Issue 9959: Section: Clause 10 pages 71 - 108 (sbvr-ftf) Source: Business Semantics Ltd. (Mr. Donald R. Chapin, donald.chapin(at)btinternet.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: ISSUE: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specifiy the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renuber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. f. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabu;ary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 Resolution: 1. Replace the all the tables and introductory text in Clause 10.3 with the new single integrated table mapping SBVR to ISO Common Logic (ISO 24707) and OWL and introductory text for it. 2. Add two supplemental Conformance Points: one for Restricted Higher Order Logic, and one for First Order Logic. 3. Create a spin-off Issue for items not resolved because of lack of time: a. Adding terms and definitions used in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 and remove terms in Clause 10.1.2 no longer needed b. Remove tutorial material from Clause 10.1.1 c. Add ISO 24707 terms to 10.1.2 if permission is received from ISO 4. Create a spin-off Issue for SBVR metamodel formal logic-based errors and omissions: a. A reference scheme is needed for individual concept. b. The entries in Clause 8.5 "Conceptual Schemas and Models" need to be corrected to agree with the first paragraphs of Clause 10. c. In Clause 8.6 "Extensions" and other sections of Clauses 8-12 the definition of "corresponds to" in "meaning corresponds to thing" and all the relationship and necessities between all the subcategories of meaning and all the subcategories of thing, especially the meaning of "proposition corresponds to state of affairs" and " individual concept corresponds to thing" need to be clarified or added. How the relationship between concept and thing is different between the "use" and the "mention" of the concept needs to be made clear. d. Thee reference scheme for individual concept needs to be fixed to include the "mention" of object types, roles, fact types, propositions and subcategories of them. e. Definitions that cover all the uses of "individual" in Clauses 8-12 need to be added. f. The meaning of Henkin semantics needs to be specified as it applies to the SBVR metamodel. 5. The resolution of this Issue also resolves Issues 9623 and 9707. Revised Text: ADD to a new section as Clause 2.2.5 as follows: 2.2.5 Restricted Higher Order Logic (Additional Conformance) An SBVR exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated in clause 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.4) and shall produce no exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above. ADD to a new section as Clause 2.2.6 as follows: 2.2.6 First Order Logic (Additional Conformance) An SBVR exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated in clause 10.3.1 and 10.3.3. A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.4) and shall produce no exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above. In 8.6.1 at the end of this entry: meaning corresponds to thing Definition: the thing is the actual thing conceptualized by the meaning Synonymous Form: thing is conceptualized as meaning Note: A concept corresponds to each instance of the concept. A proposition corresponds to a state of affairs (which might or might not be actual). A fact proposition that is true corresponds to an actuality. add the following Note: Note: For some kinds of meanings this is a many-to-many relationship. For others it is many-to-one. REMOVE all tables and text in Clause 10.2 and 10.3 and REPLACE it in Clause 10.2 with: This Clause specifies how the SBVR concepts in the table below, as defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12, are to be interpreted in terms of formal logic as defined in ISO 24707 "Information technology - Common Logic (CL) - A framework for a family of logic-based languages". Equivalent concepts in OWL are also shown in the table where possible. The ISO 24707 interpretation of SBVR concepts shown in the table below implements the formal logic grounding principles set forth in Clause 10.1 NOTE: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification. NOTE: All SBVR Terms are "meanings" where all CL Terms are "representations of meanings." Therefore there is a one-to-many relationship between SBVR Terms as meanings and CL Terms as representations of meanings; i.e. there can be multiple CL representations of one SBVR meaning. SBVR Term ISO CL Term (or equivalent expression) OWL Term(or equivalent expression) Comment BASICS - Foundation fact sentence with an interpretation 'taken to be' trueNOTE: The mapping is many (sentences) to one (meaning) OWL statement (s, p, o) interpreted as being true; individual fact type (3+ary) + (unary fact type) unary predicate defining the type for a functional term or atomic sentence --- fact type (binary fact type) unary predicate defining the type for a functional term or atomic sentence that has exactly two arguments Class description defining RDF property or OWL object property (note: may only apply to OWL Full) Need 2 RDF/OWL properties related by inverse of = one binary fact type fact type has fact type role argument role in functional term or atomic sentence --- fact type has fact type role (binary fact type) argument role in functional term or atomic sentence that has exactly two arguments the range of an rdf:Property or owl:ObjectProperty; alternatively, maybe specified using a restriction on the property in OWL fact type role unary predicate defining the role of a name/term that is an argument RDF/OWL subject or object Definition: fact type role ranges over object type (role ranges over object type) term over which argument ranges value restriction on property fundamental concept individual concept name individual object type unary predicate class proposition sentence with an interpretation OWL statement (s, p, o); individual proposition is false sentence with an interpretation = false OWL statement (s, p, o) interpreted as being false; individual proposition is true sentence with an interpretation = true OWL statement (s, p, o) interpreted as being true; individual reference scheme approximately term reference scheme extensionally uses role reference scheme is for concept reference scheme simply uses role reference scheme uses characteristic situation role unary predicate defining the role of a name/term that is an argument RDF/OWL subject or object Definition: situation role ranges over fundamental concept (role ranges over object type) term over which argument ranges value restriction on property BASICS - Extension in Model NOTE: There are two kinds of extensions is SBVR:1. Real things that never appear in an SBVR Model themselves2. Model extensions:a. Individual concepts as model instances of object types (fundamental concepts only)b. facts as model instances of fact types concept1 is coextensive with concept2 (fact type) (forall (p1 p2) (if (and (binary fact type p1) (binary fact type p2)) (iff (is coextensive with p1 p2) (forall (x y) (iff (p1 x y) (p2 x y)))))) owl:equivalentProperty concept1 is coextensive with concept2 (noun concept) (forall (c1 c2) (if (and (noun concept c1) (noun concept c2)) (iff (is coextensive with c1 c2) (forall (x) (iff (c1 x) (c2 x)))))) owl:equivalentClass concept has extension (verb concept / fact type) "sentence type" has extension concept has extension (noun concept) ((forall (x)(iff (concept x) (or (= aaa-1 x) ... (= aaa-n x) ) )) enumeration of a class (OWL oneOf) extension extension class proposition corresponds to state of affairs approximately sentence denotation concept classifies thing (concept has instance) atom (concept thing) can be specified via an rdf:type statement (i.e., thing rdf:type concept .) set set BASICS - Intension: Characteristic characteristic (see unary fact type) (see unary fact type) (see unary fact type) characteristic is essential to concept characteristic type Definition: concept has implied characteristic Definition: concept has necessary characteristic concept incorporates characteristic sentence(forall (u)(implies(characteristic u)(concept u))) rdfs:subClassOf delimiting characteristic essential characteristic implied characteristic intension intension necessary characteristic BASICS - Intension: Categorization categorization scheme categorization type category concept type unary predicate class concept1 specializes concept2 (binary fact type) (forall (p1 p2) (if (and (binary fact type p1) (binary fact type p2) (iff (specializes p1 p2) ((forall (x y) (if (p1 x y) (p2 x y))))))) rdfs:subPropertyOf + disjoint concept1 specializes concept2 (noun concept) (forall (c1 c2) (if (specializes c1 c2) (forall (x) (if (c1 x) (c2 x)))))(forall (c1 c2) (if (and (specializes c1 c2) (specializes c2 c3)) (specializes c1 c3))) rdfs:subClassOf + disjoint One way from SBVR to CL more general concept segmentation BASICS - Modal Logic Definition: element of guidance authorizes state of affairs Definition: element of guidance obligates state of affairs Definition: element of guidance prohibits state of affairs operative business rule proposition is necessarily true proposition is obligated to be true proposition is permitted to be true proposition is possibly true rule structural rule BASICS - Misc. quantity1 is less than quantity2 functional term with operator "is less than" and arguments quantity1 and quantity2 integer atom (integer x) xsd:integer There are no explicitly defined types in CL; there is a specific set of XML schema datatypes available for use with RDF and OWL nonnegative integer atom (nonnegative integer x) xsd:nonNegativeInteger number atom (number x) positive integer atom (positive integer x) xsd:positiveInteger quantity SEMANTIC FORMULATIONS aggregation formulation antecedent at-least-n quantification restriction, owl:minCardinality n at-least-n quantification has minimum cardinality at-most-n quantification restriction, owl:maxCardinality n at-most-n quantification has maximum cardinality at-most-one quantification restriction, owl:maxCardinality 1 atomic formulation atomic sentence or atom if unary - rdf:typeif binary - rdf;triplenothing not 3+ atomic formulation has role binding atomic formulation is based on fact type auxiliary variable bag projection binary logical operation binary logical operation has logical operand 1 binary logical operation has logical operand 2 bindable target cardinality owl:cardinality closed logical formulation sentence with an interpretation closed logical formulation formalizes statement closed logical formulation means proposition closed projection Definition: closed projection defines fact type Definition: closed projection defines noun concept closed projection means question closed semantic formulation conjunction conjunction with at least two conjuncts owl:intersectionOf *about the extension of a concept and not about the meaning of a sentence consequent disjunction disjunction with at least two disjuncts owl:unionOf * equivalence biconditional roughly owl:equivalentProperty exactly-n quantification restriction, owl:cardinality n exactly-n quantification