Issue 9623: Mapping SBVR logical formulation terms to formal logic terms (sbvr-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Clause 10.2 promises a formal mapping from the "logical formulation vocabulary" in clause 9.1.1 to the mathematical logic vocabulary presented in 10.1.2. But the content of clause 10.2 is empty. No such mapping is provided. Note that several logical concepts defined in 9.1.1 (e.g. negation, conjunction, disjunction, equivalence) have no direct cognates in the vocabulary presented in 10.2. For these concepts, either 10.1.2 must be expanded to include the definitions, or the mapping table must specify the equivalent logical formula (wff) as a composition of implications. Note further that Clause 10.2 defines many of its terms as elements of a grammar for a surface syntax (expression) for the logical concepts defined here and there in clause 10.1. Clause 9.1.1 appears to define an abstract syntax for the same purpose. There is no reason why these two grammars should not describe the same expressions. Recommendation: Provide the mapping, revising clause 9.1.1 and/or 10.1.2 as needed to align the grammars. Resolution: Resolved by the resolution of Issue 9959. Revised Text: Actions taken: May 10, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: More basic Issues had to be resolved first, and we ran out of time End of Annotations:===== te: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:03:37 -0400 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 Issue - Mapping logical formulation terms to formal logic terms X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Name: Mapping SBVR logical formulation terms to formal logic terms Doc: dtc/06-03-02 Date: March 2006 Version: Interim Convenience Document Chapter: 10.2 Pages: 101 Nature: Missing content Severity: Major Description: Clause 10.2 promises a formal mapping from the "logical formulation vocabulary" in clause 9.1.1 to the mathematical logic vocabulary presented in 10.1.2. But the content of clause 10.2 is empty. No such mapping is provided. Note that several logical concepts defined in 9.1.1 (e.g. negation, conjunction, disjunction, equivalence) have no direct cognates in the vocabulary presented in 10.2. For these concepts, either 10.1.2 must be expanded to include the definitions, or the mapping table must specify the equivalent logical formula (wff) as a composition of implications. Note further that Clause 10.2 defines many of its terms as elements of a grammar for a surface syntax (expression) for the logical concepts defined here and there in clause 10.1. Clause 9.1.1 appears to define an abstract syntax for the same purpose. There is no reason why these two grammars should not describe the same expressions. Recommendation: Provide the mapping, revising clause 9.1.1 and/or 10.1.2 as needed to align the grammars. -- 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 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:15:54 -0700 Subject: Re: issue 9623 -- SBVR FTF issue From: John and Keri To: Juergen Boldt , SBVR-issues , SBVR-FTF Thread-Topic: issue 9623 -- SBVR FTF issue Thread-Index: AcZ0XcajBTPw6OBREdqbpgARJM+Cgg== Thanks, Ed. Does this issue cover getting 10.3 updated? If not, does that work need a separate Issue logged? ~ Keri On 5/10/06 11:06 AM, "Juergen Boldt" wrote: This is issue # 9623 From: Ed Barkmeyer Mapping SBVR logical formulation terms to formal logic terms Clause 10.2 promises a formal mapping from the "logical formulation vocabulary" in clause 9.1.1 to the mathematical logic vocabulary presented in 10.1.2. But the content of clause 10.2 is empty. No such mapping is provided. Note that several logical concepts defined in 9.1.1 (e.g. negation, conjunction, disjunction, equivalence) have no direct cognates in the vocabulary presented in 10.2. For these concepts, either 10.1.2 must be expanded to include the definitions, or the mapping table must specify the equivalent logical formula (wff) as a composition of implications. Note further that Clause 10.2 defines many of its terms as elements of a grammar for a surface syntax (expression) for the logical concepts defined here and there in clause 10.1. Clause 9.1.1 appears to define an abstract syntax for the same purpose. There is no reason why these two grammars should not describe the same expressions. Recommendation: Provide the mapping, revising clause 9.1.1 and/or 10.1.2 as needed to align the grammars. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4482