Issue 9728: Meaning of noun concept formulation (sbvr-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark@nist.gov edward.barkmeyer@nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Minor Summary: Doc: dtc/06-03-02 Date: March 2006 Version: Interim Convenience Document Chapter: 9.1.1.9 Pages: Nature: Editorial Severity: minor Description: In clause 9.1.1.9, 'noun concept formulation', the definition is "projecting formulation of a referent noun concept whose intension is formulated in a particular projection" a. It is not clear in this definition what 'referent noun concept' is being referred to. b. 'projecting formulation' as a GeneralConcept has no semantics. Use 'logical formulation'? c. This apparently means that the noun concept is defined to be the set that is the projection, which is the extension, not the intension. (I suppose the intension is "is a member of that set".) The problem here is that while a projection has the form of an intensional definition, it has the semantics of an extensional definition. Perhaps the problem is that this use of the projection syntax does not have the same semantics as other uses. d. This definition provides no indication as to the role of the bindable target (from 'projecting formulation'). The thing being defined is a noun concept -- not a variable, although perhaps a constant -- so the bindable target must enter into the definition, but the note says there is some "understood reference". e. This definition is only a 'logical formulation' if the noun concept is treated as a classifying predicate, like an instantiation formulation. And in that case, the bindable target would be the thing whose referent is to be tested for membership in the projection set. f. In the closed form, one possible interpretation of this construct is that it is a test for whether the bindable target is a member of the projection set. If that is the case, it would certainly be helpful to the reader to say exactly that, at least in a Note. g. One possible 'open form' would apparently define a function of the bindable target whose result is the closed projection that corresponds to the substitution of the bindable target for the (sole?) free variable in the projection, but that is not a logical formulation in that its meaning is not a proposition. h. Of itself, the open form does not define a noun concept. There must be a further requirement that all free variables in the projection are bound in the context in which the would-be noun concept is 'defined'. And what this means is that a noun concept formulation is only well-defined when it is closed by substitution. All of this should be part of the definition and not of some attached Note. i. Another possible interpretation is that this really was intended to represent the definition of a term to refer to a noun concept defined by an intensional formulation. In that case, the 'bindable target' should be a constant (text?) whose referent is being defined, the noun concept formulation should introduce a single variable, and the intensional definiens should be a logical formulation with exactly one free variable, and that variable corresponds to the variable introduced. No projection ("set") is involved. "Note: A noun concept formulation is satisfied for each referent that is a noun concept defined by the projection." Whatever this was supposed to mean, it is wrong. A noun concept formulation is satisfied if the referent of the bindable target is actually in the set defined by the projection. The Examples are strangely phrased. E.g. in the 2nd example, the noun concept formulation is: 'the distance that is the reading of the rental car's odometer', and anything that satisfies that formulation IS a distance, because 'distance' is the concept over which odometer-reading(?car) projects. The 'distance concept' is in the formulation, but the referents are individual distances. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Page 61, 9.1.1.8, replace the Definition of 'noun concept formulation' with this: Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target bound to the projecting formulation refers is a noun concept that is defined by the projection of the projecting formulation Replace the Note under 'noun concept formulation' with this: Note: In the case of variables being free within a projection of a noun concept formulation, the projection is considered to define a noun concept only in the context of there being a referent thing given for each free variable. Note: Nouns are generally used to refer to things in the extension of the noun concept meant by the noun. Less commonly, a noun is used to mention a noun concept itself. This is referred to as a "mention" of the concept as opposed to a "use". Replace the Examples under 'noun concept formulation' with these: Example: "EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol." In this example, 'petrol' is a mention of the concept 'petrol' which is used in the 'type' role of a fact type 'quantity is of type'. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300. . The quantification introduces a first variable. . . The first variable ranges over the concept 'kiloliter'. . The quantification scopes over an existential quantification. . . The existential quantification introduces a second variable. . . The existential quantification is restricted by a noun concept formulation. . . . The noun concept formulation binds to the second variable. . . . The noun concept formulation considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on a third variable. . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept 'petrol'. . . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type 'company stores thing'. . . . . The 'company' role is bound to the individual concept 'EU-Rent'. . . . . The 'thing' role is bound to the first variable. Example: "EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of medium or high grade petrol." This example is the same as the previous example except that the mentioned concept is more complex: "medium or high grade petrol". The statement's formulation starts with that of the previous example and adds the following: . . . . The projection is constrained by a disjunction. . . . . . The disjunction's logical operand 1 is an atomic formulation. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic 'petrol is medium grade'. . . . . . . . The 'petrol' role is bound to the third variable.. . . . . . The disjunction's logical operand 2 is an atomic formulation. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic 'petrol is high grade'. . . . . . . . The 'petrol' role is bound to the third variable. Example: "EU-Rent's headcount increased by 300 in the year 2005." The proposition is based on the fact type 'quantitative property increased by quantity in time period'. The quantitative property is the noun concept expressed as "EU-Rent's headcount". The statement is formulated by an existential quantification. . The quantification introduces a unitary variable. . . The variable ranges over the concept 'quantitative property'. . The quantification is restricted by a noun concept formulation. . . The noun concept formulation binds to the first variable. . . . The noun concept formulation considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on a second unitary variable. . . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept 'headcount'. . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type 'company has headcount'. . . . . . . The 'company' role is bound to the individual concept 'EU-Rent'. . . . . . . The 'headcount' role is bound to the second variable. . The quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type 'quantitative property increased by quantity in time period'. . . . The 'quantitative property' role is bound to the first variable. . . . The 'quantity' role is bound to the individual concept '300'. . . . The 'time period' role is bound to the individual concept 'year 2005'. Actions taken: May 17, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: Provide a better definition of 'noun concept formulation'. Improve the note. Improve the examples and give their formulations. End of Annotations:===== me: Meaning of noun concept formulation Doc: dtc/06-03-02 Date: March 2006 Version: Interim Convenience Document Chapter: 9.1.1.9 Pages: Nature: Editorial Severity: minor Description: In clause 9.1.1.9, 'noun concept formulation', the definition is "projecting formulation of a referent noun concept whose intension is formulated in a particular projection" a. It is not clear in this definition what 'referent noun concept' is being referred to. b. 'projecting formulation' as a GeneralConcept has no semantics. Use 'logical formulation'? c. This apparently means that the noun concept is defined to be the set that is the projection, which is the extension, not the intension. (I suppose the intension is "is a member of that set".) The problem here is that while a projection has the form of an intensional definition, it has the semantics of an extensional definition. Perhaps the problem is that this use of the projection syntax does not have the same semantics as other uses. d. This definition provides no indication as to the role of the bindable target (from 'projecting formulation'). The thing being defined is a noun concept -- not a variable, although perhaps a constant -- so the bindable target must enter into the definition, but the note says there is some "understood reference". e. This definition is only a 'logical formulation' if the noun concept is treated as a classifying predicate, like an instantiation formulation. And in that case, the bindable target would be the thing whose referent is to be tested for membership in the projection set. f. In the closed form, one possible interpretation of this construct is that it is a test for whether the bindable target is a member of the projection set. If that is the case, it would certainly be helpful to the reader to say exactly that, at least in a Note. g. One possible 'open form' would apparently define a function of the bindable target whose result is the closed projection that corresponds to the substitution of the bindable target for the (sole?) free variable in the projection, but that is not a logical formulation in that its meaning is not a proposition. h. Of itself, the open form does not define a noun concept. There must be a further requirement that all free variables in the projection are bound in the context in which the would-be noun concept is 'defined'. And what this means is that a noun concept formulation is only well-defined when it is closed by substitution. All of this should be part of the definition and not of some attached Note. i. Another possible interpretation is that this really was intended to represent the definition of a term to refer to a noun concept defined by an intensional formulation. In that case, the 'bindable target' should be a constant (text?) whose referent is being defined, the noun concept formulation should introduce a single variable, and the intensional definiens should be a logical formulation with exactly one free variable, and that variable corresponds to the variable introduced. No projection ("set") is involved. "Note: A noun concept formulation is satisfied for each referent that is a noun concept defined by the projection." Whatever this was supposed to mean, it is wrong. A noun concept formulation is satisfied if the referent of the bindable target is actually in the set defined by the projection. The Examples are strangely phrased. E.g. in the 2nd example, the noun concept formulation is: 'the distance that is the reading of the rental car's odometer', and anything that satisfies that formulation IS a distance, because 'distance' is the concept over which odometer-reading(?car) projects. The 'distance concept' is in the formulation, but the referents are individual distances. Subject: RE: issues 9728 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:11:27 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issues 9728 -- SBVR FTF issue Thread-Index: AcZ6o/rkXbbNdk3iTbqcdcTkiKQPUwwRVOtQ From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2006 04:11:27.