Issue 9399: Section: Section F.2.1.2 (RuleSpeak Annex) (sbvr-ftf) Source: Business Rules Group (Mr. Ronald G. Ross, rross(at)BRSolutions.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Based on the Feb. 23 FTF meeting, I retracted a correction that I had sent in for the RuleSpeak Annex, as below. It was pointed out that my correction was improperly worded (especially regarding "represented"), and that the phrase did not convey my actual intent. *** Replace "if all roles for" with: *** "If all noun concepts represented by roles for" The correct phrasing may need to reference "fundamental concepts". In any event, the correct wording involves a larger issue than simply RuleSpeak, or the specific point I was making here. Resolution: Provide clear wording of the appropriate criteria Revised Text: In F.2.1.2, in the 2nd bullet under "Comments", replace: "If all noun concepts represented by roles for a fact type are well-defined, a definition for the fact type itself generally adds very little." with: "When the meaning of a fact type is the dictionary meaning for the verb phrase in the context of well-defined noun concepts for the things that play the roles, a definition for the fact type itself generally adds very little." Actions taken: February 25, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 25 Feb 2006 18:13:34 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Ronald G. Ross Company: Business Rule Solutions, LLC mailFrom: rross@BRSolutions.com Notification: Yes Specification: SBVR Draft Adopted Specification Section: Section F.2.1.2 (RuleSpeak Annex) FormalNumber: sbvr-ftf/06-01-01 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: 2/25/2006 Page: -- Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Based on the Feb. 23 FTF meeting, I retracted a correction that I had sent in for the RuleSpeak Annex, as below. It was pointed out that my correction was improperly worded (especially regarding "represented"), and that the phrase did not convey my actual intent. *** Replace "if all roles for" with: *** "If all noun concepts represented by roles for" The correct phrasing may need to reference "fundamental concepts". In any event, the correct wording involves a larger issue than simply RuleSpeak, or the specific point I was making here. Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:20:39 -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: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 9399 -- why fact types are not defined Proposed change: In F.2.1.2, in the 2nd bullet under "Comments", replace: "If all noun concepts represented by roles for a fact type are well-defined, a definition for the fact type itself generally adds very little." with: "When the meaning of a fact type is the dictionary meaning for the verb phrase in the context of well-defined noun concepts for the things that play the roles, a definition for the fact type itself generally adds very little." (This couples Ron's intent with Don's notion of "refining" the verb meaning to the context of the nouns involved.) -Ed -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:05:11 -1000 From: John and Keri Subject: Re: issue 9399 -- why fact types are not defined To: SBVR-FTF Thread-topic: issue 9399 -- why fact types are not defined Thread-index: AcZKSYiDxsc77bY8EdqZQQARJM+Cgg== User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 [Ed, (& All), Ron has asked me to send the Reply below on his behalf. He has tried, all day, to send to the list and his emails are being bounced with a message that omg.org is .unavailable. ~ Keri] >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:32:42 -0600 >To: edbark@nist.gov, sbvr-ftf@omg.org >From: "Ronald G. Ross" >Subject: Re: issue 9399 -- why fact types are not defined > >At 04:20 PM 3/16/2006, Ed Barkmeyer wrote: >>Proposed change: >> >>In F.2.1.2, in the 2nd bullet under "Comments", replace: >> >>"If all noun concepts represented by roles for a fact type are >>well-defined, a definition for the fact type itself generally adds >>very little." >> >>with: >> >>"When the meaning of a fact type is the dictionary meaning for the >>verb phrase in the context of well-defined noun concepts for the >>things that play the roles, a definition for the fact type itself >>generally adds very little." >> >>(This couples Ron's intent with Don's notion of "refining" the verb >>meaning to the context of the nouns involved.) > >I'm good with this. > >Ron > > >>-Ed >> >>-- >>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 >> >>"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, >> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."