RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] Re: The kernel of SBVRwithout programmingconsideratio

["Dave Carlson" <dcarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark,

Yes, that is the key phrase: propositions ABOUT any of these things, but
declarations of the things themselves.  I don't see any use of fact in
clause 13.6 examples, but assume it would look something like this:

<sbvr:term xmi:id="exampleTerm" signifier="et-s" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:fact xmi:id="fact-1"/>
<sbvr:thing1IsThing2 thing1="fact-1" thing2="exampleTerm"/>
<sbvr:factModel xmi:id="factModel-1"/>
<sbvr:factModelIncludesFact factModel="factModel-1" fact="fact-1"/>

So the fact model does not include the term, but it includes a fact about
the term.

The SBVR metamodel and the SBVR.xsd normative schema for document exchange
would prohibit use of:

<sbvr:factModelIncludesFact factModel="factModel-1" fact="exampleTerm"/>

> 
> 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."