Issues for Semantics of Business Vocabulary & Business Rules Revision Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 11647: mismatch between diagram
Issue 12165: URGENT SBVR.xsd issue
Issue 12531: editorial issue -- example is missing a line
Issue 12542: terminological dictionary
Issue 12543: A rulebook should have a URI
Issue 12589: "characteristic type" should be a "category type"
Issue 12614: SBVR typos
Issue 12849: fact type 'fact type form incorporates fact symbol' needs additional captio
Issue 12956: Note for individual concept does not follow from the Definition
Issue 13135: SBVR Issue: can a role range over multiple object types
Issue 13138: Move Fact Model Container Concepts from Clause 8 to Clause 10 (Spin-off from Issue 12540)
Issue 13716: Definitions in subsection 11.1.5
Issue 13802: SBVR Issue: What is a fact type form
Issue 13803: SBVR Issue: Definition of signifier
Issue 13804: SBVR Issue: Model expression structure
Issue 13835: Use of the Signifier "Fact Model"
Issue 13836: Note for Is-Facet-of Fact (Type)
Issue 13849: SBVR did not pick up the ISO synonym "Part-Whole Relation
Issue 13850: The segmentation 'Thing in Context' is inconsistent with the definitions of 'role' and 'facet'
Issue 13851: Definition of Is-Property-Of Fact Type
Issue 13865: SBVR Issue : Inconsistent use/definition of keyword 'or'
Issue 13996: SBVR Fig 12-1 tweak
Issue 14241: Coexistence approach to SBVR
Issue 14843: Concepts-centric Model and Fact Model are different
Issue 14844: Move the Definitions in Subclause 8.5 to Clause 13
Issue 15008: Use of "denotes" in note for "state of affairs"
Issue 15151: new SBVR issue - relationship of 'vocabulary' and 'rulebook'
Issue 15153: New SBVR Issue: "Template" & "Templating
Issue 15250: SBVR - change to Definition of 'fact type'
Issue 15314: Definition of Vocabulary
Issue 15402: No normative reference to ISO 6093
Issue 15403: 'quantity' and 'number' are not formal logic concepts
Issue 15404: Set requires distinguished things
Issue 15450: [SBVR] fact type role designation
Issue 15623: "The Signifier "Fact Type" Badly Misrepresents the Clause 8.1.1 Concept as Defined and Needs to be Replaced"
Issue 15635: Placeholder concepts model SBVR Structured English syntax
Issue 15684: SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly
Issue 15805: SBVR editorial issue
Issue 15837: Error in Example for "noun concept nominalization"
Issue 15840: SBVR - Error in MeaningAndRepresentation-Model.xml
Issue 15841: SBVR Editorial Issue - closed projection defines noun concept
Issue 15947: Inconsistency in is-role-of and is-category-of fact types
Issue 15948: is-property-of fact types
Issue 15949: assortment fact types
Issue 15950: inappropriate definitions of burinsss rule, rule statement
Issue 15951: example definitions (of "Australian")
Issue 15952: example elementary fact
Issue 15972: Example of quantity vs. quantification
Issue 16020: Individual Concept and Change
Issue 16101: Explicitness of Representation
Issue 16103: Conflation of the signifier “rulebook” with the concept/definition for Speech Community Representations
Issue 16171: SBVR typo - p. 26
Issue 16172: Clarify difference between EXISTS and OCCURS
Issue 16309: Clarify Objectification
Issue 16375: Adoption of Concepts
Issue 16491: "Objectification" Needs to Be Renamed
Issue 16522: "Nominalization" Needs to Be Renamed
Issue 16523: "Aggregation Formulation" Needs to Be Adjusted
Issue 16524: "Projection" Needs to Be Renamed
Issue 16525: "Quantification" Needs to Be Renamed
Issue 16526: Definition of proposition
Issue 16555: 'Variable' should be renamed as 'formulaic variable' or its meaning clarified
Issue 16913: Urgent issue on SBVR 1.1 RTF (NOT SBVR 1.2)
Issue 17017: SBVR makes use of ElementImports to give additional aliases to some elements in the same package
Issue 17098: "Three Editing Instructions Overlooked in Issue 17017 Resolution
Issue 17451: New issue: Individual Verb Concept
Issue 17544: Eliminate Ambiguity from Two Interpretations for the Definition of Proposition

Issue 11647: mismatch between diagram (sbvr-rtf)

mismatch between diagram where speech community is associated with exactly one semantic community but 07-09-04 version of the XMI/CMOF has speech community mapping to multiple semantic community e.g. <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Association" name="semantic community has speech community" xmi:id="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity" memberEnd="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.semanticCommunity semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.speechCommunity"> <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" name="semantic community" xmi:id="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.semanticCommunity" type="semanticCommunity" lower="0" upper="*"/> <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" name="speech community" xmi:id="semanticCommunityHasSpeechCommunity.speechCommunity" type="speechCommunity" lower="0" upper="*"/> </ownedMember> 

The final XMI Schema for SBVR serialization is not correct for Associations, as required by the XMI 2.1.1 specification. An implementation that produces a valid XMI serialization will be judged as invalid, according to the SBVR.xsd. This is a critical bug. I have created an SBVR implementation using Eclipse EMF, based on the final SBVR cmof model. An example model serialization from EMF is attached, as test.sbvr. In it, each model element includes an xmi:id attribute. However, the SBVR.xsd does not allow this id on types derived from cmof Association. >From XMI v2.1.1, p. 49, the AssnAtts must include all XMIFixedAttribs 7. AssociationDef ::= "<xsd:element name='"' 7a:AssnElmtName '"'>" "<xsd:complexType> <xsd:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'>" 7b:AssnContents "</xsd:choice>" 7d:AssnAtts "</xsd:complexType> </xsd:element>" 7a. AssnElmtName ::= 1c:Namespace //Name of association// 7b. AssnContents ::= 7c:AssnEndDef 7c:AssnEndDef 4c:Extension 7c. AssnEndDef ::= "<xsd:element" "name='" //Name of association end// "'>" "<xsd:complexType>" 1g:XMIFixedAttribs "</xsd:complexType>" "</xsd:element>" 7d. AssnAtts ::= 1g:XMIFixedAttribs And, from p. 44, the XMIFixedAttribs 1g. XMIFixedAttribs ::= ( "<xsd:attribute ref='xmi:id'" "use='optional'>" | "<attribute name='" //Id attrib name// "'" "type='xsd:ID' use='optional'") "<xsd:attributeGroup ref='xmi:ObjectAttribs'/>" 

In section 9.2.8, on page 70, the example for "aggregation formulation"
introduces several variables.   All but one of the introduced variables is
specifed as ranging over some concept.   For example, ". . . . The second
variable ranges over the concept ‘number’."


My issue: there is no corresponding "ranges over" line for the third
variable.   It is true (per 9.2.1) that variables need not range over any
concept.  But this example would be clearer if the "ranges over" line were
included for that third variable.


I believe this third variable is supposed to range over the concept 'set'.

SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:


      * conceptual schema (clause 8.5)
      * fact model (8.5)
      * body of shared meanings (11.1.1)
      * body of shared concepts (11.1.1)
      * terminological dictionary (11.1.1)
      * vocabulary (11.1.1)
      * rulebook (11.2.2.4)


Some issues:
3) A terminological dictionary should be able to incorporate other
terminological dictionaries, as with "vocabulary incorporates vocabulary".
Otherwise, we cannot structure terminological dictionaries in parallel with
vocabularies

SBVR currently has multiple concepts for organizing vocabularies and rules:


      * conceptual schema (clause 8.5)
      * fact model (8.5)
      * body of shared meanings (11.1.1)
      * body of shared concepts (11.1.1)
      * terminological dictionary (11.1.1)
      * vocabulary (11.1.1)
      * rulebook (11.2.2.4)


Some issues:
4) A rulebook should have a URI, so that the rulebook can be addressed over
the Internet.

Section 11.1.2.2 "Kinds of Characteristic" on page 136 says that
"characteristic type" is "General Concept: concept type".  I suggest that
"General Concept: categorization type" would be more accurate.


Given this proposal, in EU-Rent, making "branch type" a "characteristic
type" would enable statements such as "if there exists a branch that is a
city branch ...."

see page 21 ofdtc/2012-06-12 for details

attached is a dcument containing SBVR typos

p. 150 (PDF p. 162), Clause 11.2.1.2,
to the entry for 'fact type form incorporates fact symbol':


Add the following caption, to appear after the current Synonymous Form caption:



Synonymous Form:  fact type form demonstrates designation



using term styling where underlined (above) and verb styling for italics (above)


Also,  on this same page, there is a typo in the Definition caption under the entry for 'fact symbol':


In 'fact type form' (which ends the Definition) the first space needs to be underlined — i.e., apply term styling to the space.

