RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] SBVR Metamodel

["Stan Hendryx" <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark asked: 
> when would one use "concept of thing as 
> composite" versus categorizing a fact type as "partitive"?

These are related. One might use them together. Consider the fact type
"thing is part of composite". This would be categorized as a "partitive"
fact type. The "composite" role could be be characterized as a "concept of
thing as composite". The latter could be used to distinguish the part role
from the composite role in a partitive fact type. However, this will only
work if "thing" is not also a "concept of thing as composite", which is
often not the case. The categorization decisions are problematic, not
rigorously defined sufficiently for reasoning on set relations. They are in
VDBV, so we don't need to worry about them for awhile. 

Stan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark H Linehan
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:28 AM
> To: SBVR developer list
> Subject: RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] SBVR Metamodel
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
> mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev
>