Date: November 2013

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and

Business Rules (SBVR)

Version 1.2

OMG Document Number: formal/2013-11-04

Standard document URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.2/PDF
Normative Machine Consumable Files:
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20120601
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20120601/SBVR-model.xml
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20120601/SBVR.xsd
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20120601/SBVR.xml
Copyright © 2005-2007, Business Rule Solutions, LLC
Copyright © 2005-2007, Business Semantics Ltd
Copyright © 2005-2007, Fujitsu Ltd
Copyright © 2005-2007, Hendryx & Associates
Copyright © 2005-2007, LibRT
Copyright © 2005-2007, KnowGravity Inc
Copyright © 2005-2007, Model Systems
Copyright © 2005-2007, Neumont University
Copyright © 1997-2013, Object Management Group
Copyright © 2005-2007, Unisys Corporation

USE OF SPECIFICATION - TERMS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES

The material in this document details an Object Management Group specification in accordance with the terms, conditions and
notices set forth below. This document does not represent a commitment to implement any portion of this specification in any
company’s products. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice.

LICENSES

The companies listed above have granted to the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) a nonexclusive, royalty-free, paid up,
worldwide license to copy and distribute this document and to modify this document and distribute copies of the modified
version. Each of the copyright holders listed above has agreed that no person shall be deemed to have infringed the copyright
in the included material of any such copyright holder by reason of having used the specification set forth herein or having
conformed any computer software to the specification.

Subject to all of the terms and conditions below, the owners of the copyright in this specification hereby grant you a fully-paid
up, non-exclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide license (without the right to sublicense), to use this specification to
create and distribute software and special purpose specifications that are based upon this specification, and to use, copy, and
distribute this specification as provided under the Copyright Act; provided that: (1) both the copyright notice identified above
and this permission notice appear on any copies of this specification; (2) the use of the specifications is for informational
purposes and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media and will not be otherwise resold
or transferred for commercial purposes; and (3) no modifications are made to this specification. This limited permission
automatically terminates without notice if you breach any of these terms or conditions. Upon termination, you will destroy
immediately any copies of the specifications in your possession or control.

PATENTS

The attention of adopters is directed to the possibility that compliance with or adoption of OMG specifications may require use
of an invention covered by patent rights. OMG shall not be responsible for identifying patents for which a license may be
required by any OMG specification, or for conducting legal inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are
brought to its attention. OMG specifications are prospective and advisory only. Prospective users are responsible for protecting
themselves against liability for infringement of patents.
 GENERAL USE RESTRICTIONS

Any unauthorized use of this specification may violate copyright laws, trademark laws, and communications regulations and
statutes. This document contains information which is protected by copyright. All Rights Reserved. No part of this work
covered by copyright herein may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means--graphic, electronic, or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems--without permission of the copyright
owner.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY

WHILE THIS PUBLICATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, IT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MAY CONTAIN
ERRORS OR MISPRINTS. THE OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP AND THE COMPANIES LISTED ABOVE MAKE
NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THIS PUBLICATION, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF TITLE OR OWNERSHIP, IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP OR ANY OF THE COMPANIES LISTED ABOVE BE
LIABLE FOR ERRORS CONTAINED HEREIN OR FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, RELIANCE OR COVER DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, DATA OR
USE, INCURRED BY ANY USER OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE FURNISHING,
PERFORMANCE, OR USE OF THIS MATERIAL, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

The entire risk as to the quality and performance of software developed using this specification is borne by you. This
disclaimer of warranty constitutes an essential part of the license granted to you to use this specification.

RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND

Use, duplication or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to the restrictions set forth in subparagraph (c) (1) (ii) of The
Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software Clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 or in subparagraph (c)(1) and (2) of the
Commercial Computer Software - Restricted Rights clauses at 48 C.F.R. 52.227-19 or as specified in 48 C.F.R. 227-7202-2 of
the DoD F.A.R. Supplement and its successors, or as specified in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations and
its successors, as applicable. The specification copyright owners are as indicated above and may be contacted through the
Object Management Group, 109 Highland Avenue, Needham, MA 02494, U.S.A.

TRADEMARKS

IMM®, MDA®, Model Driven Architecture®, UML®, UML Cube logo®, OMG Logo®, CORBA® and XMI® are
registered trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc., and Object Management Group™, OMG™ , Unified Modeling
Language™, Model Driven Architecture Logo™, Model Driven Architecture Diagram™, CORBA logos™, XMI Logo™,
CWM™, CWM Logo™, IIOP™, MOF™, OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL)™ , and OMG SysML™ are trademarks
of the Object Management Group. All other products or company names mentioned are used for identification purposes only,
and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

COMPLIANCE

The copyright holders listed above acknowledge that the Object Management Group (acting itself or through its designees) is
and shall at all times be the sole entity that may authorize developers, suppliers and sellers of computer software to use
certification marks, trademarks or other special designations to indicate compliance with these materials. Software developed
under the terms of this license may claim compliance or conformance with this specification if and only if the software
compliance is of a nature fully matching the applicable compliance points as stated in the specification. Software developed
only partially matching the applicable compliance points may claim only that the software was based on this specification, but
may not claim compliance or conformance with this specification. In the event that testing suites are implemented or approved
by Object Management Group, Inc., software developed using this specification may claim compliance or conformance with
the specification only if the software satisfactorily completes the testing suites.
 OMG’s Issue Reporting Procedure

All OMG specifications are subject to continuous review and improvement. As part of this process we
encourage readers to report any ambiguities, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies they may find by com-
pleting the Issue Reporting Form listed on the main web page http://www.omg.org, under Documents,
Report a Bug/Issue (http://www.omg.org/report_issue.htm).
Table of Contents

Preface ........................................................................................vii
Part I - Introduction ....................................................................... 1
1 Scope .................................................................................................... 3
1.1 General .................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Applicability .............................................................................................. 3
1.3 SBVR Specification Files ......................................................................... 3
1.4 Terminological Dictionaries and Rulebooks ............................................. 4
1.5 Usage of an SBVR Content Model .......................................................... 4
1.6 For SBVR Tool Vendors .......................................................................... 5
2 Conformance ......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Support for an SBVR Concept ................................................................. 5
2.2 Compliance Points ................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Meaning and Representation ............................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Logical Formulation of Semantics ........................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Business Vocabulary ........................................................................................... 7
2.2.4 Business Rules .................................................................................................... 8
2.2.5 Restricted Higher Order Logic (Additional Conformance) .................................. 8
2.2.6 First Order Logic (Additional Conformance) ........................................................ 8
2.3 Conformance of an SBVR Content Model Exchange Document ............. 8
2.4 Conformance of an SBVR Producer........................................................ 9
2.5 Conformance of an SBVR Processor ...................................................... 9
3 Normative References ........................................................................ 10
4 Terms and Definitions ......................................................................... 11
5 Symbols .............................................................................................. 12
6 Additional Information ......................................................................... 12
6.1 Changes to Adopted OMG Specifications ............................................. 12
6.2 How to Read this Specification .............................................................. 12
6.2.1 About the Annexes ............................................................................................ 12
6.2.2 About the Normative Specification ..................................................................... 13
6.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................ 14
Part II - Business Vocabulary+Rules for Business
Vocabulary+Rules ......................................................... 15
7 Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary ................................................... 17

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 i

 7.1 Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary ...................................................... 17
7.1.1 Vocabularies Presented in this Document .........................................................17
7.1.2 External Vocabularies and Namespaces ...........................................................18
8 Meaning and Representation Vocabulary ........................................... 19
8.1 General .................................................................................................. 19
8.2 Meanings ............................................................................................... 21
8.2.1 Concepts ............................................................................................................21
8.2.2 Propositions .......................................................................................................28
8.2.3 Questions ...........................................................................................................30
8.3 Expressions ........................................................................................... 30
8.4 Representations ..................................................................................... 32
8.4.1 Designations ......................................................................................................32
8.4.2 Definitions ..........................................................................................................33
8.4.3 Statements .........................................................................................................34
8.4.4 Verb Concept Wordings .....................................................................................34
8.4.5 Namespaces ......................................................................................................38
8.5 Reference Schemes .............................................................................. 41
8.6 Extensions ............................................................................................. 43
8.6.1 Relating Meaning to Extension ..........................................................................46
8.6.2 Necessities Concerning Extension ....................................................................47
8.7 Elementary Concepts ............................................................................ 48
9 Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary .................................... 51
9.1 General .................................................................................................. 51
9.2 Semantic Formulations .......................................................................... 54
9.3 Logical Formulations .............................................................................. 55
9.3.1 Variables and Bindings ......................................................................................56
9.3.2 Atomic Formulations ..........................................................................................60
9.3.3 Instantiation Formulations ..................................................................................61
9.3.4 Modal Formulations ...........................................................................................62
9.3.5 Logical Operations .............................................................................................65
9.3.6 Quantifications ...................................................................................................69
9.3.7 Objectifications ..................................................................................................73
9.3.8 Projecting Formulations .....................................................................................75
9.3.9 Nominalizations of Propositions and Questions ................................................79
9.4 Projections ............................................................................................. 83
10 Providing Semantic and Logical Foundations for
Business Vocabulary and Rules ....................................................... 91
10.1 General ................................................................................................ 91
10.2 Logical Foundations for SBVR ............................................................. 91
10.2.1 SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation ................................................91
10.2.2 Formal Logic & Mathematics in General ........................................................117
10.3 Formal Logic Interpretation Placed on SBVR Terms ......................... 128
10.4 Requirements for Formal Logic Conformance ................................... 137
10.4.1 General Requirements for Formal Logic Interpretation .................................137

ii Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 10.4.2 Enforcing a Restricted Higher Order Interpretation ....................................... 138
10.4.3 Enforcing a First Order Interpretation ............................................................ 138
11 Business Vocabulary ....................................................................... 139
11.1 General .............................................................................................. 139
11.2 Business Meaning ............................................................................. 139
11.2.1 Communities, Meanings & Vocabularies ....................................................... 140
11.2.2 Concepts & Characteristics ........................................................................... 146
11.2.3 Kinds of Definition .......................................................................................... 150
11.2.4 Conceptualization Decisions .......................................................................... 153
11.2.5 Concept System Structure ............................................................................. 155
11.3 Business Representation ................................................................. 160
11.3.1 Symbolization ................................................................................................ 160
11.3.2 Forms of Business Representation ................................................................ 166
12 Business Rules ................................................................................ 171
12.1 Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules ........................................ 171
12.2 Categories of Guidance ..................................................................... 171
12.2.1 Guidance ....................................................................................................... 172
12.2.2 Rules .............................................................................................................. 174
12.2.3 Enforcement .................................................................................................. 176
12.2.4 Possibilities and Permissions ........................................................................ 177
12.3 Statements of Guidance .................................................................... 178
12.3.1 Categories of Business Statement ................................................................ 179
12.3.2 Business Statements ..................................................................................... 181
12.4 Fundamental Principles for Elements of Guidance ............................ 184
12.4.1 The Severability Principle .............................................................................. 184
12.4.2 The Accommodation Principle ....................................................................... 185
12.4.3 The Wholeness Principle ............................................................................... 185
12.5 Accommodations, Exceptions and Authorizations ............................. 186
12.5.1 Relating Elements of Guidance to States of Affairs ....................................... 186
12.5.2 Authorizations ................................................................................................ 186
12.5.3 Exceptions ..................................................................................................... 187
12.5.4 Approaches to Capturing Accommodations, Exceptions and Authorizations 187
12.6 Relating Structural Rules to Concepts ............................................... 190
12.7 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance ............................... 192
12.7.1 General .......................................................................................................... 192
13 SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI ......................................................... 195
13.1 General .............................................................................................. 195
13.2 SBVR's Use of MOF .......................................................................... 195
13.2.1 Metamodels ................................................................................................... 195
13.2.2 SBVR Content Models ................................................................................... 196
13.3 MOF Model Elements for SBVR ........................................................ 197
13.3.1 MOF Packages for SBVR Vocabulary Namespaces ..................................... 197
13.3.2 MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts ....................................................... 199
13.3.3 MOF Boolean Attributes for SBVR Characteristics ........................................ 200
13.3.4 MOF Associations for SBVR Binary Verb Concepts ...................................... 201

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 iii

 13.3.5 MOF Attributes for SBVR Roles of Verb Concepts ........................................202
13.3.6 MOF Classes for SBVR Ternary Verb Concepts ...........................................203
13.3.7 Data Values ...................................................................................................203
13.3.8 XMI Names ....................................................................................................204
13.4 Using MOF to Represent Semantics ................................................. 204
13.4.1 Multiclassification ...........................................................................................204
13.4.2 Open World Assumption ................................................................................205
13.5 Example SBVR Content Model .......................................................... 205
13.6 The SBVR Content Model for SBVR ................................................. 208
13.7 XMI for the SBVR Model of SBVR ..................................................... 209
13.7.1 XML Patterns for Vocabularies ......................................................................210
13.7.2 XML Patterns for General Concepts ..............................................................211
13.7.3 XML Patterns for Individual Noun Concepts ..................................................213
13.7.4 XML Patterns for Verb Concepts ...................................................................214
13.7.5 XML Patterns for Sets of Elements of Guidance (Rule Sets) ........................216
13.7.6 XML Patterns for Guidance Statements ........................................................216
14 Index of Vocabulary Entries (Informative) ....................................... 219
15 Supporting Documents .................................................................... 231
15.1 General .............................................................................................. 231
15.2 SBVR XMI Metamodel ....................................................................... 231
15.3 SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema ................................................ 231
15.4 SBVR Content Model for SBVR ......................................................... 231
Part III - Annexes ...................................................................... 233
Annex A - SBVR Structured English ...................................................... 235
Annex B - SBVR Structured English Patterns ........................................ 255
Annex C - Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to Represent
SBVR-Style Vocabularies ..................................................... 265
Annex D - Additional References ........................................................... 273

Stand-alone Annexes
Annex E - Overview of the Approach
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-06
Annex F - The Business Rules Approach
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-07
Annex G - EU-Rent Example
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-08

Annex H - The RuleSpeak® Business Rule Notation

see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-09

iv Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Annex I - Concept Diagram Graphic Notation
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-10
Annex J - The ORM Notation for Verbalizing Facts and Business Rules
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-11
Annex K - Mappings and Relationships to Other Initiatives
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-12
Annex L - ORM Examples Related to the Logical Foundations for SBVR
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-13
Annex M - A Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the NIAM2007 Procedure to
Specify a Conceptual Schema
see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2013-11-14

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 v

vi Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
Preface

About the Object Management Group

OMG
Founded in 1989, the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) is an open membership, not-for-profit computer industry
standards consortium that produces and maintains computer industry specifications for interoperable, portable and
reusable enterprise applications in distributed, heterogeneous environments. Membership includes Information
Technology vendors, end users, government agencies and academia.

OMG member companies write, adopt, and maintain its specifications following a mature, open process. OMG's
specifications implement the Model Driven Architecture® (MDA®), maximizing ROI through a full-lifecycle approach to
enterprise integration that covers multiple operating systems, programming languages, middleware and networking
infrastructures, and software development environments. OMG’s specifications include: UML® (Unified Modeling
Language™); CORBA® (Common Object Request Broker Architecture); CWM™ (Common Warehouse Metamodel);
and industry-specific standards for dozens of vertical markets.

More information on the OMG is available at http://www.omg.org/.

OMG Specifications
As noted, OMG specifications address middleware, modeling, and vertical domain frameworks. A listing of all OMG
Specifications is available from the OMG website at:

http://www.omg.org/spec/index.htm

Specifications are organized by the following categories:

Business Modeling Specifications

Middleware Specifications
• CORBA/IIOP
• Data Distribution Services
• Specialized CORBA

IDL/Language Mapping Specifications

Modeling and Metadata Specifications

• UML, MOF, CWM, XMI
• UML Profile

Modernization Specifications

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 vii

Platform Independent Model (PIM), Platform Specific Model (PSM), Interface Specifications
• CORBAServices
• CORBAFacilities

OMG Domain Specifications

CORBA Embedded Intelligence Specifications

CORBA Security Specifications

All of OMG’s formal specifications may be downloaded without charge from our website. (Products implementing OMG
specifications are available from individual suppliers.) Copies of specifications, available in PostScript and PDF format,
may be obtained from the Specifications Catalog cited above or by contacting the Object Management Group, Inc. at:

OMG Headquarters
109 Highland Avenue
Needham, MA 02494
USA
Tel: +1-781-444-0404
Fax: +1-781-444-0320
Email: [email protected]

Certain OMG specifications are also available as ISO standards. Please consult http://www.iso.org.

Issues
The reader is encouraged to report any technical or editing issues/problems with this specification to http://www.omg.org/
report_issue.htm.

viii Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Part I - Introduction
This part includes Scope, Conformance, Normative References, Terms and Definitions, Symbols, and Additional
Information.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 1

2 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
1 Scope
1.1 General
This specification defines the vocabulary and rules (see Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) for documenting the semantics of business
vocabularies and business rules for the exchange of business vocabularies and business rules among organizations and
between software tools.

This specification is interpretable in predicate logic with a small extension using modal operators. It supports linguistic
analysis of text for business vocabularies and business rules, with the linguistic analysis itself being outside the scope of this
specification.

1.2 Applicability
The SBVR specification is applicable to the domain of business vocabularies and business rules of all kinds of business
activities in all kinds of organizations. It provides an unambiguous, meaning-centric, multilingual, and semantically rich
capability for defining meanings of the language used by people in an industry, profession, discipline, field of study, or
organization.

This specification is conceptualized optimally for business people rather than automated processing. It is designed to be
used for business purposes, independent of information systems designs to serve these business purposes:

• Unambiguous definition of the meaning of business concepts and business rules, consistently across all the terms,
names and other representations used to express them, and across the natural languages in which those representations
are expressed, so that they are not easily misunderstood either by “ordinary business people” or by lawyers.

• Expression of the meanings of concepts and business rules in the wordings used by business people, who may belong
to different communities, so that each expression wording is uniquely associated with one meaning in a given context.

• Transformation of the meanings of concepts and business rules as expressed by humans into forms that are suitable to
be processed by tools, and vice versa.

• Interpretation of the meanings of concepts and business rules in order to discover inconsistencies and gaps within an
SBVR Content Model (see 2.4) using logic-based techniques.

• Application of the meanings of concepts and business rules to real-world business situations in order to enable
reproducible decisions and to identify conformant and non-conformant business behavior.

• Exchange of the meanings of concepts and business rules between humans and tools as well as between tools without
losing information about the essence of those meanings.

1.3 SBVR Specification Files

This specification provides that SBVR business vocabulary and business rule content is exchanged among organizations
and between software tools in “SBVR Content Model” files (see 13.2.2). The full SBVR vocabulary and rules (see
Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12) for documenting the semantics of business vocabularies and business rules contained in the
“SBVR Content Model for SBVR” file (see 13.2.1), which is an example of an SBVR Content Model exchange
document.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 3

The MOF/XMI XML Schema for SBVR Content Model exchange documents (e.g., sub clause 15.4) is the “SBVR XML
Schema” file (see Clause 13 Intro and 15.3). This SBVR XML Schema is generated from the SBVR XMI Metamodel file
based on transform rules in Clause 13 and the OMG XMI Specification.

This specification also provides an “SBVR XMI Metamodel” file (see sub clauses 13.1 and 15.2) that is generated from
the content of Clauses 8, 9, 11 & 12 based on transform rules in Clause 13 and Annex C.

1.4 Terminological Dictionaries and Rulebooks

The capability has two major areas of support:

• SBVR Terminological Dictionary: the business vocabulary part of an SBVR Content Model. As with all kinds of
dictionaries, it contains business data content that defines terms and other representations, including definitional
business rules.

Dictionaries in general are not metamodels. Dictionaries have no metamodel levels. All terms in a dictionary -
including the terms that define the dictionary content itself - are at the same level. Dictionaries are easily and naturally
extendable, as happens all the time in the culture. This is also true for SBVR Content Models.

• SBVR Rulebook: an SBVR Content Model that includes behavioral guidance. It comprises an SBVR Terminological
Dictionary and business data content that defines elements of guidance, including behavioral business rules.

An SBVR Content Model documents the meaning of terms and other representations that business authors intend when
they use them in their business communications, as evidenced in their written documentation, such as contracts, product/
service specifications, and governance and regulatory compliance documents. Such documents are the authoritative
source for the content of an SBVR Content Model.

1.5 Usage of an SBVR Content Model

Concepts in an SBVR Content Model can have as members in their extension only things that are in the real or planned
world of the organization. The extension of each of these concepts never contains anything in the SBVR Content Model.
The terms and other representations in an SBVR Content Model name and describe the concepts.

SBVR Content Models focus exclusively on defining meaning and the expressions that represent meaning. They do not
concern themselves with or contain assertions of the truth-value of propositions. Such concerns and assertions are outside
the scope of SBVR and belong to the domain of data and rules enforcement. While putting business vocabulary in a
published SBVR Business Vocabulary and business rules in a published SBVR Rulebook is often used by organizations to
communicate that, in fact, this vocabulary is the vocabulary in use and these rules are the rules in force, such assertions
are outside the scope of the SBVR XMI metamodel. For example, an organization could propose rules in a rulebook that
are never put into force. SBVR Content Models therefore do not contain any kind of business data except business
vocabulary and business rules content.

While this specification contains the SBVR XMI Metamodel for interchanging the documentation of business vocabulary
and business rules content, the SBVR XMI Metamodel is not a metamodel for any form of data model, message model,
business information, or model designed for reasoning over business information. A transformation is required to bridge
from an SBVR Content Model to a data model, message model, business information, model for reasoning over business
information, or any other IT system model.

4 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

An SBVR Content Model provides all the business semantics needed as input to such transformations by IT staff into
information system designs, using a combination of decisions from system architects and Platform Independent Model
designers together with software tool function. By use of URIs, SBVR Content Models can provide the business intent of any
data element for which business vocabulary has been defined.

In SBVR Content Models the key relationship is between meanings in the business vocabulary / rulebook and things in the
world of the business; whereas in IT systems the key relationship is between classes in the data/reasoning model and recorded
business data in some form.

1.6 For SBVR Tool Vendors

The SBVR XMI Metamodel file is provided as part of this specification (see 15.2).

The SBVR XML Schema file is also provided as part of this specification (see 15.3).

SBVR tools generate and process SBVR Content Model exchange documents that validate according to the “SBVR XML
Schema” files of sub clause 15.3. The “SBVR Content Model for SBVR” file of sub clause 15.4 can be used as an
example SBVR Content Model exchange document.

The “SBVR XMI Metamodel” file of sub clause 15.2 is a machine-readable metamodel that may be employed in the
development of SBVR tools.

2 Conformance
2.1 General
This specification defines conformance for an SBVR Content Model exchange document, for software that produces
SBVR Content Model exchange documents, and for software that processes SBVR Content Model exchange documents.

Conformance of software is defined in terms of:

• the nature of its use of SBVR

• its support for SBVR concepts that are defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12 of this specification.

All references to “conceptual schema” and “fact model” in this clause are references to their use in Clause 13 “SBVR’s
Use of MOF and XMI.”

2.2 Support for an SBVR Concept

A software tool supports an SBVR concept if and only if all of the following hold:

• The software tool uses the representations specified in Clause 15 for that concept in any SBVR Content Model
exchange document it produces. It may use other representations of the same concept for other purposes, including
other forms of exchange documents.

• The software tool interprets the specified representation of the concept as having the meaning given by the Definition
of that concept in this specification, and interprets instances of the concept as having the associated characteristics.

• No Necessity concerning that concept that is given in this specification is violated by any fact in any fact model
maintained by the software tool nor in any SBVR Content Model exchange document it produces.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 5

Note: The requirement to interpret an instance as having the associated characteristics should not be interpreted to require a
conforming processor to use any elaborate reasoning to determine characteristics that may be implied by the facts provided,
even when those implications are stated as Necessities in SBVR. The intent of the requirement is that what the tool does with
the instance is consistent with the SBVR interpretation of the facts provided.

Use of Reference Schemes given in this specification is recommended, but not required.

Note, Example, and Dictionary Basis elements of the “glossary entry” for the concept in this specification are purely
informative. All other elements are to be understood as giving the meaning and required characteristics of the concept.
The glossary entry also specifies the representation of the concept that is used in this specification, while Clauses 13 and
15 specify the representation of the concept in exchange documents conforming to this specification.

Note: A concept is a meaning. Support for an SBVR concept is about using that meaning appropriately in the operation of the
tool, and representing that meaning using the corresponding SBVR designator in SBVR Content Model exchange documents.
The internal designations and other representations for the meaning, and the representation of that meaning in other exchange
documents are not concerns of this specification.

2.3 Compliance Points

For conforming software, this specification defines four compliance points. A conforming software tool may conform to
the compliance points as specified in 2.5 and 2.6. For every conforming software tool, a claim of conformance shall
specify the compliance points to which conformance of the tool is claimed. The sub clauses of this clause define the
compliance points. Figure 2.1 shows the relationship of the compliance points in terms of the UML packages to which
they correspond.

6 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Meaning and Representat ion
Vocabulary

«merge»

«merge»

Vocabulary f or Describing
Business Vocabularies

Logical Formulation of «merge»

Semantics Vocabulary

Vocabulary f or Describing
Business Rules

«merge»

«merge»

SBVR

Figure 2.1

2.3.1 Meaning and Representation

A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall support all of the concepts in the Meaning And
Representation Vocabulary specified in Clause 8. This corresponds to support for UML Package “Meaning and
Representation Vocabulary.”

2.3.2 Logical Formulation of Semantics

A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall support (as defined in 2.2) all of the concepts in the Logical
Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary specified in Clause 9. This corresponds to support for UML Package “Logical
Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary.”

2.3.3 Business Vocabulary

A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall support (as defined in 2.2) all of the concepts in the Business
Vocabulary specified in Clause 11. This corresponds to support for UML Package “Vocabulary for Describing Business
Vocabularies.”

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 7

2.3.4 Business Rules

A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall support (as defined in 2.2) all of the concepts in the Business
Rules Vocabulary specified in Clause 12 and all of the concepts in the Business Vocabulary specified in Clause 11. This
corresponds to support for UML Package “Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules.”

2.3.5 Restricted Higher Order Logic (Additional Conformance)

An SBVR Content Model exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated
in sub clause 10.4.1 and 10.4.2.

A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.5) and shall produce no
exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above.

2.3.6 First Order Logic (Additional Conformance)

An SBVR Content Model exchange document that conforms to this compliance point shall satisfy the requirement stated
in sub clause 10.4.1 and 10.4.3.

A software tool that conforms to this compliance point shall conform as an SBVR producer (see 2.5) and shall produce no
exchange file that does not conform to this compliance point, as defined above.

2.4 Conformance of an SBVR Content Model Exchange Document

An exchange document that conforms to this specification (an “SBVR Content Model exchange document”) shall be an
XML document that represents a ‘fact model’ as specified in Clause 13 “SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI.”

The fact model shall be based on the conceptual schema specified in sub clause 13.5 - the “SBVR model of SBVR.” The
exchange document shall identify its document type as one of the XML Schemas specified in sub clause 15.3, using the
URI for that schema specified in 15.4.

Note: A business vocabulary or a business conceptual schema can be stated as a fact model that conforms to one of the
conceptual schemas in Clause 15. The conformance of a fact model to a business conceptual schema so defined could be
specified by the business that owns it, following the pattern of this specification. But this specification only defines conformance
rules and Necessities for the concepts defined in the SBVR conceptual schema. Specifying the real requirements for
conformance to a business-defined schema is beyond the scope of SBVR.

The body of facts represented in the fact model shall not contradict any Necessity in the SBVR conceptual schema.
However, no concept is closed in the SBVR conceptual schema. A conforming fact model need not identify all things that
necessarily exist, and a conforming fact model need not include a fact that expresses every necessary property of a thing
that is referenced in the fact model. No Necessity should be interpreted as a requirement for inclusion of a fact in the fact
model.

EXAMPLE
There is a rule that every statement expresses exactly one proposition. A fact model that includes that a given statement
expresses two different propositions is not conformant. But a conforming document can include a statement without
relating the statement to a proposition, even though the proposition necessarily exists.

8 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Note: If a use of SBVR for exchange between tools requires that certain kinds of things or facts be fully represented in the
exchange document, the SBVR conceptual schema can be extended for that purpose by adding the facts that particular concepts
are closed or particular fact types are internally closed (see Clause 13).

An exchange document that conforms to this specification may include representations of instances of any class (noun
concept) or association (verb concept) that is defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11, or 12.

Note: Not every conforming processor will support all of the concepts that can appear in a conforming SBVR document.
Every conforming processor, however, is required to accept every conforming document. See 2.6.

For an XML exchange document that involves multiple namespaces, conformance to this specification is only defined for
that part of the exchange document that uses the SBVR namespaces defined in this specification.

Note: The document type of a conforming XML exchange document need not be one of the XML schemas defined in Clause
15. For example, the document schema may include an SBVR schema as a subordinate namespace. Similarly, the SBVR
schemas permit items like ‘definitions’ to have formal representations defined by other XML schemas.

2.5 Conformance of an SBVR Producer

A software tool that conforms as an SBVR producer shall produce exchange documents that conform to this specification
as specified in 2.4.

An SBVR producer may be able to produce representations of instances of any concepts specified in Clauses 8, 9, 11, and
12. An SBVR producer is not required to be able to produce a representation of instances of any specific concept defined
in this specification.

For a conforming SBVR producer, a claim of conformance shall identify the SBVR concepts for which it can produce
representations of instances. It is recommended, but not required, that an SBVR producer be able to produce
representations of instances of all of the concepts for one or more of the compliance points specified in 2.3.

Note: A conforming SBVR producer may be able to produce representations of instances of some but not all of the concepts
defined for a compliance point. For such a software tool, support for the entire compliance point cannot be claimed, but its
ability to produce representations of instances of the specific concepts it supports should be documented.

Note: As indicated in 2.4, an SBVR producer may produce instances of concepts not defined in SBVR as well. In such a case,
the SBVR fact model would be only a part of the exchange document.

An SBVR producer shall support (as defined in 2.2) all of the SBVR concepts for which it is able to produce
representations of instances.

An SBVR producer shall not convey in the exchange document the intent of an SBVR concept by using a representation
that is not specified herein.

2.6 Conformance of an SBVR Processor

A software tool that conforms as an SBVR processor shall accept any exchange document that conforms to this
specification as specified in 2.4. The interpretation it makes of any fact contained in the exchange document depends on
whether the software tool supports the concepts associated with that fact (see below).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 9

Note: Accepting a valid exchange document is distinguished from rejecting the document as not processable and using none
of the information in it. A tool can accept a document and nonetheless discard much of the information in it. Accepting is also
distinguished from supporting instances of concepts found in the exchange document, which refers to interpreting all facts about
instances of the concept properly into the internal models and functions of the tool (See 2.2).

For an SBVR processor, the SBVR compliance points (see 2.3) to which it claims conformance shall be documented.

Every SBVR processor shall be able to accept representations of facts about instances of all SBVR concepts, whether they
are associated with a compliance point for which conformance is claimed or not. Every SBVR processor shall be able to
accept each of the SBVR Content Model exchange documents listed in 15.4.

Every SBVR processor shall conform to the Meaning and Representation compliance point, as specified in 2.3.1. That is,
it shall support (as defined in 2.2) instances of all concepts specified in the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary.

An SBVR processor for which conformance to any other compliance point specified in sub clause 2.3 is claimed shall
support instances of all concepts specified in the SBVR vocabulary associated with that compliance point.

Note: Depending on what the SBVR processor actually does with the SBVR fact model, there may be SBVR concepts for
which there is no valid use in the function of the tool. For example, a tool that converts an SBVR fact model to some other
modeling language or rules language may find that there are SBVR concepts that have no image in the target language. In such
a case, the proper support for the SBVR concept may be to do nothing with it.

When an SBVR processor encounters a representation of an instance of a concept for which conformance is not claimed
(including concepts that are not SBVR concepts), the processor may choose to do any of the following:

• ignore the instance;

• support the instance, and the SBVR concept it instantiates;
• interpret the instance via internal concepts that are not SBVR concepts per se.

An SBVR processor may, but need not, provide a warning when it encounters a representation of an instance it does not
support.

3 Normative References
The following normative documents contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of this
specification. For dated references, subsequent amendments to, or revisions of, any of these publications do not apply.

• Berners-Lee, T., R. Fielding, L. Masinter. IETF RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax,
August 1998.

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 639-2. Codes for the Representation of Names of
Languages, Part 2: Alpha-3 Code. Library of Congress, 2002.

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : 1087-1. Terminology work — Vocabulary — Part 1: Theory and
Application

• Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, v2.0

(http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/06-01-01.pdf).

• MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1

(http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05-09-01.pdf).

10 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) : ISO 6093. Information processing - Representation of
numerical values in character strings for information interchange. 1985.

• OMG UML 2 Infrastructure, v2.1.1

(http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-02-04.pdf).

• The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

• The New Oxford Dictionary of English.

• The Oxford Dictionary of English.

• Unicode 4.0.0 specification : Glossary (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/b1.pdf).

4 Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this specification, the terms and definitions given in the normative reference and the following apply.
SBVR
shorthand for Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules.
SBVR Vocabularies
the vocabularies that make up SBVR itself, for talking about semantics, vocabulary, and rules.
Business Vocabulary
A vocabulary that is under business jurisdiction.
Business Rule
a rule that is under business jurisdiction.
Business Vocabulary+Rules
a business vocabulary plus a set of business rules specified in terms of that business vocabulary.
SBVR XMI Metamodel
the MOF model created from the combination of SBVR’s Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary, Vocabulary for
Describing Business Vocabularies, and Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules.
Terminological Dictionary
a collection of representations including at least one designation or definition of each of a set of concepts from one or
more specific subject fields, together with other specifications of those concepts.
Vocabulary
a set of designations (such as terms and names) and verb concept wordings primarily drawn from a single language to
express concepts within a body of shared meanings. Note that this specification does not use the word “vocabulary” to
refer to a dictionary or to any other sort of collection of terminological data.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 11

5 Symbols
FL The indicated term is to be interpreted in formal logic. Terms without this symbol are not interpreted in formal logic.

Figures in Clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12 depict the SBVR XMI Metamodel using notational conventions described in Clause
13. For the purpose of visualizing vocabularies, Annex C describes a non-normative interpretation of those same figures
and of figures in Annex G. Other non-normative notations used in Clauses 7 through 12 are explained in Annexes A and
H.

6 Additional Information
6.1 Changes to Adopted OMG Specifications
This specification does not require or request any change to any other OMG specification.

6.2 How to Read this Specification

This specification describes a vocabulary, or actually a set of vocabularies, using terminological entries. Each entry
includes a definition, along with other specifications such as notes and examples. Often, the entries include rules
(necessities) about the particular item being defined.

The sequencing of the clauses in this specification reflects the inherent logical order of the subject matter itself. Later
clauses build semantically on the earlier ones. The initial clauses are therefore rather ‘deep’ in terms of SBVR’s
grounding in formal logics and linguistics. Only after these clauses are presented do clauses more relevant to day-to-day
business communication and business rules emerge.

This overall form of presentation, essential for a vocabulary standard, unfortunately means the material is rather difficult
to approach. A figure presented for each sub-vocabulary does help illustrate its structure; however, no continuous
'narrative' or explanation is appropriate.

6.2.1 About the Annexes

For that reason, the first-time general reader is urged to start with some of the non-normative Annexes, which do provide
full explanation of the material, as well as context and purpose.

• Annex E, Overview of the Approach, is strongly recommended in that regard. It provides a general introduction to the
fundamental concepts and approach of SBVR.

• Annex F, The Business Rules Approach, explains the core ideas and principles of business rules, which underpin
SBVR’s origin and focus. This short Annex is strongly recommended for readers who are unfamiliar with this area.

Good preparation for reading the specification is becoming familiar with the notation (non-normative) used to present the
entries.

• Annex A, SBVR Structured English, provides comprehensive explanation in that regard.

• Annex B, SBVR Structured English Patterns, explains how to verbalize terminological entries.

General practitioners will find the following sections of significant interest.

12 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 • Annex G, EU-Rent Example, provides a comprehensive case study, with a robust vocabulary and set of business rules
fully worked through. Examples from EU-Rent are used widely in both the specification and Annexes to provide on-
going commonality.

• Annex H, The RuleSpeakR Business Rule Notation, presents a widely-used, business-friendly syntax for expressing
business rules.

• Annex I, Concept Diagram Graphic Notation, offers suggestions for how an SBVR vocabulary can be diagrammed.

• Annex C, Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to Represent SBVR-style Vocabularies, is of special interest to
practitioners familiar with UML diagramming.

Object-Role Modeling (ORM)-related Annexes:

• Annex J, The ORM Notation for Verbalizing Facts and Business Rules, provides an introduction to the ORM approach.
ORM contributes heavily to the theoretical underpinnings of SBVR, and represents some of the best practices in fact-
based vocabulary and rule development.

• Annex L, ORM Examples Related to the Logical Foundations for SBVR, provides supplemental ORM material further
clarifying the normative material, Logical Foundations for SBVR.

For those specialists and researchers interested in standards and/or in the formal logics underpinning of SBVR, the
following material is of special interest.

• Annex K, Mappings and Relationships to Other Initiatives, addresses where and how SBVR fits with other software
and standards initiatives.

For practitioners interested in a methodology supporting SBVR, used productively in industry for over 30 years, the fact-
oriented approach NIAM2007 offers interesting advice.

• Annex M - a Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the NIAM2007 Procedure to Specify a Conceptual Schema.

• Annex D, Additional References, provides supplemental sources relevant to the formal underpinnings of SBVR.

6.2.2 About the Normative Specification

The rest of this document contains the technical content of this specification. As background for this specification,
readers are encouraged to first read:

Clauses 7-15 contain clauses for the SBVR vocabularies and rules that are the foundation for the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

Clauses 7-15 address different audiences. Four of the clauses are directly tied to conformance points, which are listed in
Clause 2. Clause 7 gives names to the SBVR Vocabularies and to some other vocabularies and namespaces used by
SBVR. Clause 8 provides the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, which covers different kinds of meaning and
representations. It is the foundation for the rest of the specification. Clause 9 provides the Logical Formulation of
Semantics Vocabulary, which is the SBVR way to formulate semantics. It is not a vocabulary for business people but,
rather, for detailed descriptions of the meanings of business words and statements. Clause 10 shows the formal logics and
mathematical underpinnings of SBVR. Numerous concepts in clauses 8 and 9 are marked with the symbol ‘FL’ indicating
that they are mapped to formal logics concepts in 10.

Clauses 11 and 12 provide (respectively) the Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies and the Vocabulary for
Describing Business Rules, which are for use in business to describe vocabularies and terminological dictionaries (11)
and business rules (12).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 13

Clause 13 specifies how SBVR uses MOF and XMI. Clause 14 is an index of vocabulary entries in Clauses 7-13. Clause
15 lists supporting documents, such as an XMI-based XML schema for the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

Clauses 7-15 use SBVR Structured English to define the SBVR vocabularies and rules. Annex A describes how the
Structured English is interpreted such that SBVR is specified in terms of itself.

Much of the material in Part II is illustrated by examples in the annexes, especially Annex G.

Although the clauses are organized in a logical manner and can be read sequentially, this is a reference specification and
is intended to be read in a non-sequential manner. Consequently, extensive cross-references are provided to facilitate
browsing and search.

6.3 Acknowledgements
The following companies submitted and/or supported parts of this specification:

• Adaptive
• Automated Reasoning Corporation
• Business Rule Solutions, LLC
• Business Rules Group
• Business Semantics Ltd
• Fujitsu Ltd
• Hendryx & Associates
• Hewlett-Packard Company
• InConcept
• LibRT
• KnowGravity Inc
• MEGA
• Model Systems
• Neumont University
• Perpetual Data Systems
• PNA Group
• Sandia National Laboratories
• The Rule Markup Initiative
• Unisys Corporation
• X-Change Technologies Group

14 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Part II - Business Vocabulary+Rules for Business
Vocabulary+Rules
This part contains the SBVR vocabularies and rules that are the foundation for the SBVR XMI Metamodel. The clauses
of Part II address different audiences.

Clause 7 gives names to the SBVR Vocabularies and to some other vocabularies and namespaces used by SBVR. Clause
8 provides the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary, which covers different kinds of meaning and representations. It is
the foundation for the rest of the specification. Clause 9 provides the Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary,
which is the SBVR way to formulate semantics. It is not a vocabulary for business people, but rather, for detailed
descriptions of the meanings of business words and statements. Clause 10 shows the formal logics and mathematical
underpinnings of SBVR. Numerous concepts in clauses 8 and 9 are marked with the symbol ‘FL’ indicating that they are
mapped to formal logics concepts in Clause 10.

Clauses 11 and 12 provide (respectively) the vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies and the Vocabulary for
Describing Business Rules, which are for use in business to describe vocabularies and terminological dictionaries (11) and
business rules (12).

Clause 13 specifies how SBVR uses MOF and XMI. Clause 14 is an index of vocabulary entries in Part II. Clause 15 lists
supporting documents, such as an XMI-based XML schema for the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

Part II uses SBVR Structured English to define the SBVR vocabularies and rules. Annex A describes how the Structured
English is interpreted such that SBVR is specified in terms of itself. Although the Structured English is non-normative, its
use in Clauses 7 through 12 has a normative interpretation described in subclause 13.6. Examples are in natural language
and use no particular notation except where noted.

Much of the material in Part II is illustrated by examples in the annexes, especially Annex G.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 15

16 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
7 Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary
7.1 Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary
This sub clause gives names of vocabularies and namespaces. Each one is either provided by SBVR or is external to SBVR
but formally referenced.

__________________________________________________

Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary

Language: English
___________________________________________________

7.1.1 Vocabularies Presented in this Document

Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary

General Concept: vocabulary
Note: This clause.

Meaning and Representation Vocabulary

General Concept: vocabulary
Note: See Clause 8 - Meaning and Representation Vocabulary.

Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary

General Concept: vocabulary
Note: See Clause 9 - Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary.

Formal Logic and Mathematics Vocabulary

General Concept: vocabulary
Note: See Clause 10 - Providing Semantic and Logical Foundations for Business Vocabulary and
Rules.

Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies

General Concept: vocabulary
Note: See Clause 11 - Business Vocabulary.

Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules

General Concept: vocabulary
Note: See Clause 12 - Business Rules.

SBVR Vocabulary
Definition: vocabulary that is a combination of the following: Meaning and Representation Vocabulary,
Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary, Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies,
and Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 17

7.1.2 External Vocabularies and Namespaces

ISO 1087-1 (English)

Definition: the vocabulary for the English language specified in [ISO1087-1]

ISO 6093 Number Namespace

Definition: the namespace of designations of decimal numbers specified in [ISO6093]
Namespace URI: urn:iso:std:iso:6093:clause:8

ISO 639-2 (English)

Definition: the vocabulary of English language names of languages specified in [ISO639-2] available at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html
Namespace URI: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/English_list.php

ISO 639-2 (Alpha-3 Code)

Definition: the vocabulary of 3-letter codes for languages specified in [ISO639-2] available at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html
Namespace URI: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php

UML 2 Infrastructure
Definition: the namespace of designations for UML 2 Infrastructure concepts as defined by
[UML2infr].

Unicode Glossary
Definition: the vocabulary presented in [Unicode4].

Uniform Resource Identifiers Vocabulary

Definition: the vocabulary presented in [IETF RFC 2396].

18 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

8 Meaning and Representation Vocabulary
8.1 General
The primary subjects of the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary fit between two other relevant subject areas described
below.

1. Expression – things used to communicate (e.g., sounds, text, diagrams, gestures), but apart from their meaning —
one expression can have many meanings.

2. Representation – the connection between expression and a meaning. Each representation ties one expression to one
meaning.

3. Meaning – what is meant by a word (a concept) or by a statement (a proposition) – how we think about things.

4. Extension – the things to which meanings refer, which can be anything (even expressions, representations, and
meanings when they are the subjects of our discourse).

Following are examples of how some things, like “driver,” cross through each subject area.

Extension Meaning Representation Expression

The actual drivers of Concept ‘driver’ — how we Designation of the concept The character sequence
motor vehicles think of drivers, what ‘driver’ by the signifier “driver”
characterizes them “driver”
Definition of the concept The character sequence
‘driver’ as “operator of a motor “operator of a motor vehicle”
vehicle”
The actual City of Individual noun concept ‘Los ‘Los Angeles’ as a designation The character sequence “Los
Los Angeles, Angeles’ — how we think of that for the individual noun concept Angeles”
California – a real city, what distinguishes it from of ‘Los Angeles’
place other places
For each car that is Characteristic applicable to a car, Verb concept wording ‘car is The text “car is out of
out of service, its what is meant by a car being out out of service’ as a template for service”
actually being out of of service the characteristic with ‘car’
service being a placeholder
The actual state of Proposition — the meaning of The statement, “EU-Rent must The character sequence
affairs of it being the statement “EU-Rent must not not rent to a barred driver,” “EU-Rent must not rent to a
obligatory in the EU- rent to a barred driver” having the proposition as its barred driver”
Rent business that it meaning
not rent to a barred
driver

Another subject area of this vocabulary is reference schemes, which are ways people use information about something to
identify it. For example, a city in the United States is identified by a name combined with the state it is in. The state is
identified by its name or by a two-letter state code.