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[68378A10:01C6AAE9] See attached. Don Issue9728.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 9728 Title: Meaning of noun concept formulation Source: Ed Barkmeyer Summary: In clause 9.1.1.9, 'noun concept formulation', the definition is "projecting formulation of a referent noun concept whose intension is formulated in a particular projection" a. It is not clear in this definition what 'referent noun concept' is being referred to. b. 'projecting formulation' as a GeneralConcept has no semantics. Use 'logical formulation'? c. This apparently means that the noun concept is defined to be the set that is the projection, which is the extension, not the intension. (I suppose the intension is "is a member of that set".) The problem here is that while a projection has the form of an intensional definition, it has the semantics of an extensional definition. Perhaps the problem is that this use of the projection syntax does not have the same semantics as other uses. d. This definition provides no indication as to the role of the bindable target (from 'projecting formulation'). The thing being defined is a noun concept -- not a variable, although perhaps a constant -- so the bindable target must enter into the definition, but the note says there is some "understood reference". e. This definition is only a 'logical formulation' if the noun concept is treated as a classifying predicate, like an instantiation formulation. And in that case, the bindable target would be the thing whose referent is to be tested for membership in the projection set. f. In the closed form, one possible interpretation of this construct is that it is a test for whether the bindable target is a member of the projection set. If that is the case, it would certainly be helpful to the reader to say exactly that, at least in a Note. g. One possible 'open form' would apparently define a function of the bindable target whose result is the closed projection that corresponds to the substitution of the bindable target for the (sole?) free variable in the projection, but that is not a logical formulation in that its meaning is not a proposition. h. Of itself, the open form does not define a noun concept. There must be a further requirement that all free variables in the projection are bound in the context in which the would-be noun concept is 'defined'. And what this means is that a noun concept formulation is only well-defined when it is closed by substitution. All of this should be part of the definition and not of some attached Note. i. Another possible interpretation is that this really was intended to represent the definition of a term to refer to a noun concept defined by an intensional formulation. In that case, the 'bindable target' should be a constant (text?) whose referent is being defined, the noun concept formulation should introduce a single variable, and the intensional definiens should be a logical formulation with exactly one free variable, and that variable corresponds to the variable introduced. No projection ("set") is involved. "Note: A noun concept formulation is satisfied for each referent that is a noun concept defined by the projection." Whatever this was supposed to mean, it is wrong. A noun concept formulation is satisfied if the referent of the bindable target is actually in the set defined by the projection. The Examples are strangely phrased. E.g. in the 2nd example, the noun concept formulation is: 'the distance that is the reading of the rental car's odometer', and anything that satisfies that formulation IS a distance, because 'distance' is the concept over which odometer-reading(?car) projects. The 'distance concept' is in the formulation, but the referents are individual distances. Resolution: Provide a better definition of .noun concept formulation.. Improve the note. Improve the examples and give their formulations. Revised Text: Page 61, 9.1.1.8, replace the Definition of .noun concept formulation. with this: Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target bound to the projecting formulation refers is a noun concept that is defined by the projection of the projecting formulation Replace the Note under .noun concept formulation. with this: Note: In the case of variables being free within a projection of a noun concept formulation, the projection is considered to define a noun concept only in the context of there being a referent thing given for each free variable. Note: Nouns are generally used to refer to things in the extension of the noun concept meant by the noun. Less commonly, a noun is used to mention a noun concept itself. This is referred to as a .mention. of the concept as opposed to a .use.. Replace the Examples under .noun concept formulation. with these: Example: .EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.. In this example, .petrol. is a mention of the concept .petrol. which is used in the .type. role of a fact type .quantity is of type.. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300. . The quantification introduces a first variable. . . The first variable ranges over the concept .kiloliter.. . The quantification scopes over an existential quantification. . . The existential quantification introduces a second variable. . . The existential quantification is restricted by a noun concept formulation. . . . The noun concept formulation binds to the second variable. . . . The noun concept formulation considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on a third variable. . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept .petrol.. . . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .company stores thing.. . . . . The .company. role is bound to the individual concept .EU-Rent.. . . . . The .thing. role is bound to the first variable. Example: .EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of medium or high grade petrol.. This example is the same as the previous example except that the mentioned concept is more complex: .medium or high grade petrol.. The statement.s formulation starts with that of the previous example and adds the following: . . . . The projection is constrained by a disjunction. . . . . . The disjunction.s logical operand 1 is an atomic formulation. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic .petrol is medium grade.. . . . . . . . The .petrol. role is bound to the third variable.. . . . . . The disjunction.s logical operand 2 is an atomic formulation. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic .petrol is high grade.. . . . . . . . The .petrol. role is bound to the third variable. Example: .EU-Rent.s headcount increased by 300 in the year 2005.. The proposition is based on the fact type .quantitative property increased by quantity in time period.. The quantitative property is the noun concept expressed as .EU-Rent.s headcount.. The statement is formulated by an existential quantification. . The quantification introduces a unitary variable. . . The variable ranges over the concept .quantitative property.. . The quantification is restricted by a noun concept formulation. . . The noun concept formulation binds to the first variable. . . . The noun concept formulation considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on a second unitary variable. . . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept .headcount.. . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .company has headcount.. . . . . . . The .company. role is bound to the individual concept .EU-Rent.. . . . . . . The .headcount. role is bound to the second variable. . The quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .quantitative property increased by quantity in time period.. . . . The .quantitative property. role is bound to the first variable. . . . The .quantity. role is bound to the individual concept .300.. . . . The .time period. role is bound to the individual concept .year 2005.. Disposition: Resolved Subject: RE: issues 9728 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:50:14 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issues 9728 -- SBVR FTF issue thread-index: AcZ6o/rkXbbNdk3iTbqcdcTkiKQPUwwRVOtQBDqfpWA= From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2006 16:50:14.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[E311DC90:01C6BBD3] The attached resolution is approved for voting. Don Issue9728.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 9728 Title: Meaning of noun concept formulation Source: Ed Barkmeyer Summary: In clause 9.1.1.9, 'noun concept formulation', the definition is "projecting formulation of a referent noun concept whose intension is formulated in a particular projection" a. It is not clear in this definition what 'referent noun concept' is being referred to. b. 'projecting formulation' as a GeneralConcept has no semantics. Use 'logical formulation'? c. This apparently means that the noun concept is defined to be the set that is the projection, which is the extension, not the intension. (I suppose the intension is "is a member of that set".) The problem here is that while a projection has the form of an intensional definition, it has the semantics of an extensional definition. Perhaps the problem is that this use of the projection syntax does not have the same semantics as other uses. d. This definition provides no indication as to the role of the bindable target (from 'projecting formulation'). The thing being defined is a noun concept -- not a variable, although perhaps a constant -- so the bindable target must enter into the definition, but the note says there is some "understood reference". e. This definition is only a 'logical formulation' if the noun concept is treated as a classifying predicate, like an instantiation formulation. And in that case, the bindable target would be the thing whose referent is to be tested for membership in the projection set. f. In the closed form, one possible interpretation of this construct is that it is a test for whether the bindable target is a member of the projection set. If that is the case, it would certainly be helpful to the reader to say exactly that, at least in a Note. g. One possible 'open form' would apparently define a function of the bindable target whose result is the closed projection that corresponds to the substitution of the bindable target for the (sole?) free variable in the projection, but that is not a logical formulation in that its meaning is not a proposition. h. Of itself, the open form does not define a noun concept. There must be a further requirement that all free variables in the projection are bound in the context in which the would-be noun concept is 'defined'. And what this means is that a noun concept formulation is only well-defined when it is closed by substitution. All of this should be part of the definition and not of some attached Note. i. Another possible interpretation is that this really was intended to represent the definition of a term to refer to a noun concept defined by an intensional formulation. In that case, the 'bindable target' should be a constant (text?) whose referent is being defined, the noun concept formulation should introduce a single variable, and the intensional definiens should be a logical formulation with exactly one free variable, and that variable corresponds to the variable introduced. No projection ("set") is involved. "Note: A noun concept formulation is satisfied for each referent that is a noun concept defined by the projection." Whatever this was supposed to mean, it is wrong. A noun concept formulation is satisfied if the referent of the bindable target is actually in the set defined by the projection. The Examples are strangely phrased. E.g. in the 2nd example, the noun concept formulation is: 'the distance that is the reading of the rental car's odometer', and anything that satisfies that formulation IS a distance, because 'distance' is the concept over which odometer-reading(?car) projects. The 'distance concept' is in the formulation, but the referents are individual distances. Resolution: Provide a better definition of .noun concept formulation.. Improve the note. Improve the examples and give their formulations. Revised Text: Page 61, 9.1.1.8, replace the Definition of .noun concept formulation. with this: Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target bound to the projecting formulation refers is a noun concept that is defined by the projection of the projecting formulation Replace the Note under .noun concept formulation. with this: Note: In the case of variables being free within a projection of a noun concept formulation, the projection is considered to define a noun concept only in the context of there being a referent thing given for each free variable. Note: Nouns are generally used to refer to things in the extension of the noun concept meant by the noun. Less commonly, a noun is used to mention a noun concept itself. This is referred to as a .mention. of the concept as opposed to a .use.. Replace the Examples under .noun concept formulation. with these: Example: .EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.. In this example, .petrol. is a mention of the concept .petrol. which is used in the .type. role of a fact type .quantity is of type.. The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification. . The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300. . The quantification introduces a first variable. . . The first variable ranges over the concept .kiloliter.. . The quantification scopes over an existential quantification. . . The existential quantification introduces a second variable. . . The existential quantification is restricted by a noun concept formulation. . . . The noun concept formulation binds to the second variable. . . . The noun concept formulation considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on a third variable. . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept .petrol.. . . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .company stores thing.. . . . . The .company. role is bound to the individual concept .EU-Rent.. . . . . The .thing. role is bound to the first variable. Example: .EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of medium or high grade petrol.. This example is the same as the previous example except that the mentioned concept is more complex: .medium or high grade petrol.. The statement.s formulation starts with that of the previous example and adds the following: . . . . The projection is constrained by a disjunction. . . . . . The disjunction.s logical operand 1 is an atomic formulation. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic .petrol is medium grade.. . . . . . . . The .petrol. role is bound to the third variable.. . . . . . The disjunction.s logical operand 2 is an atomic formulation. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic .petrol is high grade.. . . . . . . . The .petrol. role is bound to the third variable. Example: .EU-Rent.s headcount increased by 300 in the year 2005.. The proposition is based on the fact type .quantitative property increased by quantity in time period.. The quantitative property is the noun concept expressed as .EU-Rent.s headcount.. The statement is formulated by an existential quantification. . The quantification introduces a unitary variable. . . The variable ranges over the concept .quantitative property.. . The quantification is restricted by a noun concept formulation. . . The noun concept formulation binds to the first variable. . . . The noun concept formulation considers a projection. . . . . The projection is on a second unitary variable. . . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept .headcount.. . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .company has headcount.. . . . . . . The .company. role is bound to the individual concept .EU-Rent.. . . . . . . The .headcount. role is bound to the second variable. . The quantification scopes over an atomic formulation. . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type .quantitative property increased by quantity in time period.. . . . The .quantitative property. role is bound to the first variable. . . . The .quantity. role is bound to the individual concept .300.. . . . The .time period. role is bound to the individual concept .year 2005.. Disposition: Resolved