Issue 9933: SBVR Issue - Context for understanding representations
Issue 9943: Section: 8.7
Issue 9946: Section: 8.3
Issue 9951: Section: Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12
Issue 9954: Page: 13-14 ++
Issue 10560: Vocabulary Adoption vs. Inclusion
Issue 10576: Section: 9.3
Issue 10577: Distinguish Between Concepts
Issue 10579: Section: 8.7
Issue 10621: Definition of 'question'
Issue 10628: Align Annex E with the normative text
Issue 10630: Rule-Set is not a defined concept
Issue 10631: owned definition and adopted definition are roles
Issue 10639: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes"
Issue 10803: 'state of affairs' is an individual concept, not a thing
Issue 10958: Entry for "categorization scheme", p. 147, Definition. and Example
Issue 11285: Gap that Needs to be Filled by Concept Role Playing of Thing in Occurrence
Issue 11296: Additional Improvements to Clause 10
Issue 11301: The Notion of “Involvement” has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR
Issue 11303: SBVR Metamodel Fixes Related to a Formal Logics Interpretation
Issue 11328: Clarify and Strengthen Note at Beginning of Clause 10 Formal Logic Interpre
Issue 9933: SBVR Issue - Context for understanding representations (sbvr-ftf)
Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Context for understanding representations
A definition given for a fact type commonly refers to the roles of the fact type using placeholders from a form of expression of the fact type. But the SBVR vocabulary provides no relationship between a definition and the form of expression for which the definition makes sense (the one having the placeholders used in the definition). A new fact type must be added to SBVR in order to capture this relationship. Otherwise there is insufficient context to interpret the definition. The problem occurs because there can be many forms of expression for a fact type, and these can uses different designations for placeholders.
A similar problem occurs where a note or example for a concept only makes sense in relation to a particular designation or form of expression, such as when the example or note refers to the designation or a placeholder of the form of expression. Similarly, the expression of a reference supporting a concept often does not include the designation used in a source document because the reference is given in relation to that particular designation for the concept. But if there are many designations for the concept, the reference cannot be adequately interpreted with respect to the source document.
Also, a note about a rule might make sense only in the context of a particular statement of the rule because the note refers to specific words used in the rule. But the same rule can be represented by many different statements.
Recommendation: Add a new fact type to the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary after ‘representation represents meaning’:
representation relates to representation
And explain that the first representation is understood in the context of the second representation.
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.
ISSUE: Major Categories of 'Thing' Need to be Related and Made Clear Important in any case, but especially so with the inclusion of 'objects' as vocabulary entires, the major concepts that are subcategories of 'thing' such as 'state of affairs', 'actuality', 'expression', 'res', 'object', (as defined by the terminology community), etc. need to be related and clarified to such the major divisions of 'thing' that are significant in SBVR of SBVR. This will make the real world cornerstone of SVCR much clearer for new audiences.
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.
ISSUE: Use URI to Uniquely Identify and Assert the Existence of Every 'Thing' Represented in an SBVR Model to Support Multi-Classification of 'Things' Need to develop a URI pattern for all kinds of representations that can assert the existence of any 'thing' in an SBVR Model. These patterns need to take Speech Community and Symbol Context / Subejct Area into account. The appraoch chosen needs to support composite identifiers and identifiers with a narrow context scope. Topic Maps has an excellent approach for this and has done extensive work with the W3C to identifying the issues with URIs and the best ways to deal with them. For Topic Map / W3C References see: ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/sbvr-ftf/Issue%20Attachments/Subject%20Identifiers.doc Another benefit of this is that is laying the necessary foundation for mapping to RDF/ORL as well as the Rules Interchange Format
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.
ISSUE: Bring the Specification of SBVR Which is in Terms of Itself to the the Full SBVR Metamodel Standard The current specification of SBVR in terms of itself (SBVR Structured Englich) is not completed or up to full integrity in that: 1. not all SBVR metamodel constructs are specific for each SBVR entry in Clauses 8, 9, 1, and 12 2. some entries are lower quality than they should be, e.g. some definiitions are not fully structured; some necessities are missing; etc. 3. Definitions and Necessities have not been fully tested by software to see that all supporting entries in in SBVR.
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.
ISSUE: "SBVR 'Thing' <-> 'Expression' Architecture" Needs Fixing 1. Form for Representation needs to be added between 'meaning' and 'representation' to include 'semantic formulations; forms of concept meaning (intensional, extensional,etc.); types of forms of expression. 2. 'Representation' should to tie to 'form of representaiton' instead to directly to meaning and add should only Speech Community considerations (language, Speech Community-specific terms, notations) to 'form of representation'. 3. 'Expression is in Language' needs to be added 4. Representations, at least designations, should be in canonical form 5. The relationship between 'representation' and 'expression' should allow for basic linguistic analysis e.g. multiple spellings, plurals, etc.
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.
Vocabulary Adoption vs. Inclusion The vocabulary of section 12 is directly built on, and depends on, some (but not all of) of the vocabulary of section 10. Questions have arisen in that regard, including (but not limited to) the following: * Is the latter vocabulary being included or adopted into the former? * Is there a difference between “inclusion” and “adoption”, and if so, what is it? * Can you adopt and/or include concepts and/or definitions without terms? * What exactly is included or adopted when “inclusion” and/or “adoption” occurs? * How exactly does SBVR intend “adoption” and/or “inclusion” to work? SBVR needs to be more specific about the notions of “adoption” and/or “inclusion”, since SBVR itself requires these notions, and since leaving the specifics to practice or interpretation is likely to produce divergent and perhaps undesirable results.
ISSUE TITLE: Relationships Between Definition Concepts and Semantic Formulation Concpets Seem to be Wrong or Missing ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The relationships between 'definition' (both intensional and extensional) and 'semantic formulation' (both 'necessity' and 'closed projection') and the 'intension' and 'extension' of a concept in some cases seem to be wrong and other cases missing. - The connections between 'intensional definition', 'necessity' logical formulation (structural rule), 'essential characteristic set' and 'concept' are missing (as discussed above). - The connection between 'definition', 'closed projection' and 'concept' seems ambiguous, and maybe incorrect, as 'closed projection' is usually associated with 'extension' and not directly with 'concept'. Also associating 'closed projection' with 'definition' in general (vs. intensional or extensional definition) seems strange. - The connection between 'extensional definition', some kind of semantic formulation, and extension seemns to be missing.
ISSUE TITLE: Need to Be Able to Distinguish Between Concepts that have No Instances in an SBVR model and Those That Do ISSUE DESCRIPTION: SBVR says that it is a vocabulary for business vocabulary and business rules. There are some concepts that are essential for vocabulary specialists (terminologists) and rule stewards to use to communicate well with each other when they are using SBVR that will never have instance in an SBVR model (or in an SBVR XMI interchange file). This kinds of concept is critical to the semantic communities wanting to create quality vocabulary and rule content. Currently, some of these critical concepts are being resisted because we are not being explicit that they will not appear in an SBVR XMI interchange file. We need some indicator like the "FL" symbol to identify such concpets. SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Create an indicator "VO" (vocanulary only)and use it like "FL" to identify this kind of concept.
ISSUE TITLE: 'Thing' Is Incorrectly Equated with ISO 1087 'Object' ISSUE DESCRIPTION: In ISO TC 37, and in ISO 1087 in particular, 'object' and 'concept' are mutually exclusive. ISO 1087 'object' is equivalent to SBVR 'res', (thing that is not a meaning). SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: 1. Move the adoption of ISO 1087 'object' from SBVR 'thing' to SBVR 'res'. 2. Make 'res' and 'meaning' a segmentation of 'thing'. 3. Change definition of 'thing' back to the original one supplied by BRG before the adoption of ISO 1087 'object'; i.e.: "whatsoever; literally anything: - that exists external to the mind ; - which can talked about regardless of: a. what it is b. how it is perceived" NOTE: This resolves Sridhar's concern that the definition of 'thing' began with 'anything'.