Representations provide a reference scheme for concepts and propositions because they are always tied to exactly one
expression and to exactly one meaning. On the other hand, a single expression can have multiple meanings, a concept can

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 19

have multiple expressions, a thing can be an instance of many concepts, and a proposition can be meant by many equivalent
expressions.

A single representation can be tied to many speech acts, or to a single speech act, depending on how its expression is
identified. For example, if the expression is a text or a sequence of words independent of any particular act of writing or
speaking, the representation is independent in the same way. Conversely, if the expression is identified as belonging to a
specific speech act, then the representation is tied to that speech act also.

Note: in the glossary entries below, the words “Concept Type: role” indicate that a general concept being defined is a role.
Because it is a general concept, it is necessarily a situational role and is not a verb concept role.

The Meaning and Representation Vocabulary is not presented alphabetically. It is organized by subjects presented in the
following order.

1. Meanings
a. Concepts
b. Propositions
c. Questions

2. Expressions

3. Representations

4. Reference Schemes

5. Extensions

6. Elementary Concepts

__________________________________________________

Meaning and Representation Vocabulary

Language: English
___________________________________________________

20 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

8.2 Meanings

Figure 8.1

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

meaning
Definition: what is meant by a word, sign, statement, or description; what someone intends to express or
what someone understands

8.2.1 Concepts

concept FL
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.1) [‘concept’]
Definition: unit of knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics
General Concept: meaning
Reference Scheme: a designation of the concept

noun concept FL
Definition: concept that is the meaning of a noun or noun phrase
Concept Type: concept type
Reference Scheme: a closed projection that defines the noun concept

general concept
Synonym: general noun concept
Definition: noun concept that classifies things on the basis of their common properties

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 21

 Source: based on ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.3) ['general concept']
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: The set of characteristics that are incorporated by a general concept is not the set of
characteristics that are incorporated by another general concept.
Note: A general concept incorporates a set of characteristics which are a unique combination that
distinguishes that general concept from all other general concepts. See ‘concept
incorporates characteristic’. If a general concept A and a general concept B have the very
same incorporated characteristics, they are the same concept. If they have the very same
necessary characteristics, they are logically equivalent and they denote the same things in all
possible worlds.
Example: the concept ‘rental car’ corresponding to cars that are rented
Example: the concept ‘car’, the concept ‘number’, the concept ‘person’

concept type FL
Definition: general concept that specializes the concept ‘concept’
Note: A concept is related to a concept type by being an instance of the concept type.
Example: verb concept, role, concept type

role FL
Definition: noun concept that corresponds to things based on their playing a part, assuming a function or
being used in some situation
Concept Type: concept type
Example: the role ‘drop-off location’ of the verb concept ‘shipment has drop-off location’
Example: the role ‘shipment’ of the verb concept ‘shipment has drop-off location’, which should not be
confused with the general concept ‘shipment’ (which generalizes the role)
Example: the role ‘sum’ – a role of a number in relation to a set of numbers
Note: A role can be a general concept or a verb concept role. A role is always understood with
respect to actualities of a particular verb concept or to other particular situations.

verb concept role

Definition: role that specifically characterizes its instances by their involvement in an actuality that is an
instance of a given verb concept
Concept Type: concept type
Reference Scheme: a placeholder that represents the verb concept role
Reference Scheme: a variable that maps to the verb concept role
Reference Scheme: a characteristic that has the verb concept role
Necessity: Each verb concept role is in exactly one verb concept.
Necessity: No verb concept role is a general concept.
Note: A verb concept role is fundamentally understood as a point of involvement in actualities that
correspond to a verb concept. Its incorporated characteristics come from the verb concept -
what the verb concept requires of instances of the role. It is possible that two verb concept
roles incorporate the same characteristics, such as when a binary verb concept means the same
thing when roles are reversed, as in ‘person is married to person’.

22 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

verb concept FL
Definition: concept that specializes the concept ‘state of affairs’ and that is the meaning of a verb
phrase that involves one or more verb concept roles
Dictionary Basis: [SubeGFOL]: Propositional function, [GFOL] Predicate
Note: A propositional function becomes a proposition when it is closed; it is closed by binding it to a
logical constant (an individual noun concept) or a quantified variable (that ranges over some
possibly qualified noun concept).
Note: Each instance of a verb concept is a state of affairs. For each instance, each role of the verb
concept is one point of involvement of something in that state of affairs.
Note: Two verb concept definitions define the same verb concept if they reveal the same
incorporated characteristics and the same verb concept roles.
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: Each verb concept has at least one verb concept role.
Necessity: Each proposition that is created by binding all the verb concept roles of a given verb
concept means what the definition of the verb concept defines it to mean.
Necessity: The definition that represents each verb concept is consistent with and defines exactly the
complete set of propositions that can be created by quantifying each verb concept role of
the verb concept
Note: A verb concept role is played by a thing in the domain of discourse - the world of interest. A
verb concept is 'bound' by specifying the thing(s) that play the verb concept role. Linguistically
those things can be specified by a quantified noun phrase or by an individual noun concept or
by a pronoun that refers to a specific thing.
Reference Scheme: a verb concept wording of the verb concept
Reference Scheme: a closed projection that defines the verb concept

general verb concept FL

Definition: verb concept that has at least one open verb concept role that has not been closed with an
individual noun concept
Concept Type: concept type

unitary verb concept FL

Definition: general verb concept that has exactly one instance in a possible world at a given time
Necessity: Each role of a unitary verb concept ranges over a unitary noun concept.
Necessity: At least one role of a unitary verb concept ranges over a unitary noun concept that is a
general concept.
Note: Unitary verb concepts allow individual states of affairs that are needed in a business
vocabulary to be included in a body of shared meanings.
Note: Changes in the extensions of the unitary noun concepts that fill the roles of a unitary verb
concept cause the unitary verb concept to correspond to a different state of affairs.
Example: “The President (a situational role) flies to the alternate seat of government (a situational role)
on Air Force One (a situational role)”. The single state of affairs in the extension changes as,
over time, different people, places and aircraft fill the roles.
Example: “the consolidated global account (a situational role) is filed in the base currency (a situational
role) in the compliant format (a situational role)” specializes the verb concept “account is filed
in currency in acceptable format”. It defines the unitary verb concept that currently has the
extension “the consolidated global account is filed in Swiss Francs in XBRL”

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 23

individual verb concept FL
Concept Type: verb concept, proposition
Definition: verb concept that has each verb concept role closed by an individual noun concept and
that corresponds to exactly one state of affairs in all possible worlds at all (relevant) times
Definition: proposition that is derived by closing each role of a verb concept with an individual noun
concept
Note: Individual verb concepts allow individual states of affairs that are needed in a business
vocabulary to be included in a body of shared meanings.
Necessity: Each role of an individual verb concept is filled by an individual noun concept.
Example: “EU-Rent was incorporated in Luxembourg in 1991” and “EU-Corp was incorporated in
Geneva in 1993” are individual verb concepts that are derived from the verb concept
“company was incorporated in jurisdiction in calendar year”.
Example: “EU-Corp has owned EU-Rent since 1993” is an individual verb concept that is derived from
the verb concept “company has owned company since calendar year”.

characteristic FL
Definition: verb concept that has exactly one role
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.4) [‘characteristic’]
Definition: abstraction of a property of an object [thing] or of a set of objects
Synonym: unary verb concept
Example: The verb concept ‘shipment is late’ whose instances are actualities of shipments being late.
There is one instance of the verb concept for each shipment that is late.
Note: A characteristic always has exactly one role, but it can be defined using verb concepts having
multiple roles.
Example: The characteristic ‘driver is of age’ with this definition: “the age of the driver is at least the
EU-Rent Minimum Driving Age.” The semantic formulation of this definition appears in the
introduction to Clause 9 - Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary.

binary verb concept FL

Definition: verb concept that has exactly 2 roles
Example: The verb concept ‘shipment has drop-off location’ whose instances are actualities of
shipments having drop-off locations.
Example: The verb concept ‘number is greater than number’ whose instances are actualities of numbers
being greater than other numbers, there being one instance for every pair of numbers where
one is greater than the other.
Note: A verb concept can have two roles that seem to be identical (e.g., ‘person is married to person’
where each role can be called ‘spouse’). Even though they incorporate the same characterstics,
they are distinct in that they indicate two distinct points of involvement in each actuality the
verb concept corresponds to.

unitary noun concept

Synonym: unitary concept
Concept Type: role
Definition: noun concept that corresponds to at most one thing at a time
Concept Type: concept type

24 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: A unitary noun concept has at most one instance at any given time in a given possible world,
but the instance can change over time.
Note: Different definite descriptions of the same thing can represent different unitary noun concepts
that correspond to that thing.
Example: The unitary noun concept ‘Air Force One’: the airplane that is carrying the President of the
United States, which may be a different aircraft at different times.

individual noun concept FL

Synonym: individual concept
Dictionary Basis: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual concept’]
Definition: noun concept that corresponds to at most one thing in all possible worlds
Concept Type: concept type
Necessity: No individual noun concept is a general concept.
Necessity: No individual noun concept is a verb concept role.
Note: Individual noun concepts are unitary noun concepts whose extensions are necessarily invariant
across all possible worlds.
Note: While each referring individual noun concept has at most one and the same instance in all
possible worlds, there can be multiple individual noun concepts that correspond to the same
thing. Different definite descriptions of the same individual thing can represent different
individual noun concepts that correspond to that thing. If an individual noun concept does not
correspond to any thing in some world, it does not correspond to any thing in any possible
world.
Note: A full understanding of ‘individual noun concept’ requires a full understanding of the
Necessities in sub clause 8.6.2 “Necessities Concerning Extension.”
Example: The individual noun concept ‘California’ whose one instance is an individual state in the
United States of America.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 25

8.2.1.1 About Concepts

is coextensive with specializes

generalizes

concept

noun concept verb concept

incorporates
1

role
ranges over is in

characteristic

1 ..*
general concept verb concept role
role

Figure 8.2

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

concept1 specializes concept2 FL

Definition: the concept1 incorporates each characteristic that is incorporated by the concept2 plus at
least one differentiator
Synonymous Form: concept2 generalizes concept1
Note: The extension of a concept that specializes another is always a subset of the extension of the
other, but not necessarily a proper subset. The differentiator that makes one concept more
specific than the other is conceptual and does not necessarily restrict the extension of the
concept.
Example: The noun concept ‘whole number’ specializes the noun concept ‘integer’, the differentiator
being that whole numbers are nonnegative.
Example: The individual noun concept ‘Los Angeles’ specializes the concept ‘city’, the differentiator
being that Los Angeles is one particular city in California.

concept1 is coextensive with concept2 FL

Definition: the extension of the concept1 is always the extension of the concept2
Note: Semantic integrations between communities often involve recognizing where different
concepts (having different intensions) have the same extensions in all possible worlds. Also, it
is possible that concepts employing different methods of conceptualization have the same
extension in all cases. For example, a noun concept that specializes the concept ‘actuality’ can
be coextensive with a verb concept.
Example: The individual noun concept defined as “the thirtieth president of the United States” is
coextensive with a general concept defined as “president of the United States in 1925”. The

26 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 two concepts have the same extension (which includes only Calvin Coolidge) but they are
different concepts.

concept incorporates characteristic FL

Definition: the characteristic is an abstraction of a property of each instance of the concept and is one
of the characteristics that makes up the concept
Note: Every characteristic incorporated by a concept is a necessary characteristic of the concept, but
not every necessary characteristic of the concept is incorporated by the concept. Only those
that are part of what makes up the concept are considered to be incorporated. Given an
intensional definition of a concept, incorporated characteristics include all of these:
1. characteristics incorporated by the definition’s more general concept (recursively)
2. the definition’s delimiting characteristics
3. characteristics intrinsic to the delimiting characteristics (see example below)
4. any conjunctive combination of any of the characteristics above
Given an extensional definition, one that uses disjunction, characteristics that are found on
each side of the disjunction are incorporated characteristics. Two definitions can define the
same general concept by producing the same set of incorporated characteristics. The two
definitions can directly identify different sets of incorporated characteristics (1 and 2 above)
that are sufficient to determine the others (3 and 4 above). The way incorporated characteristics
fall into 1 through 4 above can differ from one definition to another while producing the same
overall set.
Example: The concept “wrecked rental car”, defined as “rental car that is nonoperational due to being in
an accident”, incorporates the following characteristics:
1. characteristics incorporated by the more general concept ‘rental car’ - e.g., being a car,
being a vehicle, being rentable, and (combining them all) being a rental car
2. the delimiting characteristic: being nonoperational due to being in an accident
3. characteristics intrinsic to the delimiting characteristics - e.g., being nonoperational and
having been in an accident
4. all conjunctive combinations of the characteristics given above - e.g., being a
nonoperational vehicle, being a wrecked car
Example: The concept ‘qualified driver’ incorporates the characteristic ‘driver is licensed’ because it is
necessary (by the definition of ‘qualified driver’) that each qualified driver is licensed.

role ranges over general concept

Definition: each characteristic that is incorporated by the general concept is incorporated by the
role
Note: Saying that a role ranges over a general concept is similar to saying the role specializes the
general concept in that the role incorporates every characteristic incorporated by the general
concept, and therefore, each instance of the role is necessarily an instance of the general
concept. But “ranges over” is different in that it allows that both the role and the general
concept incorporate the same characteristics - the general concept can incorporate a
characteristic that its instances fill that role.
Note: Sometimes a role can be played by instances of any of a variety of types. For example, a role
‘customer’ might range over “person or organization”. This is not a case of a role ranging over
multiple general concepts. Rather, it is a case of a role ranging over a single general concept

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 27

 that is defined extensionally. In this case the single general concept is defined as “person or
organization”. In contrast, saying a role ranges over multiple general concepts means that any
thing that fills the role is always an instance of each of those general concepts. It is equivalent
to saying the role ranges over a single, possibly anonymous, general concept whose
incorporated characteristics are the union of those incorporated by the multiple general
concepts.
Note: A general concept ranged over by a role can be a situational role.
Example: The role ‘company’ of the verb concept ‘company employs person’ ranges over the general
concept ‘company’

verb concept has role FL

Definition: the role is an abstraction of a thing playing a part in an instance of the verb concept
Synonymous Form: verb concept role is in verb concept