has cardinality exactly-one quantification restriction, owl:cardinality 1 exclusive disjunction negation of biconditional --- existential quantification quantified sentence of type existential restriction, owl:someValuesFrom implication implication --- implication has antecedent implication has consequent inconsequent instantiation formulation atomic sentence or atom rdf:type instantiation formulation binds to bindable target instantiation formulation considers concept logical formulation sentence logical formulation constrains projection logical formulation kind logical formulation restricts variable owl:Restriction - for specific kinds of restrictions (value, number) logical negation negation roughly owl:complementOf logical operand argument of a functional term logical operand 1 argument of a functional term, first in sequence logical operand 2 argument of a functional term, second in sequence logical operation term representing the operation for a functional term logical operation has logical operand maximum cardinality owl:maxCardinality minimum cardinality owl:minCardinality modal formulation irregular sentence --- modal formulation embeds logical formulation nand formulation negation of conjunction --- necessity formulation nor formulation negation of disjunction --- noun concept formulation numeric range quantification restriction, owl:minCardinality n ANDrestriction, owl:maxCardinality m numeric range quantification has maximum cardinality numeric range quantification has minimum cardinality objectification --- objectification binds to bindable target objectification considers logical formulation obligation formulation permissibility formulation possibility formulation projecting formulation projecting formulation binds to bindable target projecting formulation has projection projection projection has auxiliary variable projection is on variable projection position quantification quantified sentence quantification introduces variable approximately binding sequence for quantified sentence quantification scopes over logical formulation body for quantified sentence role binding binding sequence role binding binds to bindable target binding role has role binding scope formulation semantic formulation set has cardinality set projection universal quantification quantified sentence of type universal restriction, owl:allValuesFrom variable name/term individual or blank node variable has projection position variable is free within semantic formulation variable is unitary approximately a functional property. variable ranges over concept ---- whether-or-not formulation truth function operation --- whether-or-not formulation has consequent whether-or-not formulation has inconsequent SEMANTIC FORMULATION - Nominalization answer nominalization fact type nominalization proposition nominalization proposition nominalization binds to bindable target proposition nominalization considers logical formulation question nominalization FACT MODELS concept is closed in conceptual schema conceptual schema conceptual schema includes concept conceptual schema includes fact fact model fact model includes fact fact model is based on conceptual schema fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema REMOVE Clause 10.3 section title, "Mapping of SBVR Business Terms to Formal Logic", and REPLACE with "Requirements for Formal Logic Conformance" ADD new contents for Clause 10.3 as follows: 10.3.1 General Requirements for Formal Logic Interpretation Necessity: Each concept and element of guidance represented in an interchange file that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 is in a single body of shared meanings of a semantic community. Necessity: Each body of shared meanings represented in an interchange file that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 is considered independently of others, with the exception that there can be adoption between communities and semantic equivalence. Necessity: Each conceptual schema of a fact model that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 is for at most one body of shared meanings. Necessity: Given a fact model, a compliant interchange file that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 includes a representation of every fact that is in that fact model. 10.3.2 Enforcing a Restricted Higher Order Interpretation Necessity: Each instance of a concept in a fact model that uses a higher order interpretation is consistent with Henkin semantics. Note: If a fact model is inconsistent with Henkin semantics, there is generally a mapping by which one or more fact models with a restricted higher order interpretation can be produced. 10.3.3 Enforcing a First Order Interpretation Necessity: Each instance of a concept in a fact model that uses a first order interpretation is a first-order instance. Note: If fact model is inconsistent with a first order interpretation, there is generally a mapping by which one or more fact models with a first order interpretation can be produced. Note: A body of shared meanings that conforms to 10.3.2 always conforms to 10.3.2 "vacuously", that is, no role has an instance that is a meaning. Actions taken: July 24, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: close dissue Discussion: This Issue was received just before the Issue deadline which was only 6 weeks before the FTF report was due, and more basic Issues had to be resolved first. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Jul 2006 21:31:53 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donald Chapin Company: Business Semanitcs Ltd mailFrom: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Notification: No Specification: SBVR Section: Clause 10 FormalNumber: dtc/06-03-02 Version: Interim Specification RevisionDate: March 2006 Page: 71-108 Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description ISSUE: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specifiy the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renuber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. f. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabu;ary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=6QMIvPtrzkGgcLd8QqBOHKsP8HsxgTFH8+zGQPscXOpfozktZKG9D3pfdPFMs9MQq57gJ9MapcRPMouYgUxZpfuGALprOR+AePrTK7DWmYriuLe71IZk1gK1DF94S/kLi71mdozk+RZThIXwKc7+POZa/XR5DcWsAT4chH2BzXg= ; X-YMail-OSG: GA5sonsVM1m7Wwp49nol4p0d7hklE6L4yJSvQLO9AJEX.niC7JLPKpki6doT7BYhtU1J.SaeSjYTgPH.zgYZlMQfOZwZFsZB1bMQh.K3AQ-- Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'SBVR-FTF'" Subject: FW: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:51:03 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcawFFgRIQ/wfDF/TCGyxgt4lgaavzeRpsJQ Attached is the reformatted integration of the four tables from Clause 10 that has also been synchronized with the .FL. symbols in the Ballot 4 version of the SBVR Interim Specification. I still have to move the added entries into their alphabetic position in the list. Attached also is the chart mapping SBVR constructs to ISO Common Logic and OWL that was created at the San Diego meeting with the help of Elisa Kendall and Don B. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 25 July 2006 19:01 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Jul 2006 21:31:53 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donald Chapin Company: Business Semanitcs Ltd mailFrom: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Notification: No Specification: SBVR Section: Clause 10 FormalNumber: dtc/06-03-02 Version: Interim Specification RevisionDate: March 2006 Page: 71-108 Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description ISSUE: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specifiy the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renuber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. f. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabu;ary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 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 SBVR10-MappingTableReformat-OnlyWith'FL'Symbol.doc Common Logic + OWL Mapping Table v0-1 2007-03-27.xls DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE; b=xMrYbM6vbHRijqYanBezkypE+odhR0xwou36E5cakQ1zL2xO5JbxjxA5iMwL45BTDmj4yO9w8rloVXhdlvrnJLeI9MR2J2GZ2aGB47hyc5J1140m9mmc/XkQgvc2DWU53v7eSRa8Z5vQzl1N22ovSVrKb0FbYMHu8sh7GxzAbQs= ; X-YMail-OSG: nOPlwxwVM1m9NFcxh7GZZs3ogj5rEdPh93PMycbCT5diP1XnI.HRCj1J6PPdMqHkRxIUn_ygO.sOwVOrRoH9ecjMJR7qFop8mnAoWClUYQ-- Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 12:22:27 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcawFFgRIQ/wfDF/TCGyxgt4lgaavze8m2gQ As per yesterday.s SBVR FTF telecon, attached is a single file that combines the integrated, reformatted 4 tables in the SBVR Final Adopted Specification with the Excel spreadsheet created in San Diego that maps SBVR to ISO Common Logic and OWL. This attached Word document now contains everything for this formal logic mapping table in one document, and will be the basis for evolving the table that will replace the current four tables in Clause 10. As of this email I am handing this document off to Ed Barkmeyer for his additions and revisions. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 25 July 2006 19:01 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Jul 2006 21:31:53 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donald Chapin Company: Business Semanitcs Ltd mailFrom: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Notification: No Specification: SBVR Section: Clause 10 FormalNumber: dtc/06-03-02 Version: Interim Specification RevisionDate: March 2006 Page: 71-108 Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description ISSUE: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specifiy the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renuber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. f. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabu;ary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 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 SBVR10-MappingTableReformat-2007-05-05.doc Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:49:55 -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: SBVR-FTF Subject: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' 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 I finally figured out what a 'state of affairs' is, whilst (1) working on the formal mapping (2) reading up on sorted logics and Henkin semantics The formal mapping that Elisa and I are proposing has to deal with the following idea in formal logics: that only a 'res' can be an argument of a 'relation', that is, only a *thing that is not a meaning* can be an instance of a concept or play a role in a fact type. (This limitation avoids Russell's paradox: you can't create the concept of all concepts that are not instances of themselves, because concepts cannot be instances. And you can't say things like "this statement is false"; because a res cannot be false, only a meaning can. It is a structural rule that prevents meaningless speech artefacts from being propositions.) The formal logic work-around for talking about meanings is "reification".