In clause 8.1.3, 'question' is defined as "meaning of an interrogatory". Assuming that "interrogatory" means "interrogatory sentence", this defines the meaning in terms of the form of expression. Because the same interrogatory sentence may have more than one meaning, depending on the context of its utterance, this definition means: the meaning of an interrogatory sentence in context. But the same meaning extends across (some) contexts, while the answer may be different in each such context. That is, some part of the context of utterance affects the interpretation of the utterance; other parts of the context of utterance only affect its result. So this is a poor definition. A question is really an "operation" on a concept or proposition that creates a new form of meaning. One can describe a 'question' as a function applied to a concept or proposition whose result is its extension. There are 3 kinds of questions: - a concept question (What), which asks for the extension of a concept, - a proposition question (Whether), which asks for the truth-value (technically the extension) of a proposition. - a propositional relationship question (Why), which asks for the extension of a 2nd-order proposition about propositions (or objectified 'states of affairs' identified by propositions) -- the set of all propositions P such that 'P causes Q' or 'P entails Q'. Since clause 9 apparently supports 'question' meanings in exactly this way, SBVR should define 'question' to be a meaning that explicitly refers to the extension of a concept. That is, the question means its answer. It should not mean the action of asking.
In the interim version and in the 2nd FTF a number of normative changes have been made in the base vocabulary for elements of guidance. This requires a number of editorial changes to Annex E to align this elaborate example, and the text of some of the explanations with the changes in the formal vocabulary and the specifications for the Structured English. So that this Annex does not mislead implementors, it is important that the Annex be repaired to align it with the normative text and the changes to Annex C.
Clause 7.1.2 is titled: Other Namespaces and Rule Sets Presented in this Document and it defines the symbol Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set as: "General Concept: set" Clause 13 specifies the mapping of vocabularies and rule sets from the SBVR Structured English form to a MOF/XMI exchange form. And clause 13 defines several information resources that are said to be "rule sets". Clause C.4 is titled: Specifying a Rule Set But the concept 'rule set' is not defined anywhere in the specification! This term should not be used in so fundamental a way without being formally defined. Further, 7.1.2 should specify that the individual concept 'Vocabulary-to-MOF/XMI Mapping Rule Set' is an instance of 'rule set', i.e., "General Concept: rule set"
Doc: SBVR, dtc/06-08-05 Date: September 2006 Version: FTF Interim Specification Chapter: 11.1.3 Related issues: none Title: owned definition and adopted definition are roles Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Description: In clause 11.1.3, the terms 'owned definition' and 'adopted definition' are defined without reference to any category. They are both roles of the concept 'definition'. 'owned definition' is a role in the fact-type 'speech community owns owned definition' and ''adopted definition' is a role in the fact-type 'speech community adopts adopted definition from source vocabulary'. Recommendation: 1. In the entry for 'owned definition', immediately behind the Definition paragraph, ADD: "Concept type: role General concept: definition" 2. In the entry for 'adopted definition', immediately behind the Definition paragraph, ADD: "Concept type: role General concept: definition
Issue: implicit passive form for partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes" To avoid the need to define an explicit Synonymous Form clause of "is included in" for every partitive fact type that uses the verb "includes", SBVR Structured English should provide for this as a special, implicit case. (From the SBVR-FTF telcon of Feb. 2, 2007)
Name: 'state of affairs' is an individual concept, not a thing Doc: dtc/06-08-05 Date: August 2006 Version: Interim Convenience Document Chapter: 8.6 Description: The diagram in 8.6 says that a state of affairs is (intended to be) a thing, and 'actuality' is a state of affairs that occurs in the reference world. Both of these statements are incorrect. An actuality is indeed a 'thing'. A 'state of affairs' cannot be. The definition of fact type says that all its instances must be actualities. This implies that a possible state of affairs that is not an actuality does not correspond to any fact type. And that is correct, because a (possible) state of affairs is intrinsically conceptual. If one replaces the roles in a fact type with specific things, one gets a proposition, which, according to 8.6, 'corresponds to' a (potential) state of affairs. But that proposition must be a concept: it has an instance that is a state of affairs, and a state of affairs is a 'thing'. If it is impossible, that state of affairs is an instance of the proposition, but if it is actual, it is also an instance of the fact type. This makes no sense. The problem lies in trying to distinguish states of affairs from propositions and fact types. If one replaces the roles in a fact type with specific things, one gets a *specialization* of the fact type -- an individual concept. Therefore, a proposition must be an individual concept. That individual concept *is* a potential state of affairs, and an actuality is the thing it corresponds to, if any. Therefore, a 'state of affairs' is not a 'thing', it is an individual concept, and it is a synonym for 'proposition'. And an actuality is not a subtype of 'state of affairs'; it is rather the instance it corresponds to.