8.2.2 Propositions

m e a n in g

is tr u e
p ro p o s iti o n
is fa lse

is n e ce ssa rily t ru e

is p o ssib ly tr u e

is o b lig a t ed to b e t ru e

is p e rm it te d t o b e tr ue

fa c t

Figure 8.3

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

28 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

proposition FL
Definition: meaning of a declarative sentence that is not a paradox and that is invariant through all the
paraphrases and translations of the sentence including synonymous closed logical formulations
Note: A wff is a special case of statement in which there are no free occurrences of any variable, i.e.,
either it has constants in place of variables, or its variables are bound, or both.
Source: [SubeGFOL]: proposition (2 & 3), Wff, Closed Wff
Necessity: It is necessary that each proposition that is created by binding all the verb concept roles of a
given verb concept means what the definition of the very concept defines it to mean.
Note: A verb concept role is played by a thing in the domain of discourse - the world of interest. A
verb concept is ‘bound’ by specifying the thing(s) that play the verb concept role.
Linguistically those things can be specified by a quantified noun phrase or by an individual
noun concept or an expression or a pronoun that refers to a specific thing.
Note: A proposition is always either true or false with respect to a possible world regardless of
whether its truth value is known or is of interest.
Note: Clause 9.2, Logical Formulations, describes one of the ways to understand the logical structure
of propositions, including how concepts, such as individual noun concepts, general concepts,
verb concepts and roles, fit into that structure.
Note: The word “proposition” has two common meanings: first, a statement that affirms or denies
something, and second, the meaning of such a statement. The concept ‘proposition’ is here
defined in the second sense and should not be confused with the statement of a proposition.
Note: The truth-value of the proposition is separate from the proposition (i.e., the meaning of the
statement). The proposition means the same thing in every possible world, but the truth-value
may be different in different possible worlds and is not necessarily relevant to every use of the
proposition. Documenting the truth-value of a proposition is out of scope for SBVR and
belongs to the domain of data management or rules enforcement.
Reference Scheme: a closed logical formulation that means the proposition
Reference Scheme: a statement of the proposition

proposition is true FL
Definition: the state of affairs that the proposition corresponds to is actual
Note: A proposition is true if and only the state of affairs to which it corresponds is actual, regardless
of whether that state of affairs has been actual in the past or will be actual in the future.
Note: A proposition can be true with respect to one possible world and false with respect to another.
See “possible world” in Clause 10.

proposition is false FL
Definition: the state of affairs that the proposition corresponds to is not actual

fact FL
Definition: proposition that is taken as true
Note: How one ascertains what is true, whether by assertion, observation, or other means, is outside
the scope of this specification. However, taking a proposition as true must be consistent with
epistemic commitment. The concept ‘fact’ is here defined to be consistent with the operations
of truth-functional logic, which produce results based on true and false.

proposition is necessarily true FL

Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in all possible worlds

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 29

 Note: A proposition is considered to be necessarily true if it is true by definition - the definitions of
relevant concepts make it logically impossible for the proposition to be false.

proposition is possibly true

Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in some possible world
it is possible that the proposition corresponds to an actuality

proposition is obligated to be true FL

Definition: the proposition corresponds to an actuality in all acceptable worlds
Note: The concept ‘acceptable world’ is described in Clause 10.

proposition is obligated to be false FL

Definition: the proposition does not correspond to an actuality in any acceptable world

proposition is permitted to be true FL

Definition: the proposition is not obligated to be false
Note: The concept ‘acceptable world’ is described in Clause 10.

8.2.3 Questions

question
Definition: meaning of an interrogatory
Note: The word “question” has two common meanings: first, a written or spoken expression of
inquiry, and second, the meaning of such an inquiry. By the second definition, a single
question could be asked in two languages. But by the first definition, using two language
results in two expressions, and therefore, two questions. The concept ‘question’ is here
defined in the second sense (meaning) and should not be confused with the expression or
representation of a question.
Reference Scheme: a closed projection that means the question

8.3 Expressions
expression
Definition: something that expresses or communicates, but considered independently of its interpretation
Example: the sequence of characters “car”
Example: the sequence of speech sounds (t), (r), and (e)
Example: a smile
Example: a diagram
Example: The entire text of a book

text
Source: Unicode 4.0.0 Glossary [‘Character Sequence’]
General Concept: expression
Note: The concept ‘text’ has no explicit reference scheme, but rather, is used as a target for
reference schemes.

30 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: A detailed vocabulary concerning text is provided by the Unicode specification. Taking the
concept ‘text’ from the Unicode specification does not mean that a text is a Unicode encoding,
but rather, it implies that a text can be represented by a Unicode encoding in electronic
communications. Unicode encodings provide the common means of text representation in
word processors, mail systems, the Internet, and so on. The encodings tend to be invisible to
people writing and reading the text.
Note: A text is taken as a sequence of characters. Interpretation of markup is not addressed by this
document.

URI
Source: Uniform Resource Identifiers Vocabulary [‘URI’]
Definition: text that identifies a resource as specified by [IETF RFC 2396]
Synonym: uniform resource identifier
Note: The concept ‘URI’ is introduced into this specification in order to provide a universal context
for reference schemes.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 31

8.4 Representations

represents

1 represents 1
expression representation meaning
expression representation meaning
1
signifier
{subsets expression }
{subsets meaning}
designation concept
designation 1
{ subsets meaning } 1

placeholder
text
definition
definition
{subsets meaning}
verb concept wording verb concept
verb concept 1
wording
expresses 1
statement proposition
statement {subsets meaning}

Figure 8.4

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

expression represents meaning

Definition: the expression portrays or signifies the meaning

representation
Definition: actuality that a given expression represents a given meaning
Necessity: Each representation has exactly one expression.
Necessity: Each representation represents exactly one meaning.

representation has expression

representation represents meaning
Synonymous Form: meaning has representation
Synonymous Form: representation has meaning

8.4.1 Designations

designation
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.4.1) [‘designation’]
Definition: representation of a concept by a sign which denotes it

32 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: In common usage, the signifier of a designation is used to refer to the instances of the
designated concept. The designation, as defined here and in ISO 1087-1, does not refer to those
instances directly, but relates the signifier to the concept. See ‘concept has instance’ in 8.6.1.
Necessity: Each designation represents a concept.
Reference Scheme: the signifier of the designation and a namespace that includes the designation
Reference Scheme: A verb concept wording that demonstrates the designation
Reference Scheme: the signifier of the designation and the concept that is represented by the designation

signifier
Definition: expression that is a linguistic unit or pattern, such as a succession of speech sounds, written
symbols or gestures, used in a designation of a concept
Concept Type: role
Example: the sequence of characters “car” used in a designation of the concept ‘automobile’ or used in
a designation of the concept ‘railroad car’
Example: the sequence of speech sounds (t), (r), and (e) used in a designation of the concept ‘tree’
Example: The graphic “€” used in a designation of the concept ‘Euro’

designation has signifier

Definition: the signifier is the expression of the designation

concept has designation

Definition: the designation represents the concept

8.4.2 Definitions

definition
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.3.1) [‘definition’]
Definition: representation of a concept by a descriptive statement [expression] which serves to
differentiate it from related concepts
Definition: representation (as through a word or phrase) expressing the essential nature of a person or
thing or class of persons or of things : an answer to the question “what is x?” or “what is an x?”
Necessity: Each definition represents a concept.
Reference Scheme: the expression of the definition and a closed projection that formalizes the definition
Note: ‘definition’ is used in SBVR in the sense of the formal term “definiens.”

concept has definition

Definition: the definition represents the concept

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 33

8.4.3 Statements

statement
Definition: representation of a proposition by an expression that is non-paradoxical and meaningful
and that is a simple sentence with one declarative clause, or a complex sentence or group of
sentences that together contain one or more declarative clauses
Necessity: Each statement expresses exactly one proposition.
Reference Scheme: the expression of the statement and a closed logical formulation that formalizes the
statement
Note: A statement combines a single expression with a single meaning of that expression. If an
expression is an ambiguous sentence, one that represents two different propositions, each of
the two representations is considered to be a separate statement. See ‘expression is
unambiguous to speech community’ in 11.3.1.4.
Note: A paradoxical expression is not an expression of a statement. A paradox is independent of
whether or not the truth-value is known.
Note: In sentences each declarative clause represents individually a given proposition that is its
meaning. Complex sentences and groups of multiple sentences can also represent a single
proposition. The terms “sentence” and “clause” are used in SBVR with their most common
grammatical meaning
Note: Including a statement of a proposition in a descriptive example does not assert the truth of the
proposition. It is simply an illustrative example of the concept. This is unlike including a
statement of the same proposition in a factbase which, by definition, includes an assertion of
“taken to be true.”
Necessity: Each statement that represents a given proposition and each closed logical
formulation that means that given proposition must be synonymous, and both individually
and together with all the others determine the propositon i.e., the meaning.
Note: How the meaning of a statement is determined depends on the natural language in which it is
expressed. SBVR defines how to determine the meaning of a closed logical formuation.

statement expresses proposition

Definition: the statement represents the proposition
Synonymous Form: proposition has statement

8.4.4 Verb Concept Wordings

The concepts defined in this sub clause are intended to provide a means of representing syntactic elements of a language that
are used to represent verb concepts in statements and definitions. The elements defined here are intentionally minimal and may
or may not be adequate for specific languages.

34 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 demonstrates
designation
0..1

1 uses
verb concept wording
is in

placeholder 1..*
placeholder

is at
starting character position 0..1
sentential form noun form positive integer
starting
character
position

Figure 8.5

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

verb concept wording

Definition: representation of a verb concept by an expression that has a syntactic structure involving a
signifier for the verb concept and signifiers for its verb concept roles
Note: The word concept wording relates to a signifier for the verb concept by ‘verb concept
wording demonstrates designation. The verb concept wording relates to signifiers for the
verb concept roles by verb concept wording has placeholder’.
Note: A verb concept wording is not a designation for a verb concept. It is a syntactic structure of
expressions that is a pattern for using a designation of the verb concept in definitions and
statements.
Necessity: Each verb concept wording represents exactly one verb concept.
Necessity: Each verb concept wording has at least one placeholder.
Necessity: At most one role of a verb concept that has a verb concept wording is not represented
by a placeholder of the verb concept wording.
Necessity: No verb concept wording is a designation.
Necessity: Each verb concept wording demonstrates at most one designation.
Necessity: If a designation is demonstrated by a verb concept wording of a verb concept then the
verb concept has the designation.
Example: The verb concept wording ‘customer rents car’ demonstrates the designation ‘rents’ and has
two placeholders. One placeholder uses the designation ‘customer’ and is at the starting
character position 1. The other placeholder uses the designation ‘car’ and is at the starting
character position 16.
Example: The verb concept wording ‘driver of car’ demonstrates a designation ‘of’ and has two
placeholders, one using the designation ‘driver’ at the starting character position 1, and the
other using the designation ‘car’ at the starting character position 11.
Example: The verb concept wording ‘country charges tax rate on date’ demonstrates the designation
‘charges on’ that represents the same verb concept as the verb concept wording.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 35

 Note: Recognizing how a statement such as, “A customer must rent at most one car”, fits the pattern
or template of a verb concept wording, such as ‘customer rents car’, is part of the process of
language parsing and interpretation and is not covered by this specification.
Note: In some languages, verb concept wordings occur that involve only a positioning of
placeholders with no other designation — no verb or preposition.
Reference Scheme: the expression of the verb concept wording and a namespace that includes the verb
concept wording

verb concept has verb concept wording

Definition: the expression of the verb concept wording represents the verb concept as a
grammatical structure of expressions in some language
Definition: the verb concept wording represents the verb concept

verb concept wording demonstrates designation

Definition: the verb concept wording shows a pattern of using the designation, which is of the same
verb concept in an expression
Note: If a verb concept wording demonstrates a designation, the signifier of that designation is what
is seen in the expression of the verb concept wording when placeholder expressions have been
removed. See ‘verb symbol’ and ‘verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol’ in
Clause 11.

verb concept wording has placeholder

Definition: the placeholder indicates a place for expression of what fills a role in the verb concept
wording
Synonymous Form: placeholder is in verb concept wording

sentential form
Definition: verb concept wording that is a pattern or template that can be used for stating a proposition
based on a verb concept
Example: ‘car is used in rental agreement’ is a sentential form of a binary verb concept.
Example: ‘car is unavailable’ is a sentential form of a characteristic.
Example: Assuming there is a role ‘renter’ ranging over the concept ‘customer’, the following can all be
alternative sentential forms of the same verb concept:
car has renter
customer rents car
car is rented by customer
renter rents car
Necessity: Each role of the verb concept that has a sentential form is represented by a
placeholder of the sentential form.

noun form
Definition: verb concept wording that acts as a noun rather than forming a proposition
Note: A noun form can have a placeholder for each role of a verb concept, in which case the noun
form result comes from the role the first placeholder is for. A noun form can also have one less
placeholder than there are roles, in which case the noun form result comes from the role that no
placeholder is for.

36 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: ‘transferred car of car transfer’ for the verb concept ‘car transfer has transferred car’. This form
yields a transferred car.
Example: ‘| number |’for the verb concept ‘number has absolute value’. The form yields the absolute
value of the number.
Example: ‘number1 + number2’ for the verb concept ‘number1 + number2 = number3’. This form yields
the third number (the sum of adding the first two numbers).
Example: ‘transferring rental car’ for the verb concept ‘car transfer has transferred car’. This form yields
the car transfer, which is an action. Gerunds are used in noun forms like this for actions, events,
and states. They are used in sentences like this: “A rental car must be cleaned before
transferring the rental car.”

placeholder
Definition: designation of a verb concept role within a verb concept wording marking a place where,
in uses of the verb concept wording, an expression denotes what fills the verb concept
role
Necessity: Each placeholder is in exactly one verb concept wording.
Necessity: Each placeholder represents exactly one verb concept role.
Necessity: Each placeholder of each verb concept wording of a verb concept represents a verb
concept role of the verb concept.
Necessity: Each placeholder has at most one starting character position.
Necessity: Each placeholder of a verb concept wording that has a text has a starting character
position.
Reference Scheme: the verb concept wording that has the placeholder and the expression of the
placeholder and the starting character position of the placeholder
Note: The expression of a placeholder often consists of the signifier of a designation used by the
placeholder, but it can include other things such as delimiting characters (as in ‘[proposition] is
true’) or a subscript (as in ‘proposition1 is true’) by which the placeholder can be distinguished
within the verb concept wording that has it. A placeholder need not use a designation (as in ‘…
is true’).

starting character position

Definition: positive integer that is an ordinal position where a text starts within an encompassing text
Concept Type: role

placeholder is at starting character position

Definition: the expression of the placeholder is textual and occurs within a textual expression of a verb
concept wording starting at the starting character position
Synonymous Form: placeholder has starting character position
Note: If a placeholder is at a starting position within a verb concept wording, then the expression of
the placeholder exactly matches the characters in the expression of the verb concept wording,
character for character, from the starting character position through the full length of the
placeholder’s expression. Placeholders’ expressions do not overlap each other within the
expression of a verb concept wording. If the verb concept wording demonstrates a designation,
the designation’s signifier appears within the part or parts of the verb concept wording’s
expression that are not occupied by placeholders.
Note: See 13.7.4 for detailed examples showing various aspects of verb concept wordings,
placeholders, and their starting character positions.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 37

placeholder uses designation
Definition: the expression of the placeholder incorporates the signifier of the designation thereby
indicating that that verb concept role represented by the placeholder ranges over the concept
represented by the designation
Note: The means by which a placeholder incorporates a designation depends on convention. SBVR
does not require a particular convention, but it uses one described in Annex A, SBVR
Structured English.
Example: The ‘proposition’ placeholder in the verb concept wording ‘proposition is true’ uses the
designation ‘proposition’. The statement, “A fact is true,” is understood to use that verb
concept wording because a fact is a proposition, but “A line is true” is not recognized as using
that verb concept wording because a line is not a proposition.
Example: Consider two verb concept wordings for the same verb concept: ‘rental is returned on date’
and ‘rental has return date’. The second placeholders of the two forms represent the same role,
but they use different designations (‘date’ and ‘return date’). If “Rental 876” denotes a rental,
then the statement, “Rental 876 is returned on 30 June 2006,” is understood to use the first verb
concept wording because “30 June 2006” is understood to denote a date, but the statement,
“Rental 879 has 30 June 2006,” is not understood to use the second verb concept wording
because “30 June 2006” is not understood to denote a return date (only a date). “Rental 879
has the return date 30 June 2006” uses the second verb concept wording.
Example: In the verb concept wording ‘rental car1 replaces rental car2’, both placeholders (‘rental car1’
and ‘rental car2’) use the same designation, ‘rental car’.