* Reification is a purely formal operation that creates a 'res' from a 'meaning'. The verb is "reify", from the Latin word that means 'to make a res (thing)', and the resulting res is called the "reified meaning". Reification is a lynchpin of Henkin semantics, which adds the idea that a reified meaning exists only when we create it; it doesn't exist (in the domain of discourse) until we explicitly create it from a specific meaning. So, strictly speaking, an SBVR 'concept type' is a concept whose instances are reified concepts. For the business reader, we can blur the distinction between the reification and the concept, but from a formal perspective, we can't. Similarly, a 'state of affairs' is the reification of a 'proposition'. That is, the concept 'state of affairs' is the concept whose instances are reified propositions. Here, SBVR has introduced explicit reification to the business reader, and we must be very careful not to confuse the reader. If we create a state of affairs, it exists, regardless of the state of the actual world. The proposition being reified, of course, describes some state/event that may or may not exist/occur in some possible world. Now, if 'actuality' is a specialization of 'state of affairs', then it must be concept whose instances are reified facts -- reifications of propositions that are taken to be true. An actuality is then not a state/event in the actual world, but it "corresponds to" some state/event in the actual world; that is, there is some state/event in the actual world that justifies taking the base proposition to be true. It would be correct to say that an actuality is a reified conceptualization of a state/event that exists/occurs in the actual world. Alternatively, if 'actuality' is the state/event in the actual world, as SBVR defines it, then it cannot be a specialization of 'state of affairs', because the instances of 'state of affairs' are reified propositions. Now, for the business user, SBVR blurs the distinction between the reified fact and the corresponding state of the actual world. But we can only get away with that if we are very careful about how we define the relationship between 'actuality' and 'state of affairs'. If the business user says, "a state of peace exists between our nations", he doesn't mean he can talk about a state of peace, he means that there is a corresponding actuality. The way SBVR defines 'state of affairs', "a state of peace between our nations" (our nations being at peace) is a state of affairs, and therefore it 'exists' if we talk about it, regardless of its relationship to actualities. The problem is that SBVR says the actual state of peace may be a res in the domain of discourse, and the reified proposition -- the instance of 'state of affairs' -- can also be a res in the same domain of discourse. They can't be the same res, because one can exist when the other doesn't. This is confusing. It confused me; it confuses others. I think the instances of SBVR 'fact types' really *are* "formal" actualities -- reifications of facts. In particular, they are the reifications of propositions that have atomic formulations based on the fact type. It is this view of 'actuality' that permits us to talk about things "playing roles in actualities". The "roles" only exist in the conceptualization of the state/event in the real world. As Antoine Lonjon once described it, "a fact is a view of a state/event in the real world from the point of view of a fact type." So, while we say that an 'actuality' is a state/event in the actual world, we treat the 'actuality' as the conceptualization of that state/event -- a reified proposition. When Don talks about "playing a role in a state of affairs", he means playing a role in a reified proposition that is based on a fact type, and that notion applies to actualities only if the actuality is seen as the reified fact. So I think SBVR really means that an actuality is a specialization of a state of affairs -- a reified fact! We don't mean that an actuality *is* a state/event in the actual world; we mean that it *corresponds to* (or "describes") a state/event in the actual world. (And the amazing thing is that most of what the text says is, whether by purpose or accident, consistent with that.) The net effect of this thinking is that I retract everything I have previously said about states of affairs. I fully agree with the common holding that they exist as res in the domain of discourse when we create them (by objectification, etc.). But we need to be very clear that they are reified conceptualizations of states/events. And I think we need to change the definition of 'actuality', to make it a specialization of 'state of affairs'. I am willing to leave the fix to the RTF, but clause 10 will show that 'actuality' is a conflation of importantly distinct things. -Ed * Formal logicians commonly use the word "mention" as the preferred term for "reification". "Mention", in that sense, has nothing to do with speech acts per se. Speech acts are just one of the ways in which the mention of a meaning can be used. Terry uses "objectification" as his synonym for "reification", at least for the 'proposition' category of meaning. And some formal logicians might argue that only a concept is "reified" and only a proposition is "mentioned". It's a speech community thing. -- 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: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Subject: RE: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:38 -0600 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Thread-Index: AcfCUiZg/c3csEcFQM6iJC+ALk9JvwA61GJQ From: "Andy Carver" To: , "SBVR-FTF" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id l6AMaBYu024750 Ed, Ed, it's probably irrelevant, but you and Terry seem a bit out of synch here. You wrote: "I finally figured out what a 'state of affairs' is, whilst (1) working on the formal mapping (2) reading up on sorted logics and Henkin semantics ... "... a 'state of affairs' is the reification of a 'proposition'. That is, the concept 'state of affairs' is the concept whose instances are reified propositions. ... " Terry uses "objectification" as his synonym for "reification", at least for the 'proposition' category of meaning." It's true that Terry has a notion of "propositional objectification", and that it seems (to me at least) much like your notion "reification of a proposition". But "state of affairs" is a term that Terry uses, not when talking about the result of "propositional objectification", but rather, when he's talking about the result of "situational objectification" -- which (to him at least) is an entirely different affair. Maybe something to think about; however, you don't seem to be directly conflicting with 10.1.1, since Terry doesn't really discuss "objectification" there. FWIW, Andy Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:54:13 -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: Andy Carver Cc: SBVR-FTF Subject: Re: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' 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 Andy, you wrote: Ed, it's probably irrelevant, but you and Terry seem a bit out of synch here. It is not irrelevant to me. It may be irrelevant to SBVR. And I half expected to find my understanding out of sync with Terry's. You wrote: " Terry uses "objectification" as his synonym for "reification", at least for the 'proposition' category of meaning." It's true that Terry has a notion of "propositional objectification", and that it seems (to me at least) much like your notion "reification of a proposition". Yes. It is the incarnation of "mention". But "state of affairs" is a term that Terry uses, not when talking about the result of "propositional objectification", but rather, when he's talking about the result of "situational objectification" -- which (to him at least) is an entirely different affair. I understand 'situational objectification' to mean "turning a state of the world" into a thing/res in the domain of discourse. The problem with that is exactly: When you do that, what does it mean to say that that result "exists" in the UoD? Can it exist without being an "actuality"? And the related question is: How do you denote one? If the denotation for a 'state of affairs' is a proposition, and the proposition is not required to be true, then I can't distinguish it from making that proposition a thing/res in the UoD. The thing that exists is a "characterization of a putative state of the world". In IKL, Pat Hayes introduces his (that p) operation to reify p, and he doesn't seem to distinguish that from a 'state of affairs'. (says Keri (that (plays-ball Jenny))) (plans Keri (that (goes-on-holiday Keri 20-July))) (prevents Keri (that (plays-with-matches Jenny))) Each of the (that p) forms above appears to be a reference to a possible state of the world. The fact that one (or perhaps two) of the primary predicates represents a "speech act" is about that predicate, not about the operand. But I may be utterly missing Terry's intent here. The distinction may be between mentioning the representation of a proposition and mentioning the intent of a proposition. That is, (says Keri "Jenny plays ball") is different from (says Keri (that (plays-ball Jenny))) That I can certainly agree with. What is a 'situational objectification'? -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: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Subject: FW: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:53:29 -0600 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Thread-Index: AcfDTaKOkSkEu9SDTKq7gbLNTMSghgACj32gAAGUjsA= From: "Andy Carver" To: "SBVR-FTF" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id l6B1mwIs006796 -----Original Message----- From: Andy Carver Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:53 PM To: 'edbark@nist.gov' Subject: RE: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Ed, First, for reference, here is Terry's paper on "objectification": http://orm.net/pdf/objectification.pdf You wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@nist.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:54 PM > To: Andy Carver > Cc: SBVR-FTF > Subject: Re: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' > > Andy, > > you wrote: > > > Ed, it's probably irrelevant, but you and Terry seem a bit out of synch > > here. > > It is not irrelevant to me. It may be irrelevant to SBVR. > And I half expected to find my understanding out of sync with Terry's. > > > You wrote: > > > " Terry uses "objectification" as his synonym for > > "reification", at least for the 'proposition' category of meaning." > > > > > > It's true that Terry has a notion of "propositional objectification", > > and that it seems (to me at least) much like your notion "reification of > > a proposition". > > Yes. It is the incarnation of "mention". > > > But "state of affairs" is a term that Terry uses, not > > when talking about the result of "propositional objectification", but > > rather, when he's talking about the result of "situational > > objectification" -- which (to him at least) is an entirely different > > affair. > > I understand 'situational objectification' to mean "turning a state of the > world" into a thing/res in the domain of discourse. I would have thought -- and I think so would Terry -- that a state of the world was already a thing/res in the domain of discourse... > The problem with that > is > exactly: When you do that, what does it mean to say that that result > "exists" > in the UoD? Can it exist without being an "actuality"? Yes. I think -- and I'd guess Terry would think -- that you're getting too knotted around the question of whether the state of affairs someone recognizes as real is "really real". (See his comments about "truth" in the above-linked paper, pg. 3.) I would guess even mythological beasts like unicorns and whatnot were originally believed in, or presented in hopes someone else would believe in it (even if only children). For Terry, a fact is a proposition taken to be true. And why not? Only when you abandon or hold in abeyance the belief in the proposition, could you possibly be in the intellectual position of questioning its truth. Likewise, then, why wouldn't an "actuality" be a state of affairs someone recognizes as actual? The point is (for me), you're never both in the position of a believer in a proposition, and a critic of the fact's truthfulness. You may be one or the other, but at no time are you both. So, once you raise the issue of whether a given state of affairs is actual, you've already stopped recognizing it as so; and once you question a particular proposition's truth, you've already abandoned the position of believing it true -- and reified it so that you can critique it. So you never have to worry about modeling both views of it in the same model; these two views are never simultaneously the same person's. (This last is my explanation, not quite the same as Terry's.) > > And the related question is: How do you denote one? > If the denotation for a 'state of affairs' is a proposition, and the > proposition is not required to be true, then I can't distinguish it from > making that proposition a thing/res in the UoD. The thing that exists is > a > "characterization of a putative state of the world". With regard to this question and the next, let me recommend to you pp. 4-5 in Terry's above-linked paper. > > In IKL, Pat Hayes introduces his (that p) operation to reify p, and he > doesn't > seem to distinguish that from a 'state of affairs'. > (says Keri (that (plays-ball Jenny))) > (plans Keri (that (goes-on-holiday Keri 20-July))) > (prevents Keri (that (plays-with-matches Jenny))) > > Each of the (that p) forms above appears to be a reference to a possible > state > of the world. The fact that one (or perhaps two) of the primary > predicates > represents a "speech act" is about that predicate, not about the operand. I disagree. The first one appears to be a reference, not to a possible state of the world, but rather to a proposition (being asserted). The latter two examples are unreal and misleading, because they are clearly not equivalent to the way you would really say it in natural language: you don't "plan that you go away", you "plan to go away"; you don't "prevent that Jenny plays with matches", you "prevent Jenny from playing with matches". > > But I may be utterly missing Terry's intent here. The distinction may be > between mentioning the representation of a proposition and mentioning the > intent of a proposition. That is, > (says Keri "Jenny plays ball") > is different from > (says Keri (that (plays-ball Jenny))) > That I can certainly agree with. I don't think that represents what Terry is saying. > > What is a 'situational objectification'? Again, let me recommend to you pp. 4-5 in Terry's above-linked paper. Andy > > -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: +1 301-975-4694 > > "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, > and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Subject: RE: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:26:40 -0600 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Thread-Index: AcfDTaKOkSkEu9SDTKq7gbLNTMSghgACj32gAAGUjsAABV7JrA== From: "Terry Halpin" To: "Andy Carver" , "SBVR-FTF" For what it's worth, here's a more recent (2005) paper of mine on the topic (in which I renamed "circumstantial" to "situational"). Cheers Terry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Carver [mailto:Andy.Carver@neumont.edu] Sent: Tue 7/10/2007 7:53 PM To: SBVR-FTF Subject: FW: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' -----Original Message----- From: Andy Carver Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:53 PM To: 'edbark@nist.gov' Subject: RE: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' Ed, First, for reference, here is Terry's paper on "objectification": http://orm.net/pdf/objectification.pdf You wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@nist.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:54 PM > To: Andy Carver > Cc: SBVR-FTF > Subject: Re: SBVR Issue 9959 (formal mapping) and 'state of affairs' > > Andy, > > you wrote: > > > Ed, it's probably irrelevant, but you and Terry seem a bit out of synch > > here. > > It is not irrelevant to me. It may be irrelevant to SBVR. > And I half expected to find my understanding out of sync with Terry's. > > > You wrote: > > > " Terry uses "objectification" as his synonym for > > "reification", at least for the 'proposition' category of meaning." > > > > > > It's true that Terry has a notion of "propositional objectification", > > and that it seems (to me at least) much like your notion "reification of > > a proposition". > > Yes. It is the incarnation of "mention". > > > But "state of affairs" is a term that Terry uses, not > > when talking about the result of "propositional objectification", but > > rather, when he's talking about the result of "situational > > objectification" -- which (to him at least) is an entirely different > > affair. > > I understand 'situational objectification' to mean "turning a state of the > world" into a thing/res in the domain of discourse. I would have thought -- and I think so would Terry -- that a state of the world was already a thing/res in the domain of discourse... > The problem with that > is > exactly: When you do that, what does it mean to say that that result > "exists" > in the UoD? Can it exist without being an "actuality"? Yes. I think -- and I'd guess Terry would think -- that you're getting too knotted around the question of whether the state of affairs someone recognizes as real is "really real". (See his comments about "truth" in the above-linked paper, pg. 3.) I would guess even mythological beasts like unicorns and whatnot were originally believed in, or presented in hopes someone else would believe in it (even if only children). For Terry, a fact is a proposition taken to be true. And why not? Only when you abandon or hold in abeyance the belief in the proposition, could you possibly be in the intellectual position of questioning its truth. Likewise, then, why wouldn't an "actuality" be a state of affairs someone recognizes as actual? The point is (for me), you're never both in the position of a believer in a proposition, and a critic of the fact's truthfulness. You may be one or the other, but at no time are you both. So, once you raise the issue of whether a given state of affairs is actual, you've already stopped recognizing it as so; and once you question a particular proposition's truth, you've already abandoned the position of believing it true -- and reified it so that you can critique it. So you never have to worry about modeling both views of it in the same model; these two views are never simultaneously the same person's. (This last is my explanation, not quite the same as Terry's.) > > And the related question is: How do you denote one? > If the denotation for a 'state of affairs' is a proposition, and the > proposition is not required to be true, then I can't distinguish it from > making that proposition a thing/res in the UoD. The thing that exists is > a > "characterization of a putative state of the world". With regard to this question and the next, let me recommend to you pp. 4-5 in Terry's above-linked paper. > > In IKL, Pat Hayes introduces his (that p) operation to reify p, and he > doesn't > seem to distinguish that from a 'state of affairs'. > (says Keri (that (plays-ball Jenny))) > (plans Keri (that (goes-on-holiday Keri 20-July))) > (prevents Keri (that (plays-with-matches Jenny))) > > Each of the (that p) forms above appears to be a reference to a possible > state > of the world. The fact that one (or perhaps two) of the primary > predicates > represents a "speech act" is about that predicate, not about the operand. I disagree. The first one appears to be a reference, not to a possible state of the world, but rather to a proposition (being asserted). The latter two examples are unreal and misleading, because they are clearly not equivalent to the way you would really say it in natural language: you don't "plan that you go away", you "plan to go away"; you don't "prevent that Jenny plays with matches", you "prevent Jenny from playing with matches". > > But I may be utterly missing Terry's intent here. The distinction may be > between mentioning the representation of a proposition and mentioning the > intent of a proposition. That is, > (says Keri "Jenny plays ball") > is different from > (says Keri (that (plays-ball Jenny))) > That I can certainly agree with. I don't think that represents what Terry is saying. > > What is a 'situational objectification'? Again, let me recommend to you pp. 4-5 in Terry's above-linked paper. Andy > > -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: +1 301-975-4694 > > "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, > and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Halpin_Objectification_Ch.pdf Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:29:05 -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: SBVR-FTF Subject: Issue 9959 -- formal logic mapping 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 First, the scope of changes in the resolution to 9959 seems to be everything but what was asked for: the mapping from the SBVR concepts to an accepted formal logic model. That said, most of the changes to clause 8 are either good or harmless. I did recommend some wording changes. Second, the additional conformance specifications have never previously been discussed, and are very badly phrased. I suggest replacement text for what I think they are trying to say. Third, there are half a dozen bullets at the beginning of Clause 10.3 that are on as many different topics. Two of them appear to belong in clause 8 or clause 11, since they have nothing to do with logic mappings. Finally, the bullet with the list of concepts that must be supported makes no sense to me. I have no idea what it is trying to require. And what it appears to require conflicts with the existing (and carefully worked out) conformance requirements. I suggest that it simply be deleted. I attach a marked-up copy. I apologize that I didn't get this in before the last possible pre-ballot conference, but on the other hand, I first saw it this morning, having been on travel the last two days. Assuming that this goes to ballot as I saw it, I don't believe it reflects any significant discussion among the FTF experts (having seen none in the email), and I strongly recommend a vote of NO on this disposition of the issue. Adopting these changes only makes the relationship to formal logic less clear. -Ed P.S. If I were an FTF member, I would strongly resent this. What was advertised was a mapping to logic concepts. What was produced is several significant changes to the specification, including new compliance points, that have been smuggled in at the 11th hour. Procedurally, this is simply unacceptable. -- 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: +1 301-975-4694 Issue9959 2007-08-21-ejb.