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

[Mark H Linehan <mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave,

As I understand it, a fact model can contain propositions about any of the
kinds of things you list.  For example, a fact model can contain facts such
as:

* There exists a concept "person"
* The text "person" represents the concept "person"
* There exists a namespace "xyz"
* The designation "person" is in the namespace "xyz"

... and so forth.  Clause 13 uses this method.

So I withdraw my statement that "does not include representations or
expressions" because I believe you can state facts about representations
and expressions.  I believe the other limitations that I list still apply.

Note that clause 13.2.1 says that "Each [UML] package is a MOF-based
reflection of one of SBVR's vocabulary namespaces."
--------------------------------
Mark H. Linehan
STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
IBM Research

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


                                                                           
             "Dave Carlson"                                                
             <dcarlson@xmlmode                                             
             ling.com>                                                  To 
             Sent by:                  "'SBVR developer list'"             
             mdt-sbvr.dev-boun         <mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>          
             ces@xxxxxxxxxxx                                            cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
             06/02/2008 01:39          RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] Re: The kernel   
             PM                        of SBVR without                     
                                       programmingconsiderations           
                                       2008-05-31-2112                     
             Please respond to                                             
              SBVR developer                                               
                   list                                                    
             <mdt-sbvr.dev@ecl                                             
                 ipse.org>                                                 
                                                                           
                                                                           




Mark,

I had also noticed that "vocabulary namespace" (in MRV) is defined in terms
of "vocabulary" (in VDBV) and had planned to submit that to the sbvr-rtf
issues.  We should create a combined list of RTF issues for submission.

The SBVR definition of "thing" states in a Note that: "Every other concept
implicitly specializes the concept 'thing'."  The SBVR 1.0 metamodel
represents this such that every metaclass is derived from "thing", either
directly or indirectly via generalization. A top-level container must be
allowed to include any "thing".

In addition to your list below, where neither "conceptual schema" or "fact
model" may include representations and expressions, other concepts are
excluded because they are direct specializations of "thing":

* namespace
* reference scheme
* language
* set (if used to represent the extension of a concept)
* And other concepts that are not defined within MRV (such as "community").

-- Dave

>
> Stan and Sjir and I have been discussing how to model MRV in
> terms of itself.  Here's my summary of the limitations of
> "fact model" as a "top level container" for MRV:
>
> * no provision for a URI
> * no ability to recursively embed a fact model within a fact model
> * does not include representations or expressions
>
> And there are a couple of related issues:
>
> * Arguably, MRV is deficient since it does not include the
> concept "vocabulary", which (a) is needed to describe MRV
> itself; (b) is referenced by the definition of "vocabulary namespace"
> * SBVR does not address the relationship between "conceptual
> schema" or "fact model" and "body of shared meanings".
>
> If we think this list is complete, then I think we should
> submit a formal "issue" to the SBVR RTF with the goal of
> coming to a consensus on how to proceed.


_______________________________________________
mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev