RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] Re: The kernel of SBVR without programmingconsiderati

["Dave Carlson" <dcarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stan,

The SBVR 1.0 metamodel prohibits this interpretation.  I created a class
diagram from the SBVR 1.0 metamodel and added it to the wiki:
  http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/1/15/SBVR_conceptual-schema.gif

A fact model may contain only facts, and a fact is a kind of proposition.  A
conceptual schema is not a fact model, and a fact model may not include
concepts, representations, or most other metamodel types.

In the SBVR 1.0 metamodel, all metaclasses are derived from "thing".  So the
only possible top-level container must be allowed to include any kind of
"thing".  In my current revision of the tools metamodel, I've added a
Package metaclass that may contain 0..* Thing.  I'll try to get an updated
tools metamodel uploaded to the bugzilla today.

Dave

> 
> From: Stan Hendryx [mailto:stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sat 5/31/2008 5:55 PM

> In my reading of SBVR, it is implied that a conceptual schema 
> is a fact model that contains at least one concept, i.e. has 
> an existential fact that there is some concept. Such fact 
> models can be used as conceptual schemas of other fact 
> models. The implication is that being a conceptual schema is 
> a role of a fact model that incorporates at least one 
> concept. Every SBVR model is a fact model, a set of facts 
> based on a conceptual schema, so "fact model" is the natural 
> top-level container.