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 9959 Title: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) Source: Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Summary: 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specify the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renumber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. e. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabulary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 Resolution: 1. Replace the all the tables and introductory text in Clause 10.3 with the new single integrated table mapping SBVR to ISO Common Logic (ISO 24707) and OWL and introductory text for it. 2. Fix the reference scheme for .thing.. 3. Disambiguate .corresponds to.. 4. Add definition of individual. 5. Fix fact model concepts to agree with first paragraph of Clause 10. 6. Add two supplemental Conformance Points: one for Restricted Higher Order Logic, and one for First Order Logic. 7. Create a spin-off Issue for items not resolved because of lack of time: a. Adding terms and definitions used in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 and remove terms in Clause 10.1.2 no longer needed b. Remove tutorial material from Clause 10.1.1 c. Add ISO 24707 terms to 10.1.2 if permission is received from ISO 8. The resolution of this Issue also resolves Issues 9623 and 9707. Revised Text: ADD to a new section as Clause 2.2.5 as follows: 2.2.5 Restricted Higher Order Logic (Additional Conformance) An SBVR exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated in clause 10.3.1. A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.4) and shall produce no exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above., in addition to conforming to one or more of the conformance points 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4, conform to the requirements given in Clause 10.3. Each compliant SBVR Interchange File shall include SBVR model information as required by the list of necessities specified in Clause 10.3.1; i.e. the mandatory aspect of the necessities shall also be enforced. ADD to a new section as Clause 2.2.6 as follows: 2.2.6 First Order Logic (Additional Conformance) An SBVR exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated in clause 10.3.2. A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.4) and shall produce no exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above., in addition to conforming to one or more of the conformance points 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4, conform to the requirements given in Clause 10.3. Each compliant SBVR Interchange File shall include SBVR model information as required by the list of necessities specified in Clause 10.3.2; i.e. the mandatory aspect of the necessities shall also be enforced. ADD a Reference Scheme to the entry for .individual concept. after the Concept Type in Clause 8.1.1: Reference Scheme: a name of the individual concept ADD the following new entries after the entry for .fact model. in Clause 8.5: fact population Definition: the part of the fact model that contains the facts that conform to the conceptual schema and make assertions about things in the subject world fact model includes conceptual schema fact model includes fact population REMOVE the following entry from Clause 8.5: fact model is based on conceptual schema Definition: FLthe conceptual schema provides the concepts and modal facts of the fact model Synonymous Form: conceptual schema underlies fact model and REPLACE it with; fact population is based on conceptual schema Definition: the fact population of a given fact model conforms to the conceptual schema that provides the concepts and modal facts for the fact model Synonymous Form: conceptual schema underlies fact population In 8.6.1 REPLACE this entire entry: meaning corresponds to thing Definition: the thing is the actual thing conceptualized by the meaning Synonymous Form: thing is conceptualized as meaning Note: A concept corresponds to each instance of the concept. A proposition corresponds to a state of affairs (which might or might not be actual). A fact proposition that is true corresponds to an actuality. with these two entries: meaning corresponds to thing Definition: the thing is the an actual thing whose existence is mirrored in the mind and understood as a referent of the meaning Synonymous Form: thing is mirrored as meaning Note: A concept corresponds to one or more things. A proposition corresponds to a state of affairs (which might or might not be actual). A fact (a proposition that is true) corresponds to an actuality. Note: This fact type also applies to the aspect of .concept. known as the .mention. of the concept; i.e. as such it is a reference to the concept that is in the minds of the members of the semantic community, and not to the things in the concept.s extension. concept classifies thing Definition: the thing is the actual thing perceived according to is perceived to have all the characteristics that define the concept Synonymous Form: thing is perceived according to concept Note: Note: A concept defines the perception of each instance of the concept. In all the following uses of .corresponds to. REPLACE .corresponds to. with .classifies. keeping the current styling: a) In 8.1.1 in the Definition for the entry for .role. b) In 8.1.1 in the Definition for the entry for .individual concept. c) In 8.6.1 in the Definition for the entry for .concept has extension. d) In 8.6.1 in the Definition for the entry for .concept has instance. e) In 8.6.7 in the Reference Scheme for the entry for .thing. f) In 11.1.2.1 in the Definition for the entry for .Real-world Numerical Correspondence. g) In 11.1.2.1 in the Definition for the entry for .general concept. h) In C.3.13 in the Heading for the example for .concept corresponds to thing. i) In C.3.13 in the Definition for the example for .concept has instance. REMOVE the Reference Scheme for .thing. in Clause 8.7: .an individual concept that corresponds to the thing. and REPLACE it with: Reference Scheme: an individual concept that corresponds to the thing or an (object type or role or fact type or proposition) that is mentioned REMOVE all tables and text in Clause 10.2 and 10.3 and REPLACE it in Clause 10.2 with: This Clause specifies how the SBVR concepts in the table below, as defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12, are to be interpreted in terms of formal logic as defined in ISO 24707 .Information technology . Common Logic (CL) . A framework for a family of logic-based languages.. Equivalent concepts in OWL are also shown in the table where possible. The ISO 24707 interpretation of SBVR concepts shown in the table below implements the formal logic grounding principles set forth in Clause 10.1 NOTE: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification. ....table giving formal interpretation in ISO Common Logic goes here (separate file) REMOVE Clause 10.3 section title, .Mapping of SBVR Business Terms to Formal Logic., and REPLACE with .Requirements for Formal Logic Conformance. ADD new contents for Clause 10.3 as follows: The following necessities apply to each SBVR Interchange File that conforms to Clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6: · Each SBVR vocabulary entry and each element of guidance entry is restricted to the single, specified body of shared meanings that owns it, or into which it is adopted from another body of shared meanings that owns it. · Each body of shared meanings is treated as an entirely separate universe of discourse with no connection to any other body of shared meanings except for potential adoption and/or semantic equivalence assertions. · Each fact modelconceptual schema represents at most one body of shared meanings. · The contents of each body of shared meanings, if not within the necessities of one of the two formal logic conformance points (Clause 10.3.1 and 10.3.2), can be mapped to multiple fact models so that these fact models do comply with the necessities in either Clause 10.3.1 or 10.3.2.Every body of shared meanings that does not conform to 10.3.2 shall conform to 10.3.1. · Each compliant SBVR Interchange File includes SBVR model information for all of the following SBVR metamodel concepts: actuality categorization scheme categorization type category characteristic characteristic is essential to concept characteristic type concept has extension concept has implied characteristic concept has instance concept has necessary characteristic concept incorporates characteristic concept is closed in conceptual schema concept type concept1 has more general concept2 concept1 is coextensive with concept2 concept1 specializes concept2 conceptual schema conceptual schema includes concept conceptual schema includes fact delimiting characteristic essential characteristic extension fact fact model fact model includes conceptual schema fact model includes fact fact model includes fact population fact population fact population is based on conceptual schema fact type fact type has fact type role fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema fact type role fundamental concept implied characteristic individual concept integer intension more general concept necessary characteristic nonnegative integer number object type positive integer proposition quantity quantity1 is less than quantity2 reference scheme reference scheme extensionally uses role reference scheme is for concept reference scheme simply uses role reference scheme uses characteristic role ranges over object type segmentation set situation role state of affairs state of affairs involves thing in role structural rule thing thing is in set thing1 is thing2 10.3.1 Necessities Enforcing a Restricted Higher Order Interpretation Necessity: Each entry in the fact model is consistent with Henkin semantics. Necessity: Each thing that is a meaning and that is a referent of a fact type role has a name. Note: If a concept does not appear in the conceptual schema with an explicit designation, it cannot be a referent of a fact type role. Note: A state of affairs is the objectification of a proposition (a meaning) but it is not itself a meaning. Similarly, an explicit mention of a statement, question or answer is not a meaning, although it .reifies. a meaning. 