Clause 8.1.1


Concept: individual concept


The Definition of 'individual concept' is:
 concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]


The Note says:
 "each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds"


"Corresponds to only one object" (in any possible world) is not at all the same thing as "corresponds to exactly one and the same object in all possible worlds".  One of the definition and the Note should be corrected.  I would prefer changing the definition to match the note.


Note also that changing the definition means that "the President of the United States" is an 'individual concept' that denotes an office, but not a person.  And the concept "the person who is President of the United States" is _not_ an 'individual concept'.

The fact type "role ranges over object type " appears in section 8.1.1. As defined -- due to the "open world" aspect of SBVR -- it appears that a role can range over multiple object types, which does not make much sense. But if you look at the MeaningAndRepresentation-model.xml file, you will find confirmation that a role can range over multiple object types.

This has a downstream impact in the MDT-SBVR open source Eclipse project, where the .xml file is converted directly to an EMF model and a matching Java implementation. The API for setting an instance of this fact type permits each role to range over multiple object types. This has two impacts: (a) adds complexity to the API; (b) forces tool vendors to try to figure out the semantics of one role that ranges over multiple object types.

Either the specification should explain what it means for a role to range over multiple object types, or it should introduce a Necessity: "each role ranges over exactly one object type".

Please see attached Word document for Issue details.

 

This SBVR spin-off Issue is a part of a package of three proposed Issue resolutions: 

 

-          the proposed resolution of this spin-off Issue which will be posted when it has a number; 

-          the proposed resolution to Issue 12540; and 

-          the proposed resolution of the 11296-1a / 11303-b spin-off Issue which will be posted when it has a number.

 

A number of the definitions in this subsection are incomprehensible, and not well integrated with the rest of the SBVR vocabulary. These definitions center on: assortment fact type, categorization fact type, is-role-of fact type, and is-facet-of fact type. Also, these concepts are defined as kinds of "fact types", but should actually be defined as kinds of *facts*. Finally, the order of the entries needs adjustment as a result of the above. 

see pages 58 - 68 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

Title: What is a fact type form?
Specification:  SBVR
Version:  1.0
Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov


Summary:


In SBVR, clause 8.3.4, 'fact type form' has the definition:
"representation of a fact type by a pattern or template of expressions based on the fact type".


According to clause 8.3(.0), 'representation' is "actuality that a given expression represents a given meaning".  Is "a pattern or template of expressions" an "expression"?  According to 8.2, a 'signifier' is "expression that is a linguistic unit or pattern [of sounds or symbols]".  So apparently there are expressions that are patterns and they can be signifiers.


Per 8.3.1, designation is the "representation of a concept by a sign", and a fact type is a concept, so it may have a representation that is a designation.  But the UML diagram shows that a fact type form is not a designation.  So presumably a 'pattern or template of expressions' is not a 'sign'. But a signifier, which is a pattern, must be a 'sign', because it is the expression that participates in a designation.  But the expression of a fact type form is apparently not a signifier, since only designations have a 'signifier' role, and a fact type form is not a designation.  The inconsistency in the terminology, and the failure to make clear parallels and distinctions, is very confusing.


It seems that the idea here is that an 'expression' can be a structure of individual sub-expressions, and that, in representing a fact type, the structure and the sub-expressions play distinct roles in the "actuality" of representing the fact type.  This means that at least this idea of structured expressions should be described in clause 8.2, as a kind of expression more interesting than "text".


It appears to be the intent that a fact type form expression always has a structure with representation sub-behaviors.  Is that what distinguishes a fact-type form from a designation?  The text is completely silent as to what the delimiting characteristic is.


The remaining question then is: what kind of representation is exemplified in a terminological entry for a fact type in the SBVR vocabulary itself?  E.g., is "designation has signifier" a designation for a fact type or a fact type form for it?  (According to the UML diagram it cannot possibly be both.) And if the latter, does an SBVR fact type not actually have a designation?  More confusion.


Recommendation:
  1.  Define the concept that is "pattern or template of expressions" in 8.2
  2.  Use these structure concepts to define the nature of a fact type form in 8.3.4.  For example, a placeholder is a sub-expression.
  3.  Specify the distinguishing characteristic of a fact-type form that makes it different from a designation.
  4.  Specify what the vocabulary entries for fact types are: fact-type forms or fact-type designations.

Title: Definition of signifier
Specification:  SBVR
Version:  1.0
Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov


Summary:


SBVR clause 8.2 defines 'signifier' to be a role in a 'designation'.
But the concept 'designation' is defined in 8.3.1.


Recommendation:


Move the entry for 'signifier' to 8.3.1, where it is used.

Title: Model expression structure
Specification:  SBVR
Version:  1.0
Source:  Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov


Summary:


SBVR clause 8.2 defines 'starting character position' as a means of reference to a substring of a Text object.  And the definition of placeholder in clause 8.3.4 treats the placeholder as a syntactic substring that is identified by its starting character position.
This is a junior programmer model of expressions -- a poor PSM -- and it doesn't work reliably for a number of surface languages.


The idea is that the unspecified representation of a concept may involve an expression that has a syntactic structure.  Since SBVR has no idea what that syntactic structure is (because it belongs to an undefined surface language for which SBVR is the metamodel), it must define a general model of expressions sufficient to support the idea that a placeholder is a subexpression, and has a surface-language-defined means of identification.


Recommendation:


In 8.2, Delete 'starting character position'.  Replace it with a model of expressions that makes clear the point at which surface-language grammar and orthography determine the technical structure of the expressions.


In 8.3.4, delete all references to 'starting character position' in the entry for 'placeholder', and replace them with references to the structural concepts (to be) defined in 8.2.


In 8.3.4, delete 'placeholder has starting character position' and replace it with a relationship to a structural concept (to be) defined in 8.2.

The signifier "fact model" should never be used in SBVR to include behavioral (deontic) elements of guidance. That usage makes no sense to business people, who would not expect anything labeled "fact[s]" to include rules. The origin of the idea meant by "fact model" and "conceptual model" predates any handling of deontic elements of guidance. In other words, deontic elements of guidances were not anticipated or treated by earlier approaches. We are just now catching up to the problem. The current definition of "fact model" (and "conceptual model") is: "combination of a conceptual schema and, for one possible world, a set of facts (defined by semantic formulations using only the concepts of the conceptual schema)". The resolution of this issue must involve at least the following: 1. Selection of a new signifier for the meaning expressed by the above definition. As a strawman, I would propose "Possible World Model". That sounds like something of concern to (only) tool engineers, which is appropriate, since the notion would not interest business people. 2. To suit the signifiers "fact model" and "conceptual model" the current definition must be modified to exclude facts pertaining to deontic elements of guidance. 3. All appearances of these signifiers in SBVR must be reviewed to determine which concept was actually meant. The meaning then given for the signifiers "fact model" and "conceptual model" is one that would be important to business people. If not significant for clause 8 (or 9 or 10), it can be moved to clause 11.

see pages 129 - 130 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

A Note for Is-Facet-of Fact (Type) currently reads: "A given community may choose to include only one facet." The Note could be read as a rule: It is permitted that a given community include only one facet." The Note should probably read: A given community may choose to include any number of facets, including just one or none at all.

The concept "Partitive Fact Type" is based on the Concept "Partitive Relation" in ISO 1087. However, SBVR did not pick up the ISO synonym "Part-Whole Relation". This could raise questions about how the SBVR notion is being based on the ISO notion. Also, "Part-Whole" is more business-friendly than "Partitive". Proposed Resolution: Add "Part-Whole Fact Type" as a synonym of "Partitive Fact Type". (If for some reason this is deemed inappropriate or undesirable, a note should be added as to why.)

see page 47 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

The segmentation 'Thing in Context' is inconsistent with the definitions of 'role' and 'facet'. The segmentation is based on an assumption that the extensions of 'role' and 'facet' are completely disjoint. But there is nothing in the definitions of 'role' or 'facet' that cause them to be disjoint. It is possible that a situational role is relevant only from a certain viewpoint. Recommendation: Remove 'Thing in Context' and all references to it. Change Figure 11.1.5 to not show segmentation between 'role' and 'facet'. 

see page 49 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

The definition of is-property-of fact type is based on the notion of ‘essential quality’. Use of the word ‘essential’ is misleading since ISO and therefore SBVR talks about ‘essential characteristic’ in quite a different sense. The three Dictionary Bases are poorly chosen (probably because they were chosen before the ISO notion of characteristic was introduced into SBVR). In any event, the current definition of is-property-of fact type does not accurately express the intended meaning of the concept. Resolution: 1. Change the definition of "Is-Property-Of" fact type to: associative fact type that is defined with respect to a given concept such that each instance of the fact type is an actuality that an instance of the concept has a particular quality or trait 2. A better Dictionary Basis should replace the existing ones. Use the following definition from MWUD: 1 a : a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; 

Title: Inconsistent use/definition of keyword 'or'
Spec: SBVR
Version: 1.0


Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov


Summary:


In clause 9.2.1, p.52, 'bindable target' is defined as:
  variable, expression or individual concept
In clause 11.1.5, 'contextualization fact type' is defined as:
  is-role-of fact-type or is-facet-of fact-type
In clause 11.1.5, 'contextualized concept' is defined as:
  role or facet
At the end of section C.3.2.1 in Annex C, the example is:
  contextualized concept
     Definition: role or facet
In Annex E, p.327, 'fuel level' is defined as:
  full or 7/8 or 3/4 or 5/8 or 1/2 or 3/8 or 1/4 or 1/8 or empty


In all these, 'or' is stylized as a keyword.  According to Annex C.3.2.1, these represent extensional definitions, i.e., the unions of the extensions of the concepts.  But according to Annex C.1.1, the
keyword 'or' is defined to mean logical disjunction between two
propositions.  So the definition of keyword 'or' is inconsistent with the usages.


One solution is to change the definitions.
E.g., for contextualized concept:
 Definition: concept that is a role or is a facet
This form has a direct translation to the concepts in Clause 9.


An alternative is to change the meaning of the keyword in C.1.1, assuming it is never used for logical disjunction of propositions.
Another alternative is to introduce a new keyword.

Figure 12-1 shows 'merged' arrowheaded lines from 'element of guidance' and 'rule' into 'propositiion'.  While this is not formally meaningful our graphics have used a convention to bring the lines together for elements that are mutually exclusive and to show the lines separate when not — ref. the separate lines into 'rule'.  I suggest that Figure 12-1 be updated to show separate arrowheaded lines into 'proposition'.

see page 52 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

According to our observations, more than 95% of all business applications operate under the closed world assumption and the state of affairs interpretation. In order to give other approaches (standards) the option to work with SBVR, it is proposed to offer the following: for each fact type one of the following combinations can be selected:
1. Closed world assumption; state of affairs interpretation
2. Closed world assumption; actuality interpretation
3. Open world assumption; state of affairs interpretation
4. Open world assumption; actuality interpretation.


For convenience it is recommended to add the following four meta fact types:


1. The population of all fact types in <conceptual schema> is considered <closed_or_open>
2. The population of all fact types in <conceptual schema> is considered <state-of-affairs_or_actuality>
3. The population of <fact type> is considered <closed_or_open>
4. The population of <fact type> is considered <state-of-affairs_or_actuality>

Note that a fact type overrides a conceptual schema specification. Note that there is a business rule that for each fact type it holds that it can have only one value of closed_or_open and one value of state-of-affairs_or_actuality.

The definition-based model specified in Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 and the fact model defined in Clause 10 are different (although closely related) models. The differences between them should be described and a transformation from one to the other defined. This would address two concerns:
1.	Separation of the two different meanings of 'fact type' into different models
2.	Allow the definition-based model to have an open-world assumption and the fact model to have a closed-world assumption.

The overt problem is that SBVR has two different meanings for 'fact type':
1.	In Clause 8, the extension of a fact type is currently a set of actualities, (although another issue proposes that this should be changed to a set of states of affairs)
2.	In Clause 10, the extension of a fact type is a set of facts (propositions taken to be true). 
The underlying issue is:
1.	SBVR's metamodel is defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. Its instances (domain models) are linguistic models of meanings. 
2.	The model defined in Clause 10 is included in the normative SBVR model to support a formal logic interpretation of SBVR's metamodel. Its instances (domain models) are fact models.
The proposed resolution is:
1.	State, in introductory text in Clauses 8 and 10, that the models are different 
2.	Somewhere in Clause10: 
a.	List the major differences between the two models (see below) 
b.	Describe informally the transformation to derive a domain fact model from a corresponding linguistic model.  It is probably beyond the scope of this RTF to develop a formal specification of the transformation
3.	Define fact models to be 'closed world' models.
Another useful change would be to move the current Clause 10 so that it is placed after the clauses that define the SBVR metamodel - i.e. to renumber Clauses 11, 12 and 13 as 10, 11, 12 respectively, and renumber Clause 10 as 13.
One of the reasons for raising this issue is the email discussion about Issue 14241 "Coexistence approach to SBVR" earlier this year. There, a case was made for allowing a fact model to be 'closed world', to enable it to be used as the basis for business applications that will run on relational databases using SQL. 
There was some discussion that SBVR was not primarily intended to model business applications; it was intended to model the business to be supported by these applications, and the models needed to be 'open world'. 
When the two kinds of model are recognized as being different, both needs can be satisfied:
§	The linguistic model defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 is the semantic community's open world model of its business. 
§	The corresponding clause 10 fact model is the closed world model that is the basis for developing the data model and database for the required business applications. The transformations to these specifications are well-defined in both ORM and CogNIAM (the two fact modeling approaches described in Annexes of the SBVR Specification). 
One concern to be kept in mind is that the detail of specification in fact models (identifiers, data types, formats etc.) should not replicate capabilities already provided in other OMG specifications, especially UML and IMM. 
Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions
Issue 10803: 'state of affairs' is an individual concept, not a thing 
If 'state of affairs' were deemed to be to be an individual concept, the argument here for the differences between the two models would not be substantially changed. 
Issue 13138: Move Fact Model Container Concepts from Clause 8 to Clause 10 
A new issue has been submitted, proposing that the definitions in Subclause 8.5 be moved to Clause 13. 
Issue 14241: Coexistence approach to SBVR
The proposed resolution here includes: 'closed world' assumption for Clause 10 fact model; fact type (Clause 8) having an extension that consists of states of affairs; fact type (Clause 10) having an extension that consists of facts.
Issue (awaiting number): Each individual in the extension of a fact type (Clause 8) should be a 'state of affairs'. 
The proposed resolution here assumes that the extension of a fact type (Clause 8) is states of affairs. 
Resolution:
See the discussion "Differences between Linguistic Model (Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12) and Fact Model (Clause 10)", below 
Revised Text:
To be developed after discussion with RTF
Disposition:	Open

Subclause 8.5 is about the interchange files defined in Clause 15.  
The syntax for these files is (mostly) defined in Clause 13; the content of Subclause 8.5 should be placed in Clause 13. 

From Issue 13138 (as of 5 Dec 2008):
"Subclause 8.5 includes concepts conceptual schema and fact model that have no bearing on the content of the SBVR metamodel (as defined in the Clause 15.1 XMI file) or an SBVR model (to be illustrated by Clause 15.3 SBVR model of SBVR file).  Rather they explain the structure of the SBVR model file in Clause 15.3 as an XML file containing a fact model population for an externally referenced SBVR XSD conceptual schema."
The conceptual schema for interchange is the XSD, the facts are the XML content of the interchange file. 
Supporting arguments for making the change:
§	The specification does not place the syntax of Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12 in Clause 8 - it is in Annex C
§	The specification does not place (most of) the syntax of Clause 15 in Clause 8 - it is in Clause 13 
Some corrections are needed:
§	'fact model' has two parts: 'conceptual schema' and 'fact population'
§	 'fact model is based on conceptual schema" should be 'fact population is based on conceptual schema'
§	'conceptual schema includes fact' should be 'fact population includes fact'




Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions
Issue 13138: Move Fact Model Container Concepts from Clause 8 to Clause 10 
This issue removes the definitions in Subclause 8.5 from the scope of Issue 13138. 
Resolution:
Move the content of Subclause 8.5 into Clause 13, with the corrections listed in Discussion, above. 
Revised Text:
TBD

The note under "state of affairs" reads:

"A state of affairs can be possible or impossible. Some of the possible ones are actualities. A state of affairs is what is denoted by a proposition. A state of affairs either occurs or does not occur, whereas a proposition is either true or false. A state of affairs is not a meaning. It is a thing that exists and can be an instance of a concept, even if it does not happen. "

Although unstyled, the use of "denoted by" is likely to confuse readers. The fact symbol "denotes" is used in clause 11.2.1.3 in the fact type "term denotes thing ". But a proposition is not a term, so this fact type is not what is meant in the note. The note is trying to use a passive version of "meaning corresponds to thing" from clause 8.6.1.

Proposed resolution:

1. Add a synonymous form to "meaning corresponds to thing" such as "thing is meant by meaning".
2. Revise the note under "state of affairs" to use the new synonymous form and style the wording to make clear the reference to this formal SBVR concept.

