Issue 9609: A fact is not a logical formulation (sbvr-ftf) Source: Microsoft (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Page 103 of SBVR says ‘fact’ is “logical formulation that is taken as true…”, but a fact is a proposition and a logical formulation is not a proposition Resolution: Change the entry for "fact" in the table on page 103 Revised Text: In 10.3.2.1, page 103, remove the following words from the beginning of the column 2 entry for "fact": "logical formulation that is taken as true, in the sense that it means a". The resulting entry should look like this: proposition that is taken as true. Each actuality instantiates an unordered set of one or more roles, but for each ordering of roles predicate readings may be given, e.g., 'Terry likes Norma' and 'Norma is liked by Terry' express the same fact. There is no formal way of determining whether two primitive (non-derived) predicates have the same meaning, but equivalences between predicates may be explicitly asserted if known Actions taken: April 25, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: SBVR Issue Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:27:18 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue Thread-Index: AcZn/wLnLXys0lbHR8ySmnppgiLRWg== From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: , "Juergen Boldt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2006 00:28:02.0009 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C8EF490:01C667FF] Title: A fact is not a logical formulation Page 103 of SBVR says .fact. is .logical formulation that is taken as true.., but a fact is a proposition and a logical formulation is not a proposition. Don Baisley | Consulting Engineer | Systems & Technology Unisys | 25725 Jeronimo Road | Mission Viejo, CA 92691 | 949-380-6382 THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. Subject: RE: issues 9609 -- SBVR FTF issues Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:37:54 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issues 9609 -- SBVR FTF issues Thread-Index: AcZp+WzmgmtFUFXOSraKns6bXOSBzBFU/3ow From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2006 18:37:50.0255 (UTC) FILETIME=[442AFBF0:01C6AF50] Hello all, I was asked in one of our SBVR FTF meetings to discuss the resolution of this simple issue with Andy. Andy has confirmed that the issue should be resolved as we discussed in the meeting. See attached. Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Carver [mailto:Andy.Carver@neumont.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:26 AM To: Baisley, Donald E Subject: RE: issue 9609 -- SBVR FTF issues Don, Good grief, that's been in there at least since 7.0 (a year ago)! How that got through.... Your suggestion below is certainly the best way to fix that defining phrase for "fact". Cheers, Andy -----Original Message----- From: Baisley, Donald E [mailto:Donald.Baisley@unisys.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:02 PM To: Andy Carver Subject: RE: issue 9609 -- SBVR FTF issues Hi Andy, It.s good to hear from you. I hope all is well for you. I have attached the document we are working with. The problem spot is at the top of page 103 in 10.3.2.1. Please comment on my solution or recommend something. Thanks, Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Carver [mailto:Andy.Carver@neumont.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:26 AM To: Baisley, Donald E Subject: RE: issue 9609 -- SBVR FTF issues Don, Does this definition's larger context (of which I'm not cognizant right now) suggest that the term "fact" is being used to mean "fact formula" rather than "fact" as normally used? I'm asking because I'm puzzled how that current definition could have arisen for "fact" as normally used. In version 7.8 of SBVR, which seems to be the latest version on my hard disk, on pg. 75 I see "fact" defined as "proposition that is taken as true". But that's from the formal logics part; where did the other definition come from? Is this from the "other", non-logics sections of SBVR, the connecting of which to logic is now you're task? Please forgive the need to bring me up to speed a bit about this. Thanks, Andy -----Original Message----- From: Baisley, Donald E [mailto:Donald.Baisley@unisys.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:14 PM To: Andy Carver Subject: FW: issue 9609 -- SBVR FTF issues Hi Andy, I was asked by the FTF to talk to you about issue 9609. The issue is shown below. From the current .Mapping to Formal Logic. entry for .fact. we have this: logical formulation that is taken as true, in the sense that it means a proposition that is taken as true. I recommend we simply remove .logical formulation that is taken as true, in the sense that it means a. so that it simply reads .proposition that is taken as true.. Do you agree? Please answer or call me to discuss this. Thanks, Don 949-380-6382 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is issue # 9609 A fact is not a logical formulation Page 103 of SBVR says .fact. is .logical formulation that is taken as true.., but a fact is a proposition and a logical formulation is not a proposition Issue9609.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 9609 Title: A fact is not a logical formulation Source: Don Baisley Summary: Page 103 of SBVR says .fact. is .logical formulation that is taken as true.., but a fact is a proposition and a logical formulation is not a proposition. Resolution: Change the entry for .fact. in the table on page 103. Revised Text: In 10.3.2.1, page 103, remove the following words from the beginning of the column 2 entry for .fact.: .logical formulation that is taken as true, in the sense that it means a.. The resulting entry should look like this: proposition that is taken as true. Each actuality instantiates an unordered set of one or more roles, but for each ordering of roles predicate readings may be given, e.g., .Terry likes Norma. and .Norma is liked by Terry. express the same fact. There is no formal way of determining whether two primitive (non-derived) predicates have the same meaning, but equivalences between predicates may be explicitly asserted if known. Disposition: Resolved