explicit definition.). [Note the typo .within by.] The intention is that a speech community uses implicitly-understood terms for as many concepts as it can. It adopts a dictionary, such as MWU, and uses it to resolve disagreement or misunderstanding of what concept is meant by use of an implicitly-understood term. If there is a problem, then the speech community can change the term.s category to .explicitly-defined., either by making an explicit adoption, or creating an owned definition. The motivation is to minimize the vocabulary a speech community has to maintain, with three benefits: 1) Discourse is easier to understand, because much of it is in common currency natural language 2) The vocabulary is smaller, so that people in the speech community can more readily see what is specific to the community 3) There is less vocabulary maintenance effort So my suggestion is that we don.t need to define number or integer (or quite a lot of other terms). For example, MWU has a good definition of integer: .any of the natural numbers (as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), the negatives of these numbers, or 0.. It also has a second definition of integer: .a complete entity .. But I think we can expect people in semantic communities to be smart enough to understand which concept .integer. represents when they use it in their business. We expect them to be able to do this with verbs, if they know the roles in the fact types in which the verbs are encountered - e.g. to understand the different meanings of .runs. in .person runs company. and .person runs race.. So we don.t have to have an explicit adoption, such as .MWU integer (1). solely because there are multiple dictionary definitions for the term. We should need to do so only if people in the speech community might make different choices of definition. In SBVR Structured English, implicitly-understood terms are styled but not defined. I realize that this might cause some difficulties for some tool developers, but that should not cause us to change what we agreed was a valuable concept in SBVR. One thing that would be useful in Structured English tools would be an option to distinguish between explicitly-defined and implicitly-understood terms so that users could see what terms were in the managed vocabulary, and what terms were used formally, but not defined. Regards, Subject: RE: issue 9344 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:56:42 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 9344 -- SBVR FTF issue Thread-Index: AcYoFVJKJGt/XK+FQry5i60Zh52EBT261Y2w From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2006 21:56:43.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[93BA0AA0:01C71F01] The agreed resolution to Issue 9344 is attached. I added an updated diagram to John Hall.s write-up and made the corrections listed in the meeting minutes. I also took the liberty of adding .FL. to the new entries (.quantity., .quantity is less than quantity., and .number.) since the related and replaced concepts are all marked with .FL.. Donald, please take note of this in preparing skeleton mapping table for chapter 10. Best regards, Don