10.3.2 Necessities Enforcing a First Order Interpretation Reference Scheme:Necessity: Each instance of each concept is an individual Note: A body of shared meanings that conforms to 10.3.2 always conforms to 10.3.1 .vacuously., that is, no role has an instance that is a meaning. ADD after the Definition for .res. in Clause 11.2.1.3 the following Synonym: Synonym: individual Disposition: Resolved DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:Importance; b=DOsLJmHnbXcNJOUSRJbgNs/axJ9qG8o4qihaDllrVB43cOus3lR/DZ+xKAw6BcDBiKBMrcZmysWRzr5yBLsDXs/IRkdChKk/XjVo8GjHDoC/9/XW2dHP6bNmcAJpCMOumUcAGHy3RorLrywVtgnOg6mlf22SZBSXzIOMQNz2mHY= ; X-YMail-OSG: fO4Ew3cVM1krG2Ff9idNQMCAIGIavClwTsXETyeLzOR4Vo8xJdF0RD0btzAennig4FiCGWZvJAVi_VXDeO7oEQMyI0ntQEwoMrWHLWy68spMq.uQFeqEphYRFda_cLyQACqvRtMS Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: FW: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue - Formal Logic Interpretation Table for Insertion into Issue 9959 Resolution Document Posted Yesterday Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:39:52 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcawFFgRIQ/wfDF/TCGyxgt4lgaav00nAgrA Attached is the Formal Logic Interpretation table from Terry and Elisa that is to be inserted in the Issue 9959 resolution document sent yesterday. Donald > -----Original Message----- > From: Elisa F. Kendall [mailto:ekendall@sandsoft.com] > Sent: 22 August 2007 07:10 > To: Donald Chapin > Cc: Ed Barkmeyer; Terry Halpin > Subject: Revised draft mapping table ... > > Hi Donald, > > I've attempted to correct what was there, as you suggested and added a > bit more, but have run out of time to get much further at this point. I > could do more given time, but at some point would need to spend some > serious face time with Pat and have Terry available to answer questions, > so RTF is likely a much better place for this work. I hope this is > enough for the moment. > > Thanks, > > Elisa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 25 July 2006 19:01 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Jul 2006 21:31:53 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donald Chapin Company: Business Semanitcs Ltd mailFrom: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Notification: No Specification: SBVR Section: Clause 10 FormalNumber: dtc/06-03-02 Version: Interim Specification RevisionDate: March 2006 Page: 71-108 Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description ISSUE: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specifiy the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renuber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. f. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabu;ary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 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 SBVR Formal Logic Interpretation Table for Issue 9959 2007-08-22.doc DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To; b=V8hPSzXIKYdOzIV1TvlgGp6xcbwFi8vyp0erq2uoAAh/7w7fF4QtNkjw914Ve7p6sGGD5ZEn+tN9TnFZo26Ba4VA+ZCbKfKkoCwhpKjo8VvjvyQUHgctUPd/Jdfjd5df2sUZbpruV8l3MudU978plrmSagFuesx8K3UqXfFenVE= ; X-YMail-OSG: QCjKfHwVM1mmyxu0SGepocUu6HnciHhgs7HtHrFl2UOT8qfoVfkUEkAt6vWiHXaO4yuzm_D6WU.MbR0PdY8XWTHeKQH0N2Km9gV12ANpXQ-- Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: Subject: RE: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue -- Issue Resolution Documents Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:47:06 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcawFFgRIQ/wfDF/TCGyxgt4lgaav00JwEPw The Issue Resolution documents for Issues 9959, 9623 and 9707 are attached. Elisa is finalizing her work based on Terry.s input right now; so the Formal Logic Interpretation table for Clause 10 will be sent out as a separate file before beginning of business tomorrow (Wednesday). Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: 25 July 2006 19:01 To: issues@omg.org; sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 9959 -- SBVR FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Jul 2006 21:31:53 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donald Chapin Company: Business Semanitcs Ltd mailFrom: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Notification: No Specification: SBVR Section: Clause 10 FormalNumber: dtc/06-03-02 Version: Interim Specification RevisionDate: March 2006 Page: 71-108 Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description ISSUE: Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10) 1. Clause 10.1.1 -- Leave only formal logic 'interpretation' material a. Move term definitions currently in Clause 10.1.1 to Clause 10.1.2 b. Add term definitions from ISO 247xx to Clause 10.1.2 c. Add definitions for terms used in Clause 10.1.1 not in Clause 10.1.2 now or from steps 1a. or 1b. to Clause 10.1.2 d. Remove any remaining tutorial material not required to specifiy the interpretation of the formal logic grounding from Clause 10.1.1 2. Clause 10.1.2 -- Complete / Minimal Formal Logic Vocabulary a. In addition to steps 1a., 1b., and 1c., - remove all terms in Clause 10.1.2 not needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3). - add terms needed for the mapping in Clause 10.2 (was Clause 10.3) 3. Clause 10.2 (was 10.3) -- Clear Mapping from SBVR o Formal Logics a. Renuber Clause 10.3 to 10.2 by combining Clause 10.3 into Clause 10.2 b. Identify any SBVR Vocabulary entries that should be marked 'FL' but are not c. Verify that all SBVR Vocabulary entries marked 'FL' have an entry in the Clause 10.2 mapping, or remove the 'FL' from the SBVR Vocabulary entry. d. Remove mappings in Clause 10.2 that do not and should not have an 'FL' marking next to the corresponding SBVE Vocabulary entry. f. Revise the mapping information in Clause 10.2 to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of each SBVR Vocabu;ary entry (with an 'FL') in terms of the formal logic vocabulary in Clause 10.1.2 as elaborated in Clause 10.1.1 Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 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 Issue9959 2007-08-21.doc Issue9623.doc Issue9707.doc Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:46:31 -0600 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Thread-Index: AcfmOeR192G1j9x+TA+HZGHbP6MhmgAK06bAAAYStOA= From: "Terry Halpin" To: Cc: "Tony Morgan" Further to the below decision on issue 9959, I have since discussed the matter with Andrew Watson and Donald Chapin, and now wish to note the following: Our formal logic appendix already provides a solid formal grounding using well accepted logical concepts. The table on SBVR/CL/OWL mapping is so incomplete that I think it would do more harm than good to include it at this stage, as it might convey the impression that our formal logic grounding is incomplete. However to help ensure that a complete form of such a table can be worked on in the RTF, I suggest we add a clause such as: .A table that maps a subset of SBVR onto Common Logic and OWL may be provided at a later date.. Regarding the conformance points, if there is any danger of these being interpreted to entail that all derived fact types must be exhaustively populated in exchange models, then we should not approve this (e.g. recursively applying the numeric successor axiom will generate infinite models). If this is not the case, then we have no clear objection to the conformance points. Cheers Terry =============================== Dr. Terry Halpin Professor and VP Conceptual Modeling Neumont University 10701 S. River Front Parkway #300 South Jordan, UT 84095 USA e-mail: terry@neumont.edu phone: +1 801 302 2820 fax: +1 801 302 2811 web: www.orm.net From: Tony Morgan [mailto:Tony.Morgan@neumont.edu] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:54 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 4:32 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Importance: High To SBVR-FTF Voting Members -- 88solutions Manfred Koethe Adaptive Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions LLC Ronald Ross Business Rules Group John Hall Business Semantics Ltd Donald Chapin Corticon Technologies, Inc Pedram Abrari Deere & Company Duane Clarkson Fujitsu Ltd Hiroshi Miyazaki Hewlett-Packard Company Jishnu Mukerji IBM Mark Linehan KnowGravity Inc Markus Schacher MEGA Antoine Lonjon Neumont University Tony Morgan Sandia National Laboratories David Cuyler Sandpiper Software Elisa Kendall Unisys Corporation Don Baisley Please vote IMMEDIATELY (Aug. 27 FTF Report deadline) . by reply to SBVR-FTF@omg.org for each of the following recommended SBVR FTF Issue Dispositions . at the latest by 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Issue Dispositions for the Issues listed below are in the attached file, and on the server at (ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-ftf/Files%20for%20Voting/SBVRIssueDispositions-Ballot10.zip) -------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLVED ISSUES . Significant Content Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9950 "SBVR Structured English is Inadequate to Enable the Full Specification of SBVR in Terms of SBVR" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9959 "Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10)" ____ Yes __X__ No ____ Abstain While we believe that the mapping table between SBVR, CL and OWL is a useful start, it is so incomplete that it is better omitted at this stage and left to the RTF to finalize. We do not believe that the new compliance points should be approved at this stage without further discussion. Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11263 "NIAM Annex" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain RESOLVED ISSUES . Little Fixes Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11264 "Sjir Nijssen Revisions to Clause 10" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11283 "OMG URLs" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11288 "Definition of .binary logical operation." ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11289 "Final Cleanup . Minor" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11290 "Cardinality and Distinctness" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11291 "SBVR Annex E minor corrections" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11297 "Corrected Figure 11.2" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11298 "Corrected Figure 11.6" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11299 "Unnecessary Necessities" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11300 "Misplaced Fact Type" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain RESOLVED ISSUES . Resolved by other Issue Resolutions . No Changes Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9471 "supporting documents" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9473 "XMI has some internal inconsistencies" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9476 "Another Interchange issue" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9623 "Mapping SBVR logical formulation terms to formal logic terms" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9707 "What is the "business vocabulary" in 10.3" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain DEFERRED ISSUES (to the first SBVR Revision Task Force) Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 10628 "Align Annex E with the normative text" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 10630 "Rule-Set is not a defined concept" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 11285 "SBVR has a Gap that Needs to be Filled by a Concept .Role Playing of Thing in Occurrence." ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 11296 "Additional Improvements to Clause 10" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 11301 "The Notion of Involvement has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 113nn "SBVR Metamodel Fixes Related to a Formal Logics Interpretation" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Many Thanks, Donald X-YMail-OSG: vo1YwaMVM1kr.VgTSz87G0KPz7Ji5zEUp9aW4yox_0WQWRyYnKQGqeRe6OlT9.EH3Sjur98w4QaGIELXsdcA91hw.rYKkKJCA8bisxmPVxDUWP8LlxCMbnjw.NyE2lJfpRQ5tLeo97RbEbI- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:22:22 -0700 From: "Elisa F. Kendall" Organization: Sandpiper Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax;nscd1) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Terry Halpin Cc: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Hi Terry, Thanks for following up on this -- I would much prefer to complete the work during RTF, since I believe that it will require extensive dialog with Pat Hayes and possibly others on the CL and OWL sides to confirm that we've captured the nuances properly. Nonetheless, I understood that a starting point for the table was required as a placeholder to allow the work to be completed in RTF. If that's not the case and a simple sentence will suffice, this may be a better approach, though there are details provided already that may be useful to readers familiar with the other languages and still learning about SBVR. If a starting point is needed, or if we agree that the content, as incomplete as it is, might be useful to some, perhaps an introductory sentence, prior to the table, stating: "Table xx, given below, describes a starting point for the mapping between a subset of SBVR onto Common Logic and OWL. A more complete mapping will be provided over the course of the RTF." would address your concern. Until a number of the other issues were resolved, it did not make sense to spend a lot of time on this, but a tremendous amount of work has been accomplished over the last several weeks leading to something that we can finally attempt to map to IMHO. Thanks, Elisa Terry Halpin wrote: Further to the below decision on issue 9959, I have since discussed the matter with Andrew Watson and Donald Chapin, and now wish to note the following: Our formal logic appendix already provides a solid formal grounding using well accepted logical concepts. The table on SBVR/CL/OWL mapping is so incomplete that I think it would do more harm than good to include it at this stage, as it might convey the impression that our formal logic grounding is incomplete. However to help ensure that a complete form of such a table can be worked on in the RTF, I suggest we add a clause such as: .A table that maps a subset of SBVR onto Common Logic and OWL may be provided at a later date.. Regarding the conformance points, if there is any danger of these being interpreted to entail that all derived fact types must be exhaustively populated in exchange models, then we should not approve this (e.g. recursively applying the numeric successor axiom will generate infinite models). If this is not the case, then we have no clear objection to the conformance points. Cheers Terry =============================== Dr. Terry Halpin Professor and VP Conceptual Modeling Neumont University 10701 S. River Front Parkway #300 South Jordan, UT 84095 USA e-mail: terry@neumont.edu phone: +1 801 302 2820 fax: +1 801 302 2811 web: www.orm.net From: Tony Morgan [mailto:Tony.Morgan@neumont.edu] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:54 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 4:32 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Importance: High To SBVR-FTF Voting Members -- 88solutions Manfred Koethe Adaptive Pete Rivett Business Rule Solutions LLC Ronald Ross Business Rules Group John Hall Business Semantics Ltd Donald Chapin Corticon Technologies, Inc Pedram Abrari Deere & Company Duane Clarkson Fujitsu Ltd Hiroshi Miyazaki Hewlett-Packard Company Jishnu Mukerji IBM Mark Linehan KnowGravity Inc Markus Schacher MEGA Antoine Lonjon Neumont University Tony Morgan Sandia National Laboratories David Cuyler Sandpiper Software Elisa Kendall Unisys Corporation Don Baisley Please vote IMMEDIATELY (Aug. 27 FTF Report deadline) . by reply to SBVR-FTF@omg.org for each of the following recommended SBVR FTF Issue Dispositions . at the latest by 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Issue Dispositions for the Issues listed below are in the attached file, and on the server at (ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-ftf/Files%20for%20Voting/SBVRIssueDispositions-Ballot10.zip) -------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLVED ISSUES . Significant Content Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9950 "SBVR Structured English is Inadequate to Enable the Full Specification of SBVR in Terms of SBVR" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9959 "Work Needed to Clean Up Mapping to Formal Logics (Clause 10)" ____ Yes __X__ No ____ Abstain While we believe that the mapping table between SBVR, CL and OWL is a useful start, it is so incomplete that it is better omitted at this stage and left to the RTF to finalize. We do not believe that the new compliance points should be approved at this stage without further discussion. Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11263 "NIAM Annex" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain RESOLVED ISSUES . Little Fixes Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11264 "Sjir Nijssen Revisions to Clause 10" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11283 "OMG URLs" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11288 "Definition of .binary logical operation." ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11289 "Final Cleanup . Minor" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11290 "Cardinality and Distinctness" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11291 "SBVR Annex E minor corrections" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11297 "Corrected Figure 11.2" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11298 "Corrected Figure 11.6" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11299 "Unnecessary Necessities" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 11300 "Misplaced Fact Type" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain RESOLVED ISSUES . Resolved by other Issue Resolutions . No Changes Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9471 "supporting documents" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9473 "XMI has some internal inconsistencies" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9476 "Another Interchange issue" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9623 "Mapping SBVR logical formulation terms to formal logic terms" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: RESOLVED for Issue 9707 "What is the "business vocabulary" in 10.3" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain DEFERRED ISSUES (to the first SBVR Revision Task Force) Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 10628 "Align Annex E with the normative text" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 10630 "Rule-Set is not a defined concept" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 11285 "SBVR has a Gap that Needs to be Filled by a Concept .Role Playing of Thing in Occurrence." ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 11296 "Additional Improvements to Clause 10" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 11301 "The Notion of Involvement has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Disposition: DEFERRED for Issue 113nn "SBVR Metamodel Fixes Related to a Formal Logics Interpretation" ____ Yes ____ No __X__ Abstain Many Thanks, Donald Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:30:55 -0600 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Thread-Index: AcfmlN4ltJUbffwFS9KNrftLvzYudQAANfhw From: "Terry Halpin" To: "Elisa F. Kendall" Cc: Hi Elisa Thanks for your input on this. After a lengthy conversation with Andrew Watson on this, he felt that the simple inclusion of such a sentence would likely be enough, so this is my preference. I agree that a lot of work is needed to complete the table. Cheers Terry Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:15:08 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Thread-Index: AcfmOeR192G1j9x+TA+HZGHbP6MhmgAJlvVgABhGGYA= From: "Baisley, Donald E" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2007 03:15:10.0943 (UTC) FILETIME=[257116F0:01C7E6C6] Unisys votes NO on the proposed resolution to 9959. I agree with Terry Halpin that a simple sentence should be added in place of the proposed table: .A table that maps a subset of SBVR onto Common Logic and OWL may be provided at a later date.. Also, the new compliance points and .Necessity. statements in the proposed resolution have not been adequately worked out and seem to have serious problems. Unisys recommends that the only addition made to the SBVR specification for issue 9959 at this time is the sentence above that was recommended by Terry. Adding that sentence will allow the RTF to provide a mapping table after one has been reasonably completed and carefully reviewed. Terry wrote: > Our formal logic appendix already provides a solid formal grounding using well accepted logical concepts. I agree that leaving out the new material in the proposed 9959 resolution does not leave SBVR without a formal grounding. Unisys votes YES on all of the proposed dispositions for issues other than 9959. Don Baisley Unisys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:Importance; b=Ykm+JpNcG88S83xRBIrAm4VBGo74cYni9Pz383VE5KKou2XSAEsN6dcVeXRJFt/Njg6lxRMM8hAt30lFLUcBFLXJu2Twg4HVGqvdS4Z5v5EcNIU5i6OW9aMLXpLeJ2ZyyVoxC1zfehnmm7tfR+j5QZgQfXzUK/0jc1wv/pSJSk8= ; X-YMail-OSG: i96hjb4VM1kNxYDo.D.ZW42k7xzK9IAE_o5FX_pkXhkFmwGE6C8zvHdAHtIJBGjVpt4oA87Z0lOmLqJEbR.RFPI- Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Terry Halpin'" , , "'Elisa F. Kendall'" Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 -- Formal Logics Conformance Clause Wording Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:39:56 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcfmOeR192G1j9x+TA+HZGHbP6MhmgAK06bAAAYStOAAHMxV0A== Terry, There is nothing in the wording of the formal logic conformance necessities (shown below in their entirety) that even implies that .all derived fact types must be exhaustively populated in exchange models. The person who told you that is scaremongering. The conformance clauses for formal logics are very simple and very simply worded (see below). Donald 2.2.5 Restricted Higher Order Logic (Additional Conformance) An SBVR exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated in clause 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.4) and shall produce no exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above. 