RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] SBVR Metamodel

[Mark H Linehan <mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with almost all of what Stan said in his three notes of April 24.
In particular, I endorse the idea of producing separate UML, EMF, and Java
packages for each SBVR vocabulary.

Regarding "variable": I agree with the philosophy that Stan states.  I
believe the model simplification that I performed does in fact support the
intended SBVR semantics.  But that can be the subject of further discussion
& analysis.  I'll write something separately about it.  I think we both
agree that such simplifications are permissible in this project if and only
if they maintain the intended SBVR semantics.

Regarding conceptualization decisions: I don't believe "concept of thing as
composite" means the same thing as UML composition, which includes the
semantics that owned objects are exclusively owned and are destroyed when
the owning object is destroyed.  Also, what's the relationship of
"conceptualization decisions" (11.1.4) and "fact type templating" (11.1.5).
In particular, when would one use "concept of thing as composite" versus
categorizing a fact type as "partitive"?
--------------------------------
Mark H. Linehan
STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
IBM Research

phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038
internet: mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx