Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] Re: The kernel of SBVRwithoutprogrammingconsiderations 2008-05-31-2112

Stan,

When I refer to the "metamodel" I an referring to the formal definitions and
the normative CMOF model that is delivered with the SBVR specification.
Those formal definitions *should* agree with the CMOF model.

You a referring to the text in the specification.  It appears that they are
inconsistent.  In the metamodel, a term, expression, concept, etc. are NOT a
kind of "fact".  At least, not the "fact" that is defined in the metamodel.
You may refer to an XMI document as a fact model, but this is different from
the formal definition of "fact model" in the metamodel.  Look a the
metamodel class diagram referenced in my previous email.  That "fact model"
cannot include concepts, terms, or expressions.

Dave

> 
> There appears to be a misunderstanding about what a fact 
> model is. See SBVR 13.4. Every SBVR interchange document is a 
> fact model, which is nothing more than a set of facts. Any 
> set of facts is a fact model, by definition. 
> 

> You don't have to have a <factModel/> element in the file 
> (but you could). The file contents constitute a fact model. 
> If you asked me to give you a fact model, I would give you a 
> file that contains some facts. It would not need to say 
> inside the file, "this is a fact model", but it is a fact 
> model, by construction, and by my telling you it is to be 
> interpreted as such. The XMI document element and reference 
> to a conceptual schema (identified by a namespace URI) 
> identify the file as a SBVR fact model, as in the example of 13.4.
> 
> Stan




Back to the top