2.2.6 First Order Logic (Additional Conformance) An SBVR exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated in clause 10.3.1 and 10.3.3. A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.4) and shall produce no exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above. 10.3 Requirements for Formal Logic Conformance 10.3.1 General Requirements for Formal Logic Interpretation Necessity: Each concept and element of guidance represented in an interchange file that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 is in a single body of shared meanings of a semantic community. Necessity: Each body of shared meanings represented in an interchange file that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 is considered independently of others, with the exception that there can be adoption between communities and semantic equivalence. Necessity: Each conceptual schema of a fact model that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 is for at most one body of shared meanings. Necessity: Given a fact model, a compliant interchange file that conforms to clause 2.2.5 or 2.2.6 includes a representation of every fact that is in that fact model. 10.3.2 Enforcing a Restricted Higher Order Interpretation Necessity: Each instance of a concept in a fact model that uses a higher order interpretation is consistent with Henkin semantics. Note: If a fact model is inconsistent with Henkin semantics, there is generally a mapping by which one or more fact models with a restricted higher order interpretation can be produced. 10.3.3 Enforcing a First Order Interpretation Necessity: Each instance of a concept in a fact model that uses a first order interpretation is a first-order instance. Note: If fact model is inconsistent with a first order interpretation, there is generally a mapping by which one or more fact models with a first order interpretation can be produced. Note: A body of shared meanings that conforms to 10.3.2 always conforms to 10.3.2 .vacuously., that is, no role has an instance that is a meaning. DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:Importance; b=O9GpxpAEEaVbDINMenBInsWrNnNOh6bnVvmiJhgGS2Pz9bbTqRc5ANEnuhtaJ1o9XrLiML2cSMocJk5zADqLMSBYa85oNFjUXQeAP3D6CqbJ03ZsxOuZsDexRv/UNSTwpvQ6fK8gHFbvI+EWk1soy1SjvqCLyXA/FxUjDvLFppE= ; X-YMail-OSG: t5.kG0EVM1mXHIf5TjVgzVXvwFqBQGPpM9GqeOSfo4.Z_8dPOu98ppikXUJlT96foKVj9pSCQ3mx_Wvh_mCzZB53.gKOU1lZaSzGS2EzN63wha2N Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Elisa F. Kendall'" , "'Terry Halpin'" Cc: Subject: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 -- Note Clarifying that the "SBVR Formal Logic Interpretation in CL and OWL" Table will be Completed in Future Revisions of SBVVR Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:39:56 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcfmldkWdzTV2bDqTrCYbKleJiykKgAWi3Gg Elisa, There is already a note similar to the one you suggest immediately in from of the table: .NOTE: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification.. Its wording could easily be strengthened as you suggest. We could also add that the reason the table is not more complete is simply that we ran out of time. This would deal with Terry.s concern that people will think that SBVR does not have a complete formal grounding. We could further point out in the note that the formal grounding is provided in principle in Clause 10.1.1, and that the table simply applies these fully formal grounding principles to specific SBVR metamodel concepts. Donald -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elisa F. Kendall [mailto:ekendall@sandsoft.com] Sent: 24 August 2007 22:22 To: Terry Halpin Cc: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Hi Terry, Thanks for following up on this -- I would much prefer to complete the work during RTF, since I believe that it will require extensive dialog with Pat Hayes and possibly others on the CL and OWL sides to confirm that we've captured the nuances properly. Nonetheless, I understood that a starting point for the table was required as a placeholder to allow the work to be completed in RTF. If that's not the case and a simple sentence will suffice, this may be a better approach, though there are details provided already that may be useful to readers familiar with the other languages and still learning about SBVR. If a starting point is needed, or if we agree that the content, as incomplete as it is, might be useful to some, perhaps an introductory sentence, prior to the table, stating: "Table xx, given below, describes a starting point for the mapping between a subset of SBVR onto Common Logic and OWL. A more complete mapping will be provided over the course of the RTF." would address your concern. Until a number of the other issues were resolved, it did not make sense to spend a lot of time on this, but a tremendous amount of work has been accomplished over the last several weeks leading to something that we can finally attempt to map to IMHO. Thanks, Elisa Terry Halpin wrote: Further to the below decision on issue 9959, I have since discussed the matter with Andrew Watson and Donald Chapin, and now wish to note the following: Our formal logic appendix already provides a solid formal grounding using well accepted logical concepts. The table on SBVR/CL/OWL mapping is so incomplete that I think it would do more harm than good to include it at this stage, as it might convey the impression that our formal logic grounding is incomplete. However to help ensure that a complete form of such a table can be worked on in the RTF, I suggest we add a clause such as: .A table that maps a subset of SBVR onto Common Logic and OWL may be provided at a later date.. Regarding the conformance points, if there is any danger of these being interpreted to entail that all derived fact types must be exhaustively populated in exchange models, then we should not approve this (e.g. recursively applying the numeric successor axiom will generate infinite models). If this is not the case, then we have no clear objection to the conformance points. Cheers Terry =============================== Dr. Terry Halpin Professor and VP Conceptual Modeling Neumont University 10701 S. River Front Parkway #300 South Jordan, UT 84095 USA e-mail: terry@neumont.edu phone: +1 801 302 2820 fax: +1 801 302 2811 web: www.orm.net From: Tony Morgan [mailto:Tony.Morgan@neumont.edu] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:54 AM To: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Organization:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:Importance; b=5+V4zB74zemC15TPnXHcwPfJF08wlU6QgtJ3k1HWwhp4Wf9y9Wrb2kr8gGWUIe5lMZPKDKxEVv5LlqMM8FIG3WZGTssWqU6SAeYmTRsHsL1ykscVAAHzP02LlZt7S/yYiQhk31FgXGMlOjCjZ7a8VYg7HgOybWeDFAQSOL3+8e0= ; X-YMail-OSG: aYx0cJsVM1lA.z_eyQpPbF1.Nq0Sw0yxp_CKAc2o86LyWvojarU.3lxA8BDVnSUh.JpkqbNYf_J1MNlS0fwzEQC8.RaTyP7Hcs3rJbzxH_5eSmW4 Reply-To: From: "Donald Chapin" To: "'Baisley, Donald E'" , Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 -- Unisys Agreement to Issue 9959 Resolution Wording in SBVR Telecon on Wednesday Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:52:40 +0100 Organization: Business Semantics Ltd X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcfmOeR192G1j9x+TA+HZGHbP6MhmgAJlvVgABhGGYAADNs/4A== Don, I would remind you that to voted .yes. to release the Issue 9959 resolution to ballot in the SBVR telecon on Wednesday and even wrote the meeting minutes that reflected our agreement to its wording. Donald User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:27:06 -0700 Subject: Re: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 -- Formal Logics Conformance Clause Wording From: keri To: "Donald R. Chapin" , Terry Halpin , SBVR-FTF Cc: Don Baisley Thread-Topic: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 -- Formal Logics Conformance Clause Wording Thread-Index: AcfmOeR192G1j9x+TA+HZGHbP6MhmgAK06bAAAYStOAAHMxV0AAKvIjS On 8/25/07 1:39 AM, "Donald Chapin" wrote: Terry, There is nothing in the wording of the formal logic conformance necessities (shown below in their entirety) that even implies that .all derived fact types must be exhaustively populated in exchange models. The person who told you that is scaremongering. The conformance clauses for formal logics are very simple and very simply worded (see below). Donald, The reason this is getting such 'emotional' attention is that the idea of 9959 including "conformance points" was a last minute surprise. The Resolution write-up came less that 24 hrs. before the meeting. Until then, the most recent document we'd received was a skeleton one from Feb., and that did not hint that there would be more than some 'clean-up' ... in particular, in the area of the mapping tables (for which I supplied a skeleton, back in the April timeframe). We never, that I can find in our history, discussed "conformance points" as part of 9959. In the telcon, we did attempt to clean up some of the worst problems in the wording, but the fact remains that this material was all very new to us and, even now, has not received the typical scrutiny and airing for quality/correctness that other material has had. We were told (in the telcon) that this material was "from" (wanted by) Terry so we gave it a more positive nod than we might have given to other 11th-hour material, but now it sounds like it's fairly foreign to him as well. Keri X-YMail-OSG: .cOBdM8VM1lISxbI1GYBGlyNhJleZBov9Pld5u8pMCRt23RNICkbT3EIHMmA5TtBM1DE8NWAt7JRcS5j557Mo3zZtQ-- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:41:37 -0700 From: "Elisa F. Kendall" Organization: Sandpiper Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax;nscd1) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Cc: sbvr-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Sandpiper Software votes yes on all issues, including 9959, as is. Having said this, I also believe there is a need to strengthen the language around the immaturity of the logic mapping, which I believe can and should be done in a subsequent ballot. Best regards, Elisa X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:54:47 -0500 To: "Baisley, Donald E" , , Donald Chapin From: "Ronald G. Ross" Subject: RE: [SBVR-FTF] -- VOTE - Ballot 10 - Issue Disposition - DEADLINE 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY, August 27, 2007 (4 Days) - Please Vote ON RECEIVING THIS Donald, I have been off e-mail for a week installing son and daughter at new universities. I do not recall there was going to be a vote, but I might have missed it. I have quickly reviewed the e-mail trail on Ballot 10. I think it is clear that Terry's and Unisys's concerns and recommendations must be taken into account. And I see no potential harm in what they are suggesting. I would also note that I have warned frequently over the past several years that the mapping to FL and Common Logic (and therefore OWL) should be given the utmost care and not be postponed until the last minute. Therefore, BRS votes exactly as Unisys (below) on Ballot 10. Ron