RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] SBVR-uml designation.gif

["Dave Carlson" <dcarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stan,
I am traveling for the next 4 days and will have limited time to research
and reply.  But the metamodel still allows for Text and an independent
object that is not owned  by the representation, by using the association
that is also defined by SBVR for linking Representation and Text.

I want to allow for the case you described, using association links, but
make the default case easier to manage -- for both tooling and users.

But this is NOT only to work better ith EMF.  Also think about this from the
user's perspective in tooling.  I cannot imagine a successful tool where
10,000 text object have an independent existance, and the user must search
all text objects when creating each term or name...  Describe the tooling
use case in detail for how a user would work with text objects where each is
an independent object.

Dave

> 
> Although modeling representation as a composite of expression 
> works better with EMF, it has an unfortunate side effect of 
> not allowing homonymous expressions, since composition places 
> representation and expression in a 1:1 relationship in the 
> proposed model. It is possible, even common, for a given 
> expression to represent more than one meaning. For example, 
> bank: (1) financial services establishment; (2) land 
> alongside or sloping down to a river or lake; (3) a set or 
> series of similar things. Representation:expression are *:1. 
> The proposed model also does not allow expressions that do 
> not represent some meaning, e.g. "farb".