'Vocabulary' is defined in clause 11.1.3 as "set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings ". 

'Rulebook' is defined in clause 11.2.4 as "the set of representations determined by a given speech community to represent in its language all meanings in its body of shared meanings ". 

How does 'vocabulary' relate to 'rulebook'?  When would an SBVR tool vendor use one or the other?  The specification should either explain why it defines both these two concepts and when one would use one versus the other. 
--------------------------------

11.1.5.1 Kinds of Fact Type 

Problem Statement 
[Verb concept] templating could be interpreted to mean that SBVR gives templates *for* fact types, but that is not really the case. 
Template or 'templating' fails to accurately convey that the section is simply listing the common business-facing kinds of fact types practitioners would regularly want to define. 
 Template or 'templating' connotes purpose, but a good name for a concept should indicate only essence. 
Proposed Resolution
 
* A better signifier for the concept meant by verb concept templating should be based on the word structural. Structural is already accepted in SBVR for signifying things related to establishing the meanings of concepts (i.e., definitional matters). Specifically, it has been used in structural rules.
* I used the term "element of structure" in Business Rule Concepts, 3rd Ed (several 1000 copies not distributed). So I would like to see some use of "structural" here. 
* Possible signifiers include "structural shape, "structural form", "structural purpose", "structural role" or "structural pattern".

Note

I the interest of moving forward with RTF work, I could live with synonyms for any use of "template" or "templating" in this section.

* A better signifier for the concept meant by verb concept templating should be based on the word structural. Structural is already accepted in SBVR for signifying things related to establishing the meanings of concepts (i.e., definitional matters). Specifically, it has been used in structural rules.
* I used the term "element of structure" in Business Rule Concepts, 3rd Ed (several 1000 copies not distributed). So I would like to see some use of "structural" here. 
* Possible signifiers include "structural shape, "structural form", "structural purpose", "structural role" or "structural pattern".
Note
I the interest of moving forward with RTF work, I could live with synonyms for any use of "template" or "templating" in this section.

The following wording was captured as part of the Issue 13716 notes, as part of some wording agreed in a long-ago meeting:


From the meeting discussion notes on this Issue, the wording below was the agreed for the change instruction to Clause 8:


This change has raised some concerns and, since it is not directly a part of the Resolution to Issue 13716, it needs to be its own issue.

In the course of discussion for Issue 13835 (re: "Fact Model"), I discovered what I believe to be a significant problem with the SBVR definition of "vocabulary" in Clause 11. To avoid complicating that original issue, I aim raising the problem here as a new issue. (Aside: I hope this new issue has not been overtaken by events ... it's been a long time since we've had a convenience document.)

Included in this document:
·	pp. 1-2 Discussion and proposed resolution for the problem with "vocabulary" plus some additional observations about "terminological dictionary".
·	pp. 3 (for convenience only) Mark's response (08:48 AM 6/28/2010) to my e-mail summarizing a resolution on issue 13835. Mark's response caused me to look closely at the SBVR definitions of "terminological dictionary" and "vocabulary".
·	pp.4-7 (for convenience only) My original e-mail summarizing a resolution for issue 13835 (06/25/2010 07:54 PM). 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DISCUSSION:

The current definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR reads as follows: set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings 

As far as I see, the definition says nothing directly or indirectly about *definitions*. This is inconsistent with (a) ISO, (b) MWUD, and (c) How real-world business people think of a "vocabulary". In these important ways, I believe the current SBVR definition is broken and needs to be fixed.

(a) ISO says (1087):

3.7.2 vocabulary
terminological dictionary (3.7.1) which contains designations (3.4.1) and definitions (3.3.1) from one or more specific subject fields (3.1.2)
NOTE The vocabulary may be monolingual, bilingual or multilingual.

RGR: Note the "and definitions (3.3.1)". We always based terms on ISO when we can - especially terms from their area of expertise.

(b) MWUD says: 

1 : a list or collection of words or of words and phrases usually alphabetically arranged and explained or defined; 

RGR: Note the "and explained or defined". This is the first and most common real-world meaning of "vocabulary".

(c) When business hear or say "vocabulary" they don't think simply of a list of words, they think of what the words *mean*. The words are of little use by themselves without definitions. Clause 11, the business-facing side of SBVR, *must* cater to commonly accepted usage of terms in the real-world.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION:

Change the definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR to be: set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings and the definitions for those concepts

Also add: Source: based on ISO 1087-1 English (3.7.1) [vocabulary] 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

Re: "terminological dictionary"

Here is ISO's definition (expanded) ...

3.7.1 terminological dictionary
technical dictionary
collection of terminological entries (3.8.2) presenting information related to concepts (3.2.1) or designations (3.4.1) from one or more specific subject fields (3.1.2)  

3.8.2 terminological entry
part of a terminological data collection (ISO 1087-2:2000, 2.21) which contains the terminological data (3.8.1) related to one concept (3.2.1)
NOTE Adapted from ISO 1087-2:2000. 

3.8.1 terminological data
data related to concepts (3.2.1) or their designations (3.4.1) 
NOTE The more common terminological data include entry term (3.8.4), definition (3.3.1), note (3.8.5), grammatical label (3.8.6), subject label (3.8.7), language identifier (3.8.8), country identifier (3.8.9) and source identifier (3.8.10).

RGR: The bottom line is that for ISO, "terminological dictionary" seems to be simply a more complete, formally organized version of a vocabulary. Both are listed along with other terms under the heading: 3.7 Terminological products. 

I believe there is no reason not to stick as close as possible to the ISO sense of this term too(?). Otherwise, I question its usefulness for SBVR.
 
At 08:48 AM 6/28/2010, Mark H Linehan wrote:

Ron, 

On the representation side, isn't "terminological dictionary" what you want?  I note that "terminological dictionary expresses body of shared meanings " but from the Note under "terminological dictionary" it appears that should exclude the deontic rules.  Perhaps if we define your concept "ABC" then we should say that "terminological dictionary expresses ABC ". 

(On a related topic, I think that we should try to draw "conceptual schema" closer to "conceptual schema".) 
--------------------------------
Mark H. Linehan
STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
IBM Research

phone: (914) 784-7002 or IBM tieline 863-7002
internet: mlinehan@us.ibm.com 


 


 
06/25/2010 07:54 PM 
To: sbvr-rtf@omg.org
From: "Ronald G. Ross" <rross@BRSolutions.com> 
Subject: [issue 13835 - "Fact Model"] Re: issue 13139 comments 

All, 

       While memory is fresh, let me follow-up on yesterday's discussion in Minneapolis re the agenda item: Issue 13835 Use of the Signifier "Fact Model". I've now done some background research. Actually, there has been significant previous discussion of this topic, but largely under Issue 13139. (Unfortunately, I was unable to locate those e-mails in real time during the meeting itself.) The following analysis (organized into 10 key points) is longish, but aggregates everything into a single message for discussion and (my) future reference. Feedback welcome.

1. I believe Issue 13835 could really be called: Why won't "conceptual schema" or "fact model" as currently defined in SBVR work for Clause 11? To say it another way: What is the missing term for Clause 11?

2. This issue is a critical one. Like "rulebook", the missing term in Clause 11 represents a fundamental notion is *positioning* the purpose of SBVR from a business-facing point of view. Although not necessarily critical for software engineering(?), such positioning is absolutely central in establishing the appropriate market niche / mindset for SBVR itself.

3. It is increasingly clear that the missing concept should be one that *distinguishes* the business-facing side (and value-add purpose) of SBVR from the notion of "fact model" e.g., as in the ORM community.

4. To provide the widest possible umbrella as a standard, SBVR should accommodate that current understanding of "fact model" without change as much as humanly possible. (I believe it does.) SBVR should in no way 'step on' that pre-existing term. To do that was never our intention, of course, but we might have done that unknowingly.

5. Let's call the concept needed in Clause 11 'ABC'. What would an ABC look like? An ABC would ...

* have all the noun concepts and verb concepts (including individual concepts) you would need (to pre-define or adopt) in order to start in business tomorrow ("day one of business operations").
* thereafter, include any extensions to that necessary set of concepts based evolving business needs.
* primarily include elementary fact types.

An ABC would *not* include ...
* any deontic elements of guidance whatsoever.
* any ground facts you couldn't specify in advance of "day one of business operations".


6. The reason that "conceptual schema" doesn't work for ABC in Clause 11 is the following:

conceptual schema FL Definition: combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them) of what is possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world 

"Conceptual schema" includes deontic elements of guidance. It also treats what business people would call "rules" as "facts". That produces a completely unacceptable conflation of business-facing ideas. Business people simply don't say things like, "It's a fact there's a rule that ...".