The definition currently reads "scheme for partitioning things ..."
Should read "scheme for classifying things ..."
'Partitioning' is a segmentation, which is a categorization scheme that is complete and disjoint. The problem here is that the general concept, "categorization scheme" is defined to be a specialization of itself, "partitioning". Categorization schemes are not, in general, segmentations. Categorization schemes are, in general, neither complete nor disjoint. The word "classifying" captures the more general concept and should be substituted for "partitioning" in the definition. The Example is a segmentation. It could be revised to show a categorization scheme that is neither total nor disjoint, e.g. {boy, adult}. The Example under "categorization scheme" could be moved to be an example under "segmentation."
SBVR FTF Working Specification - Ballot 4
1. An SBVR metamodel noun concept (named something like “role playing of thing in occurrence”) that is very similar to ‘object type’, ‘fact type’, ‘individual concept’, ‘situational role’ (role type), or ‘fact type role’ in that it defines a kind of vocabulary entry that can be entered in an SBVR model is needed in SBVR. It’s omission represents a critical gap in SBVR.
2. Preferably this noun concept (“role playing of thing in occurrence”) would be a category (subtype) of object type; but it is much better to have the concept in the SBVR metamodel than to require it to be an object type, if that is too difficult (e.g. fact type role is not (a category/subtype of) an object type).
3. The meaning of this kind of SBVR model vocabulary entry would be that it talks about "the ‘thing’ with respect to (in the context of) its/his playing some role in a fact of a fact type, and so on for each thing that plays that role in a fact of that fact type.
a. E.g. "the person with respect to (in the context of) his renting a given car on a given date", and so on for each person who rents a car on a date.
4. The extension of each vocabulary entry concept that is this kind of SBVR metamodel concept (“role playing of thing in occurrence”) must be in one to one correspondence with the actualities that are instances (and the facts [that correspond to the actualities]) that are of a given fact type which is identified in the definition of this kind of vocabulary entry. In the reference scheme below:
a. The first part (a name of an individual concept that corresponds to the thing that fills the given fact type role) is the thing we’re talking about
i. Example: Joe Smith (the person)
b. The second part (the fact type form of the fact type and a name of an individual concept that corresponds to the thing that fills each of the other fact type roles of the fact type) of the context of the role playing
i. Example: with respect to (in the context of) Joe’s renting of car 1234 on July 30, 2007 (with respect to (in the context of) his renting a given car on a given date)
5. The instances in the extension of each vocabulary entry concept that is this kind of SBVR metamodel concept (“role playing of thing in occurrence”) must be the ‘playings’ of a given ‘role’ by a ‘thing’ in the ‘facts’ that are for the ‘fact type’ identified in the vocabulary entry concept definition.
Issue Description: 1. Spin-off Issue for items not resolved In Issue 9959 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
The ‘involvement’ Issue is as follows (from my email sent on Saturday): Issue Submitter’s Name: Donald Chapin Issue Submitter’s Company: Business Semantics Ltd (submitted as SBVR FTF Chair) Issue Submitter’s Email: Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com Issue Name: The Notion of “Involvement” has not been Adequately Specified with in SBVR Document No: dtc/06/03/01 Document Revision Date: March 2006 Document Version No: --- Chapter/Section: 8.1.1 Page No(s): 16 Nature of Issue: Revision Severity of Issue: Major Issue Description: The notion of Involvement has not totally been taken into account by the resolution of Issue 9948 as stated in that resolution. Several clarifications are needed regarding Involvement such as the nature of instance of roles (see the sum example in the initial 9948 statement).
The following SBVR metamodel formal logic-based errors and omissions need to be dealt with as we ran out of time to deal with them: 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.
As a result of the vote on Issue 9959, there is a need to clarify and strengthen the Note in front of the Formal Logic Interpretation Table in Clause 10.2, particularly to cover these points: - a major subset of SBVR has a complete formal logic interpretation whose principles are set forth in Clause 10.1 - the table will contain: o a formal logic interpretation specified in ISO Common Logic based on Clause 10.1 o a cross-reference to OWL constructs that equivalent to SBVR constructs - the current table is incomplete and immature, and will be completed during the SBVR Revision Task Force