8.4.5 Namespaces

is in incorporates
designation
contains
text
is in
verb concept wording namespace
contains
0..1
URI URI
also: uniform resource identifier

includes
vocabulary namespace attributive namespace
is within
attributive namespace

is for is for subject concept

language concept
1

Figure 8.6

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

38 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

namespace
Definition: collection of designations and/or verb concept wordings that are distinguishable from each
other by uniqueness of designator or form
Reference Scheme: a URI of the namespace

namespace1 incorporates namespace2

Definition: each designation and verb concept wording in the namespace2 is in the namespace1,
and if the namespace1 is a vocabulary namespace, each attributive namespace within
the namespace2 is incorporated into an attributive namespace in the namespace1 for the
same subject concept

designation is in namespace
Definition: the namespace contains the designation such that the signifier of the designation is the
signifier of no other designation in the namespace
Synonymous Form: namespace contains designation

verb concept wording is in namespace

Definition: the namespace contains the verb concept wording such that it is distinguishable from
every other verb concept wording in the namespace
Synonymous Form: namespace contains verb concept wording
Note: The distinguishability of a verb concept wording from others within a namespace is based on
how a use of the verb concept wording is recognized. Distinguishability considers positions of
placeholders, meanings of designations used by placeholders and the expression of the verb
concept wording excluding expressions of placeholders.
Example: The verb concept wording ‘proposition is true’ (with placeholder ‘proposition’) is
indistinguishable from ‘[proposition] is true’ (with placeholder ‘[proposition]’) because both
placeholders use a designation of the same concept (‘proposition’), but those two forms are
distinguishable from ‘line is true’ (with placeholder ‘line’) because ‘proposition’ and ‘line’
designate different concepts.

namespace has URI

Definition: the URI uniquely identifies the namespace
Necessity: Each URI is the URI of at most one namespace.

vocabulary namespace
Definition: namespace that is derived from a vocabulary

attributive namespace
Definition: namespace that contains designations recognizable in the context of being attributed to
instances of a particular concept
Necessity: Each attributive namespace is for exactly one subject concept.
Reference Scheme: a vocabulary namespace that includes the attributive namespace and the subject
concept that has the attributive namespace
Note: A designation in an attributive namespace typically represents a role of a binary verb
concept. In English, such a designation can typically be used with any of several attributive
forms, such as “... has …” or “… of …”. A designation in an attributive namespace can

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 39

 also represent a characteristic. Different languages have different attributive forms - different
grammatical structures relating a subject to something attributed to it.
Example: Given an attributive namespace for the subject concept ‘rental’, a designation ‘drop-off
date’ can be used in any of several attributive forms: “rental has drop-off date,” “drop-off date
of rental,” “rental’s drop-off date,” “drop-off date is of rental,” etc.
Example: Given an attributive namespace for the subject concept ‘rental’, the designation
‘assigned’ for the characteristic ‘rental is assigned’ is recognized where it applies to a rental,
as in “assigned rental.”

attributive namespace is for subject concept

Definition: the designations in the attributive namespace are for concepts attributable to instances of
the subject concept
Synonymous Form: concept has attributive namespace

subject concept
Definition: concept that provides a context for recognizing designations used to attribute properties to
instances of the concept
Concept Type: role
Example: In the phrase, “each rental’s drop-off date,” the concept ‘rental’ is a subject concept with
respect to recognizing the designation ‘drop-off date’ representing a role in a verb concept that
relates a rental to its drop-off date.
Example: In the phrase, “an assigned rental,” the concept ‘rental’ is a subject concept with respect to
recognizing the designation ‘assigned’ representing a characteristic attributable to rentals
(‘rental is assigned’).

attributive namespace is within vocabulary namespace

Definition: the attributive namespace is a section of the vocabulary namespace attributable to the
concept that has the attributive namespace
Synonymous Form: vocabulary namespace includes attributive namespace

language
Definition: system of arbitrary signals (such as voice sounds or written symbols) and rules for combining
them as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community
Source: based on AH
Note: A language can be a natural language or an unnatural one, such as a computer language or a
system of mathematical symbols.
Note: A language is often identified by its name. ISO provides names of many languages in ISO 639-2
(English) and provides short (at most 3 letters) language-independent codes in ISO 639-2
(Alpha-3 Code).
Example: English, French, German, Arabic
Example: Moroccan Arabic (a dialect of Arabic)
Example: Unified Modeling Language (a graphical modeling language)

vocabulary namespace is for language

Definition: each representation in the vocabulary namespace is for expression in the language

40 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

8.5 Reference Schemes

is for
reference scheme concept
reference 1..*
scheme

simply extensionally
uses uses uses

simply extensionally identifying

used role used role characteristic
verb concept role characteristic

Figure 8.7

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

reference scheme FL
Definition: chosen way of identifying instances of a given concept
Note: A reference scheme is a way of referring to instances of a concept by way of related things
that are either lexical or are otherwise identifiable. A reference scheme usually uses one or
more verb concept roles of binary verb concepts in order to identify an instance of a concept
from facts about the instance. A reference scheme can also use one or more characteristics.
Note: A reference scheme can be partial or complete. It is complete if it can always be used to
refer to every instance of a concept. An overall complete reference scheme for a concept can
result from there being multiple partial reference schemes for that concept, its more general
concepts, and its categories.
Note: Choice of reference schemes must be based on uniqueness (providing an identifier that refers
to exactly one thing), but it should consider more than uniqueness. It should also consider
permanence – if the actualities considered by the scheme change often, then references can
become invalid. A reference scheme should also not lead into an inescapable reference cycle
where things only identify each other, but should lead either directly or indirectly to an
expression. It should also consider convenience and relevance from a business perspective.
Note: A verb concept role is used in a reference scheme in either of two ways. A simple use of a verb
concept role involves a single instance of the verb concept role in each reference based on the
scheme. An extensional use of a verb concept role involves the entire set of related instances of
the verb concept role in each reference based on the scheme.
Note: A reference scheme implies that there is uniqueness – that whatever facts are used to reference
an individual thing uniquely identify that one thing.
Reference Scheme: the set of verb concept roles that are simply used by the reference scheme and the set
of verb concept roles that are extensionally used by the reference scheme and the set
of characteristics that are used by the reference scheme

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 41

reference scheme is for concept FL
Definition: instances of the concept can be identified using the reference scheme
Synonymous Form: concept has reference scheme
Necessity: Each reference scheme is for at least one concept.

reference scheme simply uses verb concept role FL

Definition: any given instance of the verb concept role, which is of a binary verb concept, serves as
identification or partial identification of an instance of the concept having the reference
scheme where the given instance is related by way of the binary verb concept that has the
verb concept role
Synonymous Form: reference scheme has simply used role
Necessity: Each verb concept role that is simply used by a reference scheme is in a binary verb
concept.
Example: A reference scheme for ‘car model’ simply uses the ‘name’ role of the binary verb concept ‘car
model has name’. An example of a reference based on this reference scheme identifies a
particular car model as having the name “Chevrolet Cavalier.” The meaning of the reference is
an individual noun concept having this definition: the car model that has the name “Chevrolet
Cavalier.”

reference scheme extensionally uses verb concept role FL

Definition: a set of instances of the verb concept role, which is of a binary verb concept, serves as
identification or partial identification of an instance of the concept having the reference
scheme where the set is the set of all instances of the verb concept role related by way of
the binary verb concept that has the verb concept role
Synonymous Form: reference scheme has extensionally used role
Necessity: Each verb concept role that is extensionally used by a reference scheme is in a binary
verb concept.
Example: The reference scheme given above for the concept ‘reference scheme’ itself exemplifies
extensional use of roles. Any particular reference scheme can be identified by the combination
of what roles it simply uses, what roles it extensionally uses, and what characteristics it uses.
For example, the reference scheme for ‘car model’ (in the example above) is identified by the
facts that it simply uses only the ‘name’ role of the binary verb concept ‘car model has name’,
it extensionally uses no roles and it uses no characteristics.

reference scheme uses characteristic FL

Definition: having or not having the characteristic serves as identification or partial identification of an
instance of the concept having the reference scheme
Synonymous Form: reference scheme has identifying characteristic
Note: Reference schemes generally use a characteristic only in combination with one or more roles
of binary verb concepts such that facts of those types about any referenced thing reduce the
number matching instances down to two, one instance having the characteristic and not the
other. A reference scheme using no more than a characteristic works only for the unusual case
of a concept that always has at most two instances.

42 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: A concept ‘tire position’, which has only four instances, has a reference scheme that uses two
characteristics, ‘tire position is in front’ and ‘tire position is on the right’. Any of the four
positions can be identified by knowing whether or not it is in front and whether or not it is on
the right. The meaning of a reference based on this scheme is an individual noun concept
having the more general concept ‘tire position’ and having a delimiting characteristic that is
either being in front or not being in front and another delimiting characteristic that is either
being on the right or not being on the right.

8.6 Extensions

Figure 8.8

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

state of affairs FL
Definition: event, activity, situation, or circumstance
Reference Scheme: a proposition that corresponds to the state of affairs
Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the state of affairs
Necessity: No state of affairs is a proposition
Note: Any representation of a proposition may be used to denote the state(s) of affairs that it
corresponds to. A proposition statement serves as a definite description for the state of affairs
that the proposition corresponds to.
Note: Some general noun concepts have extensions that are states of affairs; for example, the
extension of ‘car being damaged during rental; is the states of affairs of rented cars being
returned from rental damaged. A given state of affairs of this kind can be referenced by an
individual noun concept (based on the general noun concept) such as ‘the car referenced by
VIN xxxxx being damaged during the rental referenced by contract number yyyyyy’.
Note: A state of affairs can be possible or impossible. Some of the possible ones are actualities. A
proposition corresponds to a state of affairs. A state of affairs either occurs or does not

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 43

 occur, whereas a proposition is either true or false. A state of affairs is not a meaning. It is a
thing that exists and can be an instance of a concept, even if it does not happen.
Example: EU-Rent owning 10,000 rental cars is a state of affairs to which the proposition “EU-Rent
owns 10,000 rental cars”, corresponds.
Example: It being obligatory that each rental have at most three additional drivers is a state of affairs to
which the rule, “Each rental must have at most three additional drivers”, corresponds.

proposition corresponds to state of affairs

General Concept: ‘meaning corresponds to thing’
Definition: the state of affairs is posited by the proposition and if the state of affairs were actual, the
proposition would be true
Note: If the proposition is a simple proposition formulated using a single main verb, then the state
of affairs can be understood as an instance of that verb concept that involves in each verb
concept role of that verb concept the thing or things specified by the proposition as filling that
verb concept role.
If the proposition is formulated using a more complex formulation involving implication,
conjunction, or disjunction, the relationship between the proposition and the corresponding
states of affairs is bound up with the way in which such propositions are determined to be true
or false, as specified in Clauses 9 and 10. But ultimately each of those is based on the
correspondence of the state of affairs to individual verb concepts.

statement denotes state of affairs

Definition: the statement indicates the state of affairs that is posited by the proposition that is
expressed by the statement

state of affairs is actual FL

Definition: the state of affairs happens (i.e., takes place, obtains)
Note: The meaning of ‘is actual’ should not be confused with logical existence, which just means
being something that is of interest in the universe of discourse. A potential state of affairs can
‘exist’ as a ‘thing’ in the universe of discourse and thereby be involved in relationships to other
things (e.g., plans, desires, fears, expectations, perceptions, etc.) even if it is not actual, even if
it never happens. A plan for, desire for, fear of, etc. a state of affairs is a different thing in the
universe of discourse from the state of affairs itself that is planned for, desired or feared. The
plan, desire fear, etc. can move between being actual and not actual. The state of affairs that is
planned, desired or feared is corresponded to by a different proposition; it can, independently
of the plan, desire or fear, also move between being actual and not actual.
Note: If a state of affairs is perceivable (real) in a possible world, it is actual. If it is only conceivable
(planned, talked about) and not perceivable in a possible world, it is not actual.
Example: “The EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch wants to be profitable”. Even when that branch is
unprofitable, the previous statement can correspond to an actuality that involves the desired
state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The desired state of
affairs exists as an object of desire and planning regardless of whether there is ever an actual
state of profitability. It exists and is involved in an actuality (an instance of the verb concept
‘company wants state of affairs’) even when the branch is unprofitable. The nature of the
desired state of affairs is that it is a ‘desired state of affairs’ - conceived but not perceived.
The actual state of affairs that the EU-Rent London-Heathrow Branch is profitable exists only
when the branch is profitable. The nature of the actual state of affairs, if it exists, is that it is a
happening in the world. It is perceived, as well as being conceived.

44 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

state of affairs FL
Definition: state of affairs that is actual
Note: Actualities are states of affairs that actually happen, as distinct from states of affairs that don’t
happen but nevertheless exist as subjects of discourse and can be imagined or planned.
Example: Consider two unitary noun concepts, the first defined as “state of affairs” that EU-Rent
London-Heathrow Branch is profitable” and the second defined as “actuality” that EU-Rent
London-Heathrow Branch is profitable. The two definitions use the same objectification. The
first concept always has an instance, regardless of profitability. The second concept has an
instance (the same instance) only if the branch is profitable.

state of affairs involves thing in role FL

Definition: the thing plays the role in the state of affairs, and, if the role is a verb concept role and the
state of affairs is an actuality, the state of affairs is an instance of the verb concept that has
the role
Synonymous Form: thing fills role in state of affairs
Note: If the role is a general concept, it is necessarily a situational role and the state of affairs is a
“situation” for which the role is defined (See 11.2.5).
Note: This verb concept is used to capture the fact of involvement of a thing in an actuality that is an
instance of a verb concept, or more generally, in a state of affairs whether or not it is an
actuality.

extension FL
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.8) [‘extension’]
Definition: totality of objects [every thing] to which a concept corresponds
Concept Type: role
General Concept: set

instance FL
Definition: thing that is in an extension of a concept
Concept Type: role
Example: The actual City of Los Angeles is an instance of the concept ‘city.’ It is also the one
instance of the individual noun concept ‘Los Angeles.’

8.6.1 Relating Meaning to Extension

This sub clause introduces the concepts that comprise one leg, ‘meaning corresponds to thing’, of the Semiotic/Semantic
Triangle which was first introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce at the beginning of the twentieth century and later by (Ogden
and Richards 1923). See “Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics” [Sowa].

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 45

Figure 8.9

The Semiotic/Semantic Triangle is the theoretic basis for SBVR’s linguistics-based architecture in general and for the
fundamental separation of representation (expression) from meanings in SBVR’s architecture. Being a linguisitic-based
standard the instances of concepts are the things in the universe of discourse, i.e., the world of the organization that uses the
SBVR Business Vocabulary, and not concepts in the SBVR model.

meaning corresponds to thing

Definition: the thing is conceptualized by and is consistent with the meaning
Note: A concept corresponds to each instance of the concept. A proposition corresponds to a state of
affairs (which might or might not be actual). A proposition that is true corresponds to an
actuality.
Note: For some kinds of meanings this is a many-to-many relationship. For others it is many-to-one.

concept has extension FL

Definition: the extension is the set of things to which the concept corresponds

concept has instance FL

Definition: the concept corresponds to the instance

8.6.2 Necessities Concerning Extension

The following statements of necessity apply to the relationships between a meaning and its extension. Other necessities stated
in the context of the Meaning and Representation Vocabulary concern meanings and their representations. But the following
necessities are about the correspondence of meanings to things in the universe of discourse.

46 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Necessity: Each concept has exactly one extension.
Necessity: A thing is an instance of a concept if and only if the thing is in the extension of the
concept.
Necessity: Each instance of a verb concept is an actuality.
Necessity: Each proposition corresponds to exactly one state of affairs.
Necessity: Each proposition that is true corresponds to exactly one actuality.
Necessity: Each actuality that is an instance of a verb concept involves some thing in each role of
the verb concept.
Necessity: Each thing that fills a role in an actuality is an instance of the role.
Necessity: An actuality is an instance of a verb concept if the actuality involves a thing in a role of
the verb concept.
Necessity: If a concept incorporates a characteristic then each instance of the concept is an
instance of the role of the characteristic.
Necessity: If a concept1 is coextensive with a concept2 then the extension of the concept1 is the
extension of the concept2.
Necessity: Each instance of a role that ranges over a general concept is an instance of the
general concept.
Necessity: A thing is an instance of a verb concept role if and only if the thing fills the verb concept
role in an actuality.
Necessity: A thing fills a verb concept role in an actuality if and only if the actuality is an instance
of the verb concept that has the verb concept role.
Necessity: Each individual noun concept that corresponds to a thing always corresponds to that
thing.
Necessity: Each individual noun concept corresponds to at most one thing.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 47

8.7 Elementary Concepts

is no u n c o n c e pt

eq u a ls is g re a te r t h a n
t hi n g is e q u a l t o is le ss t h a n

e le m e n t
q u an t ity

is in
n um be r
in clu d e s

i n te g e r

ca rd in a lity
set n o n n e g a t i v e i n te g e r
0 ..1

p o s i t iv e i n t e g e r

Figure 8.10

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

thing FL
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.1.1) [‘object’]
Definition: anything perceivable or conceivable
Note: Every other concept implicitly specializes the concept ‘thing’.
Reference Scheme: an individual noun concept that corresponds to the thing

thing1 is thing2 FL
Definition: The thing1 and the thing2 are the same thing

set FL
Definition: collection of zero or more things considered together without regard to order or repetition

thing is in set FL
Definition: the thing is an element of the set
Synonymous Form: set includes thing
Synonymous Form: set has element

set has cardinality FL

Definition: the cardinality is the number of distinct elements in the set
Necessity: Each set has at most one cardinality.
Issue # 15404: add text, add Note

48 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

cardinality FL
Definition: nonnegative integer that is the number of distinct elements in a given set or collection
Concept Type: role
Note: The means of distinguishing things as elements of a set is dependent on the kind of thing and
the viewpoint taken in constructing each kind of set. Reference schemes may be used in this
regard.
quantity
Definition: the aspect in which a thing is measurable in terms of greater, less, or equal [MWU]
General Concept: noun concept
Note: The concept quantity can be elaborated into mathematical systems, such as integers and real
numbers, and into systems of measures. This specification elaborates only the concepts for
integer, because they are commonly used in structural rules. For measurement systems and
units of measure there are accepted vocabularies and perhaps standard ontologies, but the
specification of such a vocabulary is beyond the scope of this specification.

quantity1 equals quantity2

Definition: the quantity1 is mathematically equivalent to the quantity2
Synonymous Form: quantity1 is equal to quantity2

quantity1 is less than quantity2

Definition: the quantity1 is mathematically less than the quantity2
Synonymous Form: quantity2 is greater than quantity1

number
Definition: quantity belonging to an abstract mathematical system and subject to laws of succession,
addition, and multiplication
Dictionary Basis: An arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular
quantity and used in counting and making calculations [ODE: “number,” 1]
Note: The ISO 6093 Number Namespace has designations for decimal numbers.

integer FL
Definition: number that has no fractional part

nonnegative integer FL
Definition: integer that is greater than or equal to zero

positive integer FL
Definition: nonnegative integer that is not zero

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 49

50 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
9 Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary
9.1 General
The vocabulary in this clause is not intended for use by business people in general, but rather, it is a vocabulary used to
describe the formal semantic structures of business discourse. It is not for discussing business, but for discussing the semantic
structures underlying business communications of concepts, propositions and questions. For example, a typical business
person does not tend to talk about quantifications, but he expresses quantifications in almost every statement he makes. He
doesn’t tend to talk about conjunctions, disjunctions, logical negations, antecedents and consequents, but these are all part of
the formulation of his thinking. The vocabulary in this clause is for talking about these conceptual devices that people use all
the time.

Semantic formulations are not representations or expressions of meaning. Rather, they are structures of meaning – the logical
composition of meaning.

Business rules are generally expressed in natural language, although some rules are at times illustrated graphically. SBVR does
not provide a logic language for restating business rules in some other language that business people don’t use. Rather, SBVR
provides a means for describing the structure of the meaning of rules expressed in the natural language that business people
use. Semantic formulations are not expressions or statements. They are structures that make up meaning. Using SBVR, the
meaning of a definition or statement is communicated as facts about the semantic formulation of the meaning, not as a
restatement of the meaning in a formal language.

There are two kinds of semantic formulations. The first kind, logical formulation, structures propositions, both simple and
complex. Specializations of that kind are given for various logical operations, quantifications, atomic formulations based on
verb concepts and other formulations for special purposes such as objectifications and nominalizations.

The second kind of semantic formulation is projection. It structures intensions as sets of things that satisfy constraints.
Projections formulate definitions, aggregations, and questions.

Semantic formulations are recursive. Several kinds of semantic formulations embed other semantic formulations. Logic
variables are introduced by quantifications (a kind of logical formulation) and projections so that embedded formulations can
refer to instances of concepts. A logic variable used in a formulation is free within that formulation if it is not introduced
within that formulation. A formulation is closed if no variable is free within it. Only a closed semantic formulation can
formulate a meaning. If a formulation has a variable that is free within it, then it can be part of a larger formulation of a
meaning (one that introduces the variable) but it does not by itself formulate a meaning.

The hierarchical composition of semantic formulations is seen in the following example of a very simple business rule. The
rule is stated in different ways but is one rule having one meaning. Many other statements are possible.

• A rental must have at most three additional drivers.

• It is obligatory that each rental has at most three additional drivers.

Below is a representation of a semantic formulation of the rule above as sentences that convey the full structure of the rule.
Note that different semantic formulations are possible for the same meaning. Two semantic formulations can be determined to
have the same meaning either by logical analysis or by assertion (as a matter of definition). A single formulation is shown
below.
The rule is a proposition meant by an obligation formulation.
. That obligation formulation embeds a universal quantification.
. . The universal quantification introduces a first variable.
. . . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘rental’.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 51

 . . The universal quantification scopes over an at-most-n quantification.
. . . The at-most-n quantification has the maximum cardinality 3.
. . . The at-most-n quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘additional driver’.
. . . The at-most-n quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘rental has additional driver’.
. . . . . The atomic formulation has a role binding.
. . . . . . The role binding is of the role ‘rental’ of the verb concept.
. . . . . . The role binding binds to the first variable.
. . . . . The atomic formulation has a second role binding.
. . . . . . The second role binding is of the role ‘additional driver’ of the verb concept.
. . . . . . The second role binding binds to the second variable.
Note that designations like ‘rental’ and ‘additional driver’ represent concepts. The semantic formulations involve the
concepts themselves, so identifying the concept ‘rental’ by another designation (such as from another language) does not
change the formulation.

The indentation in the example shows a hierarchical structure in which a semantic formulation at one level operates on, applies
a modality to, or quantifies over one or more semantic formulations at the next lower level. Each kind of logical formulation,
including modal formulations, quantifications, and logical operations, can be embedded in other semantic formulations to any
depth and in almost any combination.

Within the one atomic formulation in the example are bindings to two variables. The variables are free within the atomic
formulation because they are introduced outside of it (higher in the hierarchical structure). For this reason, the atomic
formulation has no meaning. But the obligation formulation has a meaning (the rule) and so does the universal quantification
within the obligation formulation because both are closed.

Semantic formulations are further exemplified for a simple definition of a characteristic, “driver is of age.”

Definition: the age of the driver is at least the EU-Rent Minimum Driving Age

Below is a representation of a semantic formulation of the definition. Note that different semantic formulations are possible.
A single formulation is shown below.
The characteristic is defined by a projection.
. The projection is on a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘driver’.
. . The first variable maps to the one role of the characteristic.
. The projection is constrained by a first universal quantification.
. . The first universal quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘age’.
. . . The second variable is unitary.
. . . The second variable is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘driver has age’.
. . . . The atomic formulation has a role binding.
. . . . . The role binding is of the role ‘driver’ of the verb concept.
. . . . . The role binding binds to the first variable.
. . . . The atomic formulation has a second role binding.
. . . . . The second role binding is of the role ‘age’ of the verb concept.
. . . . . The second role binding binds to the second variable.

52 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 . . The first universal quantification scopes over a second universal quantification.
. . . The second universal quantification introduces a third variable.
. . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘EU-Rent Minimum Driving Age’.
. . . . The third variable is unitary.
. . . The second universal quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘quantity1 > quantity2’.
. . . . . The atomic formulation has a role binding.
. . . . . . The role binding is of the role ‘quantity1’ of the verb concept.
. . . . . . The role binding binds to the second variable.
. . . . . The atomic formulation has a second role binding.
. . . . . . The second role binding is of the role ‘quantity2’ of the verb concept.
. . . . . . The second role binding binds to the third variable.
The projection that defines the characteristic is on a single variable. A projection defining a binary verb concept is on two
variables, one mapped to each role. Note that the definition of the characteristic above uses two binary verb concepts, but all
of the roles of those verb concepts are bound to variables introduced by the projection or by formulations within in, so the
projection is closed and conveys a meaning.

SBVR does not attempt to provide special semantic formulations for tenses or the variety of ways states and events can relate
to each other with respect to time or can be related to times, periods, and durations. However, an objectification is a logical
formulation that enables a state or event indicated propositionally to be the subject or object of other propositions. An
encompassing formulation can relate a state or event indicated using an objectification to points in time, periods, and
durations, or to another state or event (possibly also identified using an objectification) with respect to time (e.g., occurring
after or occurring before). The specific relations of interest can be defined as verb concepts. SBVR’s treatment of time in
relation to states and events allows temporal relations to be defined generically and orthogonally to the many verb concepts
whose extensions change over time.

A propositional nominalization is similar to an objectification. It is a kind of logical formulation that structures the meaning
represented by a mention of a statement or proposition as opposed to a use of it. Other similar types of formulations structure
meanings represented by mention of concepts, questions, and answers. Furthermore, rules about change often involve noun
concept nominalizations, which are special formulations that allow a concept to be a subject or object of a proposition in much
the same way that proposition nominalization allows a proposition to be a subject or object.

Semantic formulations are structures, and as such, are identified structurally as finite directed graphs. The reference schemes
for semantic formulations and their parts take into account their entire structure. In some cases, a transitive closure of a
reference scheme shows partial loops (partial in the sense that only a part of a reference scheme loops back, never all of it).
This approach allows parts of a closed formulation to be identified by what it is in its particular context while, at the same time,
contributing to the unique identity of the formulation that contains it.

____________________________________________________________

Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary

Language: English
Included Vocabulary: Meaning and Representation Vocabulary
____________________________________________________________

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 53

9.2 Semantic Formulations

semantic formulation

closed semantic formulation logical formulation projection

formulates
meaning

Figure 9.1

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

semantic formulation FL
Definition: conceptual structure of meaning
Note: The definitions of several specializations of ‘semantic formulation’ explain what meaning is
formulated. A meaning is directly formulated only for a closed semantic formulation. In the
case of variables being free within a semantic formulation, a meaning is formulated with
respect there being exactly one referent thing given for each free variable.

closed semantic formulation FL

Definition: semantic formulation that includes no variable without binding

closed semantic formulation formulates meaning

Definition: the meaning is structured by the closed semantic formulation

54 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

9.3 Logical Formulations

closed semantic formulation logical formulation

atomic formulation
closed logical formulation
instantiation formulation

means modal formulation

proposition
{subsets formulates } 1

logical operation
formalizes
statement
quantification

general concept objectification

projecting formulation

logical formulation kind proposition nominalization

Figure 9.2

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

logical formulation FL
Definition: semantic formulation that formulates a proposition
Necessity: Each logical formulation is an instance of exactly one logical formulation kind.

logical formulation kind FL

Definition: general concept that specializes the concept ‘logical formulation’ and that classifies a
logical formulation based on the presence or absence of a main logical operation or
quantification
Note: The absence of a main logical operator occurs for an atomic formulation or instantiation
formulation.
Example: logical negation, conjunction, universal quantification

closed logical formulation FL

Definition: logical formulation that is a closed semantic formulation
Necessity: Each meaning formulated by a closed logical formulation is a proposition.
Necessity: Each closed logical formulation means exactly one proposition.
Necessity: Each closed logical formulation that formalizes a statement means the proposition that
is expressed by the statement.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 55

closed logical formulation means proposition FL
Definition: the closed logical formulation formulates the proposition

closed logical formulation formalizes statement FL

Definition: the closed logical formulation means the proposition that is expressed by the
statement and the closed logical formulation refers to the concepts represented in the
statement
Example: If ‘barred driver’ is defined as “person that must not drive a car,” then the statements “Ralph is
a barred Driver” and “Ralph is a person that must not drive a car” express the same
proposition. But those two statements are formalized differently: one in reference to ‘barred
driver’ and the other in reference to ‘person’, ‘car’, and ‘person drives car’. The two
formulations are different but mean the same proposition.

9.3.1 Variables and Bindings

Figure 9.3

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

variable FL
Definition: reference to an element of a set, whose referent may vary or is unknown
Note: The set of referents of a variable is defined by the two verb concepts ‘variable ranges over
concept’ and ‘logical formulation restricts variable’. The set is limited to instances of the
concept, if given. If the variable is restricted by a logical formulation, the set is further limited
to those things for which the meaning formulated by that logical formulation is true when the
thing is substituted for each occurrence of the variable in the formulation. If there is no
concept and no restricting logical formulation the set includes every thing.
Necessity: Each variable ranges over at most one concept.
Necessity: Each variable is restricted by at most one logical formulation.
Reference Scheme: a quantification that introduces the variable and the set of concepts that are ranged
over by the variable and the set of logical formulations that restrict the variable and
whether the variable is unitary

56 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Reference Scheme: a projection that is on the variable and a projection position of the variable and the set
of concepts that are ranged over by the variable and the set of logical formulations that
restrict the variable and whether the variable is unitary.

variable ranges over concept FL

Definition: each referent of the variable is an instance of the concept
Synonymous Form: variable has ranged-over concept

logical formulation restricts variable

Definition: for each referent of the variable, the meaning formulated by the logical formulation is true
when the referent is substituted for each occurrence of the variable in the logical formulation
Synonymous Form: variable has restricting formulation
Note: The meaning of the logical formulation is true for every actual referent of the variable. The
things for which the meaning of the logical formulation is false are not considered to be
referents of the variable.
Note: A logical formulation restricts a variable in the same way that a concept ranged over by the
variable restricts the variable. It limits what the variable refers to. A restrictive clause in a
statement is generally formulated as a logical formulation that restricts a variable. A variable
restricted by a logical formulation is, except in rare cases, a free variable of the logical
formulation.
Example: “Each rental car that is inoperable is unavailable.” In the formulation below, a variable ranges
over the concept ‘rental car’ and is restricted by an atomic formulation based on the verb
concept ‘vehicle is inoperable’. Referents of the variable are thereby restricted to being rental
cars and to being vehicles that are inoperable.
Example: The proposition is meant by a universal quantification.
. The universal quantification introduces a variable.
. . The variable ranges over the concept ‘rental car’.
. . The variable is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘vehicle is inoperable’.
. . . . The ‘vehicle’ role is bound to the variable.
. The universal quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘rental car is unavailable’.
. . . The ‘rental car’ role is bound to the variable.

variable is unitary FL
Definition: the variable is meant to have exactly one referent in the context where the variable is
introduced
Note: This characteristic is used particularly in the formulation of definite descriptions.

If a set projection is on one variable and that variable is unitary, then the projection is meant to
have exactly one result. For any other projection on a unitary variable, the projection is meant
to have one referent for that variable for each combination of referents of other variables
(including auxiliary variables) in the same projection.

If a unitary variable is introduced by a universal quantification, the variable ranges over a

concept and is restricted by a logical formulation, then the quantification is satisfied if:

1. the unitary variable has exactly one referent, an instance of the concept, for which the
restricting logical formulation is satisfied.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 57

 2. the logical formulation that the universal quantification scopes over is also satisfied for
that one referent.
An exactly-one quantification introducing a non-unitary variable is satisfied differently:

1. the variable has at least one referent, an instance of the concept, for which the restricting
logical formulation is satisfied.

2. the logical formulation that the exactly-one quantification scopes over is satisfied for
exactly one referent from 1 above.
Example: Given the individual noun concept ‘London-Heathrow Branch’ defined as “the EU-Rent
branch located at London-Heathrow Airport,” the definition can be formulated as a projection
on a variable that ranges over the concept ‘EU-Rent branch’. The variable is unitary indicating
the sense of the definite article “the.” Based on this formulation, the concept ‘London-
Heathrow Branch’ is understood to be an individual noun concept. If the variable is not made
unitary, then the formulation captures only the characteristic of being located at London-
Heathrow Airport without any indication of the intended meaning that there is exactly one such
branch.
Example: A sensible projection formulating “the renter of a given rental” is on a unitary variable (renter)
and has an auxiliary variable (rental). The rental variable being unitary indicates there is
exactly one renter for each rental. But a set projection formulating “renter of at least one
rental” is not on a unitary variable because the variable for rental is introduced within the
logical formulation that constrains the projection and not by the projection itself. The
projection result can include multiple renters and does not relate these to particular rentals.
Example: A possible formulation of the rule, “The pick-up location of each rental must be a EU-Rent
branch,” has a variable for ‘pick-up location’ that is unitary with respect to each rental as
indicated by the use of the definite article “the.” The possible formulation is an obligation
formulation that embeds a universal quantification introducing a variable ranging over the
concept “rental” and that embeds a second universal quantification introducing a second
variable which is restricted by an atomic formulation based on the verb concept ‘rental has
pick-up location’. That second variable is unitary indicating that exactly one pick-up location
is meant for each rental. The second universal quantification scopes over a formulation of the
pick-up location being a EU-Rent branch. The overall formulation applies the obligation
formulation to the pick-up location being a EU-Rent branch. It does not apply the obligation
formulation to there being one pick-up branch per rental, which is understood structurally as
what is meant in the expression of the rule and not part of the obligation.

Note that if the universal quantifications of the formulation above are reversed such that a
quantification introducing the variable for ‘pick-up location’ embeds the quantification
introducing the variable for ‘rental’, then the variable for ‘pick-up rental’ is not unitary because
it would have multiple referents (one for each distinct pick-up location). Such a formulation
would not properly capture the sense of the rule statement.

variable is free within semantic formulation FL

Definition: the semantic formulation employs the variable, but does not introduce it
Synonymous Form: semantic formulation includes variable without binding

bindable target FL
Definition: variable, expression or individual noun concept

58 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: The meaning of binding to a variable from a logical formulation, such as an atomic
formulation, is that a referent of the variable is the thing involved in or considered by the
formulation.
Note: The meaning of binding to an individual noun concept from a logical formulation is that the
formulation refers to the one instance of the individual noun concept. A difference between
binding to an individual noun concept and binding to a variable that ranges over the individual
noun concept is that a variable can be further restricted by a logical formulation giving it the
possibility of refering to nothing.
Note: The meaning of binding to an expression (such as a text or graphic) from a logical formulation
is that the formulation refers to the expression itself without regard to any meaning the
expression might have.
Example: “The text ‘EU-Rent’ is inscribed on each EU-Rent vehicle.” A logical formulation of this
proposition involves a binding to the text “EU-Rent,” which simply refers to that expression,
not to the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent’ nor to any representation of it. The logical
formulation also involves a binding to a variable that ranges over the concept ‘EU-Rent
vehicle’.

The proposition is meant by a universal quantification.

. The universal quantification introduces a variable.
. . The variable ranges over the concept ‘EU-Rent vehicle’.
. The universal quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘expression is inscribed on object’.
. . . The ‘expression’ role is bound to the text “EU-Rent.”
. . . The ‘object’ role is bound to the variable

Example: “The logo is inscribed on each EU-Rent vehicle.” This example is the same as

the one above except that the ‘expression’ role is bound to the logo .

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 59

9.3.2 Atomic Formulations

is based on
atomic formulation verb concept
underlies 1
1

occurs
in
role
binding binds to
references
role binding bindable target
1
role
binding

verb concept role

Figure 9.4

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

atomic formulation FL
Definition: logical formulation that is based on a verb concept and that has a role binding of each role
of the verb concept and that formulates the meaning: there is an actuality that involves in
each role of the verb concept the thing to which the bindable target of the corresponding
role binding refers
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each atomic formulation is based on exactly one verb concept.
Reference Scheme: the set of role bindings of the atomic formulation
Note: The meaning invoked by an atomic formulation puts each referent of each role binding in its
respective verb concept role. Where a verb concept role ranges over some general concept,
that meaning implies (as a separate secondary meaning) that the referent of the role binding for
that role is an instance of the general concept.
Example: “EU-Rent purchases from General Motors Company.”
The statement is formulated by an atomic formulation.
. The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘company purchases from vendor’.
. The atomic formulation has a first role binding.
. . The first role binding is of the role ‘company’ of the verb concept.
. . The first role binding binds to the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent’.
. The atomic formulation has a second role binding.
. . The second role binding is of the role ‘vendor’ of the verb concept.
. . The second role binding binds to the individual noun concept ‘General Motors Company’.

atomic formulation has role binding FL

Definition: the atomic formulation includes the role binding for a particular role of the verb concept
that is the basis of the atomic formulation
Synonymous Form: role binding occurs in atomic formulation

60 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

atomic formulation is based on verb concept FL
Definition: the meaning invoked by the atomic formulation is that of the verb concept
Synonymous Form: verb concept underlies atomic formulation

role binding FL
Definition: connection of an atomic formulation to a bindable target
Necessity: Each role binding occurs in exactly one atomic formulation.
Necessity: Each role binding is of a role of the verb concept that underlies the atomic formulation
that has the role binding.
Necessity: Each role binding binds to exactly one bindable target.
Necessity: Each role binding is of exactly one verb concept role.
Necessity: Each variable that is referenced by a role binding of an atomic formulation is free
within the atomic formulation.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is referenced by the role binding and the verb concept role that
has the role binding

role binding binds to bindable target FL

Definition: the bindable target provides what thing fills the verb concept role that has the role binding
in the meaning formulated by the atomic formulation that has the role binding
Synonymous Form: role binding references bindable target

verb concept role has role binding FL

Definition: the role binding is a binding of the verb concept role, which is of the verb concept that
underlies an atomic formulation

9.3.3 Instantiation Formulations

co n sid e r s
in s t a n t ia t i o n f o rm u l a t i o n c o nc e p t
1

b in d s t o
b i n d a b le t a rg e t
is b o u n d to 1

Figure 9.5

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

instantiation formulation FL
Definition: logical formulation that considers a concept and binds to a bindable target and that
formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target refers is an instance of the
concept
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each instantiation formulation considers exactly one concept.
Necessity: Each instantiation formulation binds to exactly one bindable target.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 61

 Necessity: Each variable that is bound to an instantiation formulation is free within the
instantiation formulation.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the instantiation formulation and the concept that is
considered by the instantiation formulation
Note: An instantiation formulation is equivalent to an existential quantification that introduces a
variable ranging over the concept considered by the instantiation formulation and that
scopes over an atomic formulation based on the verb concept ‘thing is thing’ where one role
binding is to the variable and the other is to the bindable target bound to the instantiation
formulation.
Example: “EU-Rent is a car rental company.”
The statement is formulated by an instantiation formulation.
. The instantiation formulation considers the concept “car rental company”.
. The instantiation formulation binds to the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent’.

instantiation formulation considers concept FL

Definition: the instantiation formulation classifies things to be an instance of the concept

instantiation formulation binds to bindable target FL

Definition: the bindable target indicates what thing is being classified by the instantiation formulation
Synonymous Form: bindable target is bound to instantiation formulation

9.3.4 Modal Formulations

lo g ic a l f o rm u l a t i o n
1

is e m b e d d e d in
e m b e ds

m o d a l f o r m u la t i o n

ne c e s s i ty o b l ig a t i o n p er m i ss i b il it y p o s s i b i li t y
f o rm u la t io n f o rm u la t io n f o rm u l a t i o n f o r m u la t i o n

Figure 9.6

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

modal formulation FL
Definition: logical formulation that formulates that the meaning of another logical formulation has a
particular relationship to possible worlds or to acceptable worlds
Necessity: Each modal formulation embeds exactly one logical formulation.
Necessity: Each variable that is free within a logical formulation that is embedded in a modal
formulation is free within the modal formulation.

62 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: “EU-Rent may purchase from General Motors Company.” The statement is formulated by a
permissibility formulation (a kind of modal formulation) that embeds the entire formulation
shown in the previous sub clause in the example under ‘atomic formulation’ - the formulation
of “EU-Rent purchases from General Motors Company.” The meaning of the permissibility
formulation is that EU-Rent purchases from General Motors Company in some possible world.

modal formulation embeds logical formulation FL

Definition: the modal formulation formulates that the meaning of the logical formulation has a
particular relationship to possible worlds or to acceptable worlds
Synonymous Form: logical formulation is embedded in modal formulation

necessity formulation FL
Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is
true in all possible worlds
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical formulation that is embedded in the necessity formulation

obligation formulation FL
Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is
true in all acceptable worlds
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical formulation that is embedded in the obligation formulation
Example: A rental may be open only if an estimated rental charge is provisionally charged for the rental".
The same rule can be stated this way: “It is prohibited that a rental is open if an estimated
rental charge is not provisionally charged for the rental.”
Both statements can be formulated in the same way:

The rule is a proposition meant by an obligation formulation.

. The obligation formulation embeds a logical negation
. . The logical operand of the logical negation is a universal quantification.
. . . The universal quantification introduces a first variable.
. . . . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘rental’.
. . . The universal quantification scopes over an implication.
. . . . The consequent of the implication is an atomic formulation.
. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘rental is open’.
. . . . . . The ‘rental’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . The antecedent of the implication is an existential quantification.
. . . . . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . . . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘estimated rental charge’.
. . . . . The existential quantification scopes over a logical negation.
. . . . . . The logical operand of the logical negation is an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘estimated rental charge is provisionally charged for rental’.
. . . . . . . . The ‘estimated rental charge’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . . . . . The ‘rental’ role is bound to the first variable.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 63

permissibility formulation FL
Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is
permitted to be true
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical formulation that is embedded in the permissibility formulation

possibility formulation FL
Definition: modal formulation that formulates that the meaning of its embedded logical formulation is
true in some possible world
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical formulation that is embedded in the possibility formulation

64 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

9.3.5 Logical Operations

logical oper and

l og i cal o p erat io n
1 ..*
l o gi cal fo rm u l atio n

logic al operand 1
{su b s e ts lo g i ca l o p e r a n d } 1
lo g ical n eg ati on bi n ary l o gi cal o per atio n
logic al operand 2
{su b s e ts lo g i ca l o p e r a n d } 1

co nj u nct io n

d i sju n ctio n
also: i n clu sive di sju n cti on

eq ui valen ce
also: m ateri al eq u i val en ce

exclu si ve d isj un cti o n

ant ecedent
{e q u a l slo g ic a l o p e ra n d 1 } 1
i m p li cati on
also: m at er ial i m p li catio n
consequent
{e q u a l slo g ic a l o p e ra n d 2 } 1

n an d fo rm u l ati on

n o r fo rm u l atio n
consequent
{e q u a l sl o g i ca l o p e ra n d 1 } 1
wh eth er- or -n o t f or m u lat io n
inconsequent
{e q u a l sl o g i ca l o p e ra n d 2 } 1

Figure 9.7

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

logical operation FL
Definition: logical formulation that formulates a meaning based on only the truth or falseness of the
meanings of one or more other logical formulations (its logical operands)
Necessity: Each logical operation has at least one logical operand.
Necessity: Each variable that is free within a logical operand of a logical operation is free within
the logical operation.

logical operand FL
Definition: logical formulation upon which a given logical operation operates
Concept Type: role

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 65

logical operation has logical operand FL
Definition: the logical operation operates on the logical operand

binary logical operation FL

Definition: logical operation that operates on two logical operands
Necessity: Each binary logical operation has exactly one logical operand 1.
Necessity: Each binary logical operation has exactly one logical operand 2.
Note: Distinct roles are defined for the two operands of a binary logical operation even though there
is no significant difference between the roles for some operations, such as for conjunction. The
one distinction that remains, however, is that the roles are distinct from each other, and this
distinction is important where an operation has the same logical formulation filling both roles,
such as in ‘p and p’ or ‘p if and only if p’.

logical operand 1 FL
Definition: logical operand that is the first of at least two operands to a logical operation
Concept Type: role
Necessity: Each logical operation