7. The reason that "fact model" doesn't work for ABC in Clause 11 is the following:

fact model FL 
Definition: combination of a conceptual schema and, for one possible world, a set of facts (defined by semantic formulations using only the concepts of the conceptual schema) 

"Fact model" also includes deontic elements of guidance. It again treats what business people would call "rules" as "facts". (In addition, it would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts.)


8. The reasons that "body of shared meaning" and "body of shared meaning" don't work for ABC in Clause 11 are the following:

body of shared meanings 
Definition: set of concepts and elements of guidance for which there is a shared understanding in a given semantic community 

"Body of shared meanings" includes deontic elements of guidance. (In addition, it would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts.)

body of shared concepts 
Definition: all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings 

"Body of shared concepts" excludes all elements of guidance defined separately from definitions, including alethic ones. But definitional rules are most certainly involved in establishing a viable ABC. (In addition, it would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts.)


9. What can ABC be called? ISO has the term "concept system".

3.2.11 concept system
system of concepts 
set of concepts (3.2.1) structured according to the relations among them 

"Concept system" seems to be close to ABC. Since ISO did not consider rules, I think we can feel free to maintain that definitional rules would be covered by the definition.

Possible objections: 
* The ISO definition doesn't seem friendly to unary fact types (" ... relations among them"). 
* It might be argued that the ISO definition would encompass ground facts created after "day one of business operations", as well as any and all non-elementary facts(?). (It's is not clear to me whether this is so.)


10. What does SBVR clause 11 really aim at? What signifier(s) best capture(a) the essence of ABC?

"verbal model" or "verbalization model" -

A major, indeed distinctive, goal of SBVR is to enable the expression of business rule statements and other forms of business communication is such manner that their full semantics can be captured and coordinated. We should emphasize SBVR's unique achievement in that regard by selecting an appropriate signifier, one that incidentally distinguishes ABC from "fact model" (and other 'structural' deliverables such as class diagrams and data models). For the past year or so, I have been using "verbal model" or "verbalization model" in my presentations for that purpose. They work well for that purpose.

MWUD 
["verbal"]: 2 a : of or relating to words : consisting in or having to do with words 
["verbalize"]: 2 : to state something in words : make a verbal statement

Note: If "concept system" is adopted from ISO, "verbal model" and/or "verbalization model" should be synonyms.

"structured business vocabulary" -

Clearly, that's what SBVR itself is -- SBVR has been described as a vocabulary for developing vocabularies. Like ISO (refer to the definition of "concept system"), we need to emphasize that Clause 11 is about creating a special kind of vocabulary, one that is *structured* (i.e., has verb concepts, etc.). 

Note: "Structured business vocabulary" encompasses representation of meanings, not just meanings per se (i.e., it does not align with "concept system" in that regard).

The current definition of "vocabulary" in SBVR is:

vocabulary 
Definition: set of designations and fact type forms primarily drawn from a single language to express concepts within a body of shared meanings 

"Structured business vocabulary" can probably be defined as a synonym of "vocabulary". It's usefulness is that people don't normally think of fact type forms being in a vocabulary, yet that is a central, distinguishing characteristic of SBVR (i.e., to serve to support models for verbalization of business rules, etc.).

SBVR Clause 3 identifies ISO 6093 (Representation of numerical values in character strings) as a Normative Reference.  SBVR 7.1.2 defines the symbol 'ISO 6093 Number Namespace' as a term for a namespace derived from a clause of ISO 6093.  But there is no normative reference to the use of this namespace anywhere.


Clause 8.7 says in a Note (informative) that ISO 6093 defines a set of designations for numbers, but it does not normatively specify that the ISO 6093 vocabulary is included in the SBVR Meaning and Representation Vocabulary.  Either clause 7.1.2 or Clause 8.7 should say this normatively (if that is intended).


Clause 13.2.7 refers to ISO 6093 in the (informative) Rationale section.  Clause 13.2.7 defines the MOF representation of 'integer' to be the UML Primitive Type integer, but it uses CMOF:Class to represent 'number'.  XMI 1.2 defines the exchange representation of CMOF:integer to be that defined for the "integer" type defined in XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, and XML Schema Part 2 defines that representation directly without reference to ISO 6093.  Nothing specifies the representation of instances of class "number".


So, in terms of normative specification of signifiers for 'number', SBVR is not clear, and SBVR uses XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes, not ISO 6093, as the specification of signifiers for 'integer', which is said to be a specialization of 'number'.  In practice, both standards specify the same representation for decimal numbers -- ISO 6093 NR2 and XML Schema 'decimal' -- but they state different rules for interpreting the precision of decimal fractions.  The issue is completeness and consistency of the SBVR specification.

In SBVR clause 8.7, the terms 'quantity' and 'number' are marked as "FL", which means that they are formal logic concepts that are defined in Clause 10.  The same is true of 'quantity equals quantity' and 'quantity is less than quantity'.  Formal logic does not deal with physical quantities -- there is a whole science for that.  And formal logic per se does not deal with numbers other than non-negative integers.  The 'signed integer' concept is part of a specific mathematical theory.  There is not, and should not be, any definition of these concepts in Clause 10.  The FL marks should be removed.


Further, these concepts should not be part of the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, although they are useful business concepts that might be appropriate in Clause 11.  Nonnegative integer is needed for the 'cardinality' concept; 'positive integer' is used in quantifications.  'Positive integer' is misused to represent an ordinal concept in 'starting character position' and as an identifier convention for instances of 'variable'.

Clause 8.7 introduces the idea of set and cardinality in order to support 'at least n' and 'at most n' constraint concepts.  'set' is defined to be an unordered collection of zero or more things.  Marking 'set' a formal logic concept "FL" raises the issue of identity of things. Cardinality of a set is defined as "the number of distinct elements in the set,   The definition of 'set' should also refer to 'distinct' or 'distinguished' things.  The ability to distinguish makes it possible to determine the truth value of 'thing is in set' for an arbitrary thing.


The 'set' entry should probably also include a Note, such as:
Note: The means of distinguishing things as elements of a set is dependent on the kind of thing and the viewpoint taken in constructing each kind of set.  Reference schemes may be used in this regard.  Where the SBVR specification defines concepts that are 'sets', the defined reference scheme is used to distinguish elements.

In 11.2.1 we have an entry for something termed 'fact type role designation' -- its definition says that it is a "designation that represents a fact type role and that is not a placeholder "  (See diagram, below.)  There is nothing beyond a Definition for this concept.

This entry doesn't make sense.  I recommend it be dropped.  (Or, if someone does see some usefulness for it, then please augment it with some notes and examples.)

see page 92 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

The concept in SBVR Clause 8.1.1 defined as:

 

“concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities”

 

has as its preferred term the signifier “fact type”  This signifier, “fact type,” badly represents this concept and its definition.  It is an example of bad term formation practice and is causing great confusion in the interpretation of the SBVR specification by contradicting the definition.

 

Good term formation practice results in the best word or phrase that quickly and most reliably brings to mind the definition of the concept.

 

In addition, this same signifier, “fact type,” is used as the term for a quite difference concept in Clause 10; thereby further increasing confusion in the SBVR specification.

 

 

Recommended Resolution:

 

Remove “fact type” as a term for the concept in SBVR Clause 8.1.1 that it currently represents, and replace it with the signifier “actuality type” as that is what the definition is defining.

 

see pages 167 - 182 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details and figures

In clause 8.3.4 of SBVR v1.0, the concepts: 'placeholder has starting character position' and 'placeholder uses designation' model the syntax of the non-normative Structured English language described in Annex C of the spec.  These may not be properties of the syntax of other vocabulary and rules languages, and are unsuitable for graphical languages.


The abstract syntax of any such language must be that a placeholder is an expression and must be unique within the fact type form.  These requirements should be stated in the definition of placeholder.  The placeholder expression is a designation for the role that is used only in definitions of the fact type, and its forms and roles.

The idea of its "character position" is meaningless in graphical languages.  The idea specified in 'placeholder uses designation' is a language convention that is not consistently used in SBVR and may well be different in other languages.  The semantics of that syntactic construct is captured by 'role ranges over object type' in 8.1.1.  Any convention for the syntax used by a tool is out of scope for SBVR. Therefore, both of these fact types should be deleted from the normative specification.

SBVR recognizes the notion of "property" in Clause 11.1.5 in "is-property-of", but never defines the concept directly. This omission should be corrected because "property" is a term used naturally by business people and business analysts. SBVR should own up to any term used commonly in the real world to form concepts and organize vocabulary.

Resolution:

Add the term "property" to Clause 11, defined as:

Property: thing playing a role in a fact wherein the thing is perceived as being closely held by or descriptive of the thing playing the other role in the fact

Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD property]

Necessity: The fact must be for a binary fact type.

Example: In 'George was born on 22 February 1732', '22 Feb 1732' plays the *role* "birthdate", but "birth date" is a *property* of the *person* 'George'.  The role has a *range* (date); the property has an *owner* (person).

Example: "ceiling" denotes a property of a room and a property of an aircraft, two different properties of two distinct things

Problem:

In clause 14.3, page 193, the example XML is wrong because it relates roles to the objectTypes ranged over using <sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2> instead of <sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType> as required in the remainder of the specification, as shown in the diagram on page 192, and as shown in the "XML Patterns for Fact Types" in clause 13.6.4. I believe this is an editorial error that remains from when the SBVR FTF created the "role ranges over object type" verb concept.

Also, the <sbvr:factType> element should be <sbvr:binaryFactType> and the <sbvr:designation> element should be <sbvr:factSymbol>

On page 192, in the diagram, the box labelled ": fact type" should instead be labelled ": binary fact type", and the box labelled ": designation" (the one that is connected to the text box with "value=appoints") should instead be labelled ": fact symbol".

Proposed Resolution:

Update the diagram on page 192 as follows:

- replace the text in the box labelled ": fact type" with the replacement text ": binary fact type:
- replace the text in the box labelled ": designation" that is connected to the text box with "value=appoints", with the replacement text ": fact symbol"

See this screen shot to identify the boxes that should be updated:


Make these changes to the example XML on page 193:

<sbvr:factType xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/> --> <sbvr:binaryFactType xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/> 
<sbvr:designation xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/> --> <sbvr:factSymbol xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/> 
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="cao-r1" concept2="company-c"/> --> <sbvr:RangesOverObjectType role="cao-r1" objectType="company-c"/> 
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="cao-r2" concept2="officer-c"/> --> <sbvr:RangesOverObjectType role="cao-r2" objectType="officer-c"/> 

see page 82 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

In clause 9.2.8, on page 71, the first example under "noun concept nominalization" is incomplete.  The text says "In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’. "  However, the formulation shown is missing the use of that fact type.                                                                                                           Proposed resolution:
Revise the example to read as follows.  New/changed text indicated in red.
Example: EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.”
In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’.
The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification.
. The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300.
. The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘kiloliter’.
. The quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept 'type'
. . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization.
. . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable.
. . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . . The projection is on a third variable.
. . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘petrol’.
. . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type ‘company stores thing’.
. . . . The ‘company’ role is bound to the individual concept ‘EU-Rent’.
. . . . The ‘thing’ role is bound to the first variable.
. The at-least-n quantification is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . The atomic formulation is based on the fact type 'quantity is of type'
. . . The 'quantity' role is bound to the first variable.
. . . The 'type' role is bound to the second variable.

(an alternate, and perhaps better, formulation would move the existential quantification of 'type' to the start)

Line 58 of the MeaningAndRepresentation-Model.xml file reads as follows: 

            <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Class" name="object type" xmi:id="objectType" superClass="concept"/> 

The "superClass" attribute says that an Object Type is a kind of "Concept".  This is inconsistent with clause 8.1.1, which defines 'Object Type' as a kind of 'Noun Concept'. This inconsistency causes problems (for example) when populating the "nounConcept=" attribute of the XMI tag <sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesNounConcept> because only a nounConcept can be referenced by this attribute, and an objectType is not a kind of NounConcept. 

Proposed resolution: 

Change line 58 of the MeaningAndRepresentation-Model.xml file to read: 

        <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Class" name="object type" xmi:id="objectType" superClass="nounConcept"/> 
--------------------------------

Summary:

There are two minor editorial issues regarding the verb concept "closed projection defines noun concept" in clause 9.3

1. In figure 9.12 on page 77 of the adopted specification and on page 79 of the ballot 3 convenience document, the verb concept is shown as "closed projection defines object type", rather than "... noun concept". Any noun concept should be definable this way, not just object types. The text is right and the graphic is wrong.

2. In the Acrobat Reader "Bookmarks" tab of the ballot 3 convenience document, the verb concept is shown as a sub-entry under "logical formulation constrains projection", rather than as a separate entry (as for "closed projection defines fact type". The problem occurs only in the convenience document, not in the formal adopted specification. See attached screen shot.



Suggested Resolution:

1. Change the figure to match the text.
2. Fix the bookmark tab entry.

see page 89 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

One of the example fact types provided in section 11.1.5.2 under “is-role-of fact type” is “rental car plays the role ‘replacement car’ in the fact type ‘breakdown during rental has replacement car’.” with the comment that “An instance of the fact type would be a particular breakdown during a particular rental having a particular replacement car.” I have a few concerns with this:
1. some of the text in this fact type should be in verb style
2. the underlining in ‘replacement car’ should be continuous both times
3. trying to instantiate the fact type produces something like “(The car registered) ’ABC123’ plays the role ‘replacement car’ in the fact type ‘breakdown during rental has replacement car’.” if we assume that underlined strings inside single quotes are not placeholders, while   “(The car registered) ’ABC123’ plays the role ‘replacement car’ in the ??? ‘Breakdown #1234 has replacement car’.” is a more reasonable fact, except that a) this involves inconsistent handling of underlined strings inside single quotes, and b) ‘Breakdown #1234 has replacement car’ is neither a fact nor a fact type.
4. from this I deduce that the example seems to be a fact about the model rather than a fact type from which facts about EU-Rent can be generated
5. to support the latter argument, the EU-Rent examples in section E.1.4 has no ‘is-role-of’ fact types but does have ‘related facts’ such as “The noun concept 'return branch' is a role that ranges over the noun concept 'branch.’”.

The example fact type in section 11.1.5.1 under “is-property-of fact type” is “engine size is property of car model” yet the examples in Annex E do not have this form. Further if one tries to instantiate this fact type, one gets something like “351 cubic inches is property of Holden Marina” which misses essential information. I believe that ‘is-property-of’ fact types should each have the 2 forms “engine size of car model is cubic measurement”/“car model has engine size of cubic measurement” allowing for instantiations such as “engine size of Holden Marina is 351 cubic inches”/“Holden Marina has engine size of 351 cubic inches”.

Assortment fact types are not even fact types but facts since they make assertions about instances, “Graham Witt is a man” is of the same ilk as “Graham Witt is a citizen of Australia” (i.e. a fact).

The restriction of the definition of “business rule” to include only those rules that “the semantic community can opt to change or discard” is inappropriate.
The SBVR definition of “rule statement” (“a guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule”) excludes those operative rules that are not business rules, for no obviously good reason.

“Each FemaleAustralian is a Person who was born in Country ‘Australia’ and has Gender ‘Female’” (section 10.1.1.2) and “Each Australian is a Person who was born in Country ‘AU’” (section 10.1.1.7) fly in the face of the meaning of citizenship: I was born in the UK but am an Australian, having taken out Australian citizenship, whereas Rupert Murdoch was born in Australia but is not an Australian, having renounced his Australian citizenship as a prerequisite of taking US citizenship. By the way these rules use a non-standard typography.

An elementary fact quoted in section 10.1.1.2 is “The Prime Minister named ‘John Howard’ was born in the Country named ‘Australia’” using yet another typography. This ‘fact’ is no longer true as, while John is still Australian-born he is no longer prime minister. An example, perhaps of the inadvisability of using role names in rules if they are not relevant to the rule. The following facts are correct but not time-dependent:
a. The Man named ‘John Howard’ was born in the Country named ‘Australia’.
b. The Man named ‘John Howard’ was Prime Minister of the Country named ‘Australia’ from 1996 to 2007.

In clause 9.2.8, in the entry for 'noun concept nominalization', there is an Example that begins:
  "'EU-Rent stores at least 300 kiloliters of petrol.'
    In this example, ‘petrol’ is a mention of the concept ‘petrol’ which is used in the ‘type’ role of a fact type ‘quantity is of type’.
    The statement is formulated by an at-least-n quantification.
.   The minimum cardinality of the quantification is 300."

This creates a dubious fact type and misconstrues "at least 300 kilolitres" as an at-least-n quantification.
"At least 300 kilolitres of petrol" is not an at-least-n quantification.  It is not a reference to the cardinality of a set of distinct kilolitres that petrol has.  (By way of analogy, my refrigerator stores about 3.5 litres of milk, which is clearly not a cardinality.) It is rather a comparison of two quantities -- the quantity (of petrol) stored and the quantity '300 kl' (of petrol).  In SBVR SE, this statement should read:
  "EU Rent stores a quantity of petrol that is greater than or equal to 300 kilolitres." 

In a related previous issue, the FTF determined that a reference to "90 days" was an individual concept -- an amount of time.  "300 kilolitres" is also an individual concept -- a 'quantity value'.

If the fact type in question is indeed 'company stores thing', then the 'thing' in question is an amount of a substance -- a 'quantity'.  But 'quantity is of type' looks like a synonymous form of 'type has quantity', using 'of' as a verb, and that is altogether the wrong idea for the relationship.  In fact, quantities are modifiers of nouns -- petrol (that is) in the amount of 300 kl -- but we don't need to introduce this complexity into the example.

In general, inventories are based on the fact type 'facility stores quantity of kind-of-thing.  The point of the example -- that 'kind of thing' is a specialization of 'concept' and thus 'petrol' is mentioned/nominalized in this usage -- would not be marred by using this fact type and avoiding strange characterizations of quantities.  Reformulating the example statement using this fact type emphasizes the noun concept nominalization and eliminates the confusing and erroneous elements of the example.

In SBVR C.1.6 there is an example, “thing [individual concept] is changed”, defined thus:  “the extension of the individual concept is different at one point in time from what it is at a subsequent point in time”.  In early SBVR thinking, the meaning of a singular definite description was an individual concept (a concept that corresponds to only one object [thing]) even if the description could refer to a different individual at a different time or in a different possible world.  But that early understanding was later changed, as seen in a note in the SBVR entry for ‘individual concept’:  “… each referring individual concept has exactly one and the same instance in all possible worlds”.

 

Therefore, the first and third examples in C.1.6 and the similar example in E.2.3.1 need to be changed to not use ‘individual concept’.  Perhaps a new concept type is needed for the meaning of a singular definite description.

see pages 107 - 110 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

Problem Description: The signifier "Explicitness of Representation" for a categorization scheme in SBVR 11.1.3 is not intuitive, and the reason for the choice is not explained. 

Explicitness of Representation
Definition: the categorization scheme of the concept definition that classifies a definition based on whether it is owned by its speech community or adopted by its speech community 

Resolution: Change the signifier for the concept to "Origin". 

see pages 112-113 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

Issue Title: Conflation of the signifier “rulebook” with the concept/definition for Speech Community Representations (a container concept /set)

 

Clause:             11.2.2.3

 

Printer Page:     155

 

Issue Statement:

 

The concept (definition) in Clause 11.2.2.3  defined as:

 

the set of representations determined by a given speech community to represent in its language all meanings in its body of shared meanings

 

is conflated with the undefined concept most commonly associated with the signifier “rulebook.”

 

The set defined in this entry is only the representations for one speech community and does not include any semantic connections between meanings, which are required to compose the content of a rulebook.

 

Proposed Solution:

 

Separate the two concepts by creating a new entry for “rulebook”; provide a definition for rulebook that can be used to produce one; and replace the signifier “rulebook” on the existing entry with “speech community representations”.

see pages 186 - 187 of dtc/2012-06-12 dor details

There appears to be something missing ("is" -- or, the more verbose, "that is") in the Definition given for "expression"  (p. 26 -- PDF p. 38),
   i.e., ..."but is independent"...  (... "but that is independent"...).

Summary:  SBVR makes an important distinction between the meanings of the word “exists” (existential quantification) and the word “occurs” (used to describe a state of affairs).  A state of affairs can exist and thereby be involved in other things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations) even if it does not occur, even if it never occurs.  SBVR should explicitly define and explain the characteristic ‘state of affairs occurs’, and should then use that characteristic to define ‘actuality’.

 

Note that this issue is related to issue 14849 and became important in discussing 14849, but its resolution should be independent of 14849.

see pages 116 - 117 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

Clarify that objectifications based on a fact type can refer not only to actualities, but more generally to states of affairs, regardless of whether they are actual.  Fix examples of objectifications to include objectifications of states of affairs that are not necessarily actual.  Also, for SBVR Structured English in the explanation of using the demonstrative “that” for objectification, refer more generally to “state of affairs” rather than to “actuality”.

In recent RTF teleconferences, it was agreed that in Clause 11.1.3, Kinds of Definition, some additional notes are needed for “adopted definition” to explain that adoption of a definition is the mechanism for adopting the meaning of a concept.

The mechanism for adopting (the meaning of) a concept is:
•	A meaning cannot be adopted in the abstract. A representation of the meaning – a definition - is what is adopted.
•	A definition is expressed in some language, so is adopted by some speech community within the adopting semantic community.
•	The first definition adopted by a semantic community (via one of its speech communities) is the adoption of the concept
•	Subsequent definitions of the adopted concept (e.g. in other natural languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted definition 
When a definition is adopted, the adopting speech community may use a term or verb symbol different from the one in the source. For example, SBVR has adopted the definition of ‘object’ from ISO 1087, but uses the term ‘thing’ to designate it. 
Related adopted definitions may be localized while retaining their meanings. For example, SBVR has adopted the definition of ‘individual concept’ (‘concept that corresponds to only one object’) from ISO 1087, but has localized it as ‘concept that corresponds to only one thing’.
Dependencies with other Issue Resolutions
16059 Governed Community & Adoption of Business Rules 
The mechanism for adopting concepts described here is the basis for adopting business rules as described in the resolution of Issue 16059.

"Objectification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.7 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons. (1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. (2) Objectification can be used to mean the 'process' of objectifying, rather than the *result* of objectifying, as usually preferred in SBVR.


Resolution:


1. Change each instance of "objectification" in Clause 9.2.7 to "objectifying formulae".


2. Inspect every other instance of "objectification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "an objectifying formulae" or to the process of objectification ("objectifying"), and adjust accordingly.


3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of objectification, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called objectification).


Note: At least one of these three kinds of objectification, the one pertaining to open variables, should be included Clause 11.1.5. Probably all three should be. "Objectification" (meaning the result of objectifying) is clearly an 'element of structure' in the sense of 'characterization', 'categorization', etc. (albeit more complex).

see pages 138 - 143 of dtc/2012-06-12 for details

Problem Statement: "Nominalization" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.8 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons.
(1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR.
(2) "Nominalization" can be used to mean the 'process' of nominalizing, rather than the *result* of nomalization, as usually preferred in SBVR.
(3) "Nominalization" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning.


Resolution:


1. Change each instance of "nominalization" in Clause 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 to "nominalizing formulae".


2. Inspect every other instance of "nominalization" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a nominalizing formulae" or to the process of nominalization ("nominalizing"), and adjust accordingly.


***Note: This includes the definition of the critical term "state of affairs" (in the convenience document available as of 8/2011).


3. Add concepts, definitions, and terms for the three kinds of *results* from the process of nominalization, and if appropriate, a more general concept for the three (probably called nominalization).


Note: It needs to be determined where in SBVR these entries should be included.

Problem Statement:
1. "Aggregation" is currently used on page 47, but as far as I can tell is not defined anywhere. "Aggregation" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD). meaning. What is it meant to be (real-world sense).
2. For consistency, "Aggregation Formulation" should probably be renamed "Aggregating Formulae". See other issues submitted concerning "objectification" and "nominalization".


Resolution:


1. "Aggregation" should be included in SBVR under its real-world (MWUD) meaning, and included in the appropriate section.


2. Change each instance of "aggregation formulation" in "aggregating formulae".

Problem Statement: "Projection" is currently defined in Clause 9.3 to be a semantic formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons.
(1) Semantic formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR. 
(2) "Projection" can be used to mean the 'process' of projecting, rather than the *result* of projection, as usually preferred in SBVR.
(3) "Projection" should be included in SBVR under its appropriate real-world meaning.

Resolution:

1. Change each instance of "projection" in Clause 9.3 to "projecting formulae" 

2. Inspect every other instance of "projection" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a projecting formulae" or to the process of projection ("projecting"), and adjust accordingly.

3. Add a real-world concept and definition for "projection" and for "bag" as currently used in "bag projection". (It needs to be determined where in SBVR this entry should be included.)

Problem Statement: "Quantification" is currently defined in Clause 9.2.6 to be a logical formulation. This usage of the term is counterintuitive for several reasons.
(1) Logical formulations are a way of structuring meaning particular to SBVR.
(2) "Quantification" can be used to mean the 'process' of projecting, rather than the *result* of projection, as usually preferred in SBVR.
(3) "Quantification" should be included in SBVR under its appropriate real-world meaning.


Resolution:


1. Change each instance of "quantification"" in Clause 9.3 and elsewhere to "quantifying formulae"


2. Inspect every other instance of "quantification" in SBVR to determine whether it refers to "a quantifying formulae" or to the process of quantification ("quantifying ), and adjust accordingly.


3. Add a real-world concept definition for "quantification". (It needs to be determined where in SBVR this entry should be included.)

SBVR clause 8.1.2 defines 'proposition' as 'meaning that is true or false'.
The Date/Time specification, and some SBVR examples, show that some propositions are used for their "content" -- the situation that the proposition describes -- without regard to their truth value.  For example, "Each rental car must be inspected before it is available for rental" uses the proposition 'rental car r is inspected' (for each referent of r) to refer to situation in which the car is inspected, and the proposition 'rental car r is available for rental' to refer to the situation in which the car can be rented.  The rule relates these situations without requiring any true/false evaluation of either of them.  Further, the situation in which a given rental car is available is only sometimes an actuality; the proposition 'r is available for rental' can be sometimes true and sometimes false in the actual world.  
Thus, being true or false is not the most important characteristic of a proposition, and may not be well-defined.


Recommendation: 'proposition' should be defined as:  conceptualization of an event, activity, situation or circumstance. Such a definition would be consistent with the idea that it 'corresponds to' a 'state of affairs'.  It is also consistent with the idea that true and false are defined in terms of correspondence to an actuality.  Those properties would be dependent on the situation that is identified in the proposed definition.  This change of definition does not change the intent of the term 'proposition' in any way.  It just avoids having the concept depend on having a truth value in usages that don't care.  (It may be that the proposed definition needs some additional characteristic to distinguish it from a noun concept that corresponds to events, like 'heart attack'.  For example, the proposition must be based on one or more fact types and involve things in fact type roles.)

Is a 'boolean variable' a proposition?  It is defined to be a variable whose referents are truth values, and I have no idea whether it is a 'meaning'.

I believe 'variable' is used in SBVR in the sense of 'formulaic variable' ... but it's not clear from its definition alone. The point needs to be clarified; otherwise, it will only continue to cause problems. We shouldn't have real-world words being used in a special sense in SBVR

Section 13.2.5 is based on a misunderstanding and misuse of MOF:

a) the phrase “In each case where an attribute and an association end represent the same role, the SBVR Metamodel includes a tag that tags both the attribute and the association end.  “ is in ignorance of the fact that in MOF2 and UML 2 that “attributes” and “association ends” are both represented as instances of Property: and in such a case there would be a single instance of Property linked to the Class using the attribute meta-property and from the Association by the memberEnd (or ownedEnd) property: eliminating the need to link two separate elements.

 

b) attempting to use MOF Tags to link two properties. In fact MOF Tags are “Simple string name-value pairs”.

 

This is an urgent issue since it affects the production of the SBVR 1.1 artifacts: there is in fact no need for the tags that have caused some of the difficulties producing the machine-readable files: even the file I sent today for the metamodel, which uses the Tag value property does not match this section of the spec which states that value is the empty string.

SBVR makes use of ElementImports to give additional aliases to some elements in the same package. This is invalid use of ElementImport: the UML/MOF specs clearly state that ElementImports are only for elements “in another package”. I recently confirmed my understanding with the UML team that “another” does mean literally that (confirmed by OCL elsewhere in the spec) and it cannot be interpreted to mean “the same package”.

Even were the ElementImport to be permitted, it would not have the intended meaning which I believe is to add additional synonyms to elements. In contrast the alias in an ElementImport “Specifies the name that should be added to the namespace of the importing Package *in  lieu of* the name of the imported PackagableElement.”

 

This issue is urgent since it affects the production of correct normative artifacts for SBVR 1.1.

Problem:  The Revised Text of 17017 makes no mention of clause 13.2.2.

 

In clause 13.2.2, the first paragraph contains the sentence: "The signifier of each synonym of the designation is an alias for the class."  Nothing is said in 13.2.2 about how to encode the "alias", but the diagram in 13.2.2 shows an "element import".  The revised text does not, but should, delete this drawing element as well.

 

Further, under the Rationale subhead in 13.2.2, the first sentence

reads: "Use of aliasing, though not common in MOF-based metamodels, keeps a strong alignment of the SBVR Metamodel with the SBVR vocabulary."  Presumably, that will no longer be the case if the element imports are deleted. 

 

I suggest it should rather read:

"In general, MOF does not provide a mechanism for declaring synonyms.  

Therefore, the Synonym elements of the SBVR vocabularies do not have counterparts in the SBVR MOF metamodel.  They are, however, captured in SBVR vocabularies that are instances of the SBVR MOF metamodel."

OMG Issue No:  17451
Title:	Fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’ to include ‘individual verb concept’ in SBVR
Source:
RuleML Initiative, John Hall, (john.hall@modelsystems.co.uk)
Summary:
SBVR handles noun concepts and verb concepts asymmetrically:
•	‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ 
•	‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general concept’ and ‘individual concept’ – i.e. ‘general concept’ means ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual concept’ means ‘individual noun concept’ 
There are no equivalents for ‘verb concept’. SBVR does not explicitly define ‘individual verb concept’, so cannot say:
•	‘individual concept’ generalizes ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (inheriting from: ‘concept’ generalizes ‘noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’)
•	‘verb concept’ generalizes ‘general verb concept’ and ‘individual verb concept’ (paralleling: ‘noun concept’ generalizes ‘general noun concept’ and ‘individual noun concept’)
If it did, this structural inconsistency would be removed. 
It would also be helpful in using SBVR. Individual noun concepts, such as “EU-Rent” and “Luxembourg”, are useful in defining bodies of shared meanings in SBVR. If SBVR included ‘individual verb concept’, an SBVR body of shared meanings could include individual verb concepts such as “EU-Rent is incorporated in Luxembourg”. 
Resolution:
1.	Change the preferred term that is currently ‘individual concept’ to ‘individual noun concept’ to clarify that it applies to noun concepts only
2.	Add the concept ‘individual verb concept’ for a proposition that is a Clause 8 verb concept with all its roles quantified (closed) by individual (noun) concepts to fix the anomaly in the subcategory structure of ‘concept’.

Revised Text:
On printed page 22 in Clause 8.1.1 
REPLACE the current term heading “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” 

And REPLACE “concept”, the first term in the definition, WITH “noun concept”


On printed page 27 in Clause 8.1.2 at the end of the clause ADD this entry for ‘individual verb concept’:

individual verb concept

Definition:	proposition that is based on exactly one verb concept in which each verb concept role is filled by an individual noun concept
Note:	… some explanatory comments
Example:	… some illustrative examples


REPLACE the signifier “individual concept” WITH “individual noun concept” in the following places (but not in the “Source” subentry reference to ISO 1087-1 in entry for the concept current termed “individual concept’)

•	… to be identified and added 


REPLACE the following diagrams WITH diagrams that repolace the signifier “individual concept” with “individual noun concept”:

•	Figure 8.1
•	Figure 9.3
•	Figure 11.2

… plus fixes for any additional side effects:

Source:
Business Semantics Ltd, Donald Chapin, (Donald.Chapin@BusinessSemantics.com)
Summary:
In a recent SBVR RTF telecon it was discovered that that are two possible interpretations of the definition of ‘proposition’:
meaning that has a logical structure involving concepts and that corresponds to a state of affairs and that is either true or false based on whether that state of affairs is actual or not
The intended interpretation was that, to be a proposition, it must always in all possible worlds be able to be determined whether is it true or false, but that the assertion of that truth value is separate from the proposition, which SBVR defined to be a meaning.
The second interpretation is that the truth value is part of the proposition.
This ambiguity needs to be removed.
Resolution:
Clarify the entry for ‘proposition’ to remove the ambiguity.  Part of the exisitng definition, “and that corresponds to a state of affairs”, is included as the entry, ‘proposition corresponds to a state of affairs, with its own definition in the resolution to Issue 10803.
Revised Text:
REPLACE the current definition of ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Definition:	meaning that has a logical structure involving concepts and that corresponds to a state of affairs and that is either true or false based on whether that state of affairs is actual or not
WITH:
Definition:	meaning of  a declarative sentence that is not a paradoxical and that is invariant through all the paraphrases and translations of the sentence
Note:	A wff is a special case of statement in which there are no free occurrences of any variable, i.e. either it has constants in place of variables, or its variables are bound, or both

  
ADD the following Source after the Definition in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Source:	[SubeGFOL]: proposition (2 & 3), Wff, Closed Wff

ADD the following Necessity after the newly added Source in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Necessity:	It is necessary that each proposition that is created by quantifying all the verb concept roles of a given verb concept means what the definition of the verb concept defines it to mean.
ADD the following Note after the last existing Note in the entry for ‘proposition’ in Clause 8.1.2 on printed page 26:
Note:	The truth-value of the proposition is separate from the proposition (i.e. the meaning of the statement). The proposition means the same thing regardless of the possible world that is referenced to determine the truth-value.  Documenting the truth-value of a proposition is out of scope for SBVR and belongs to the domain of data management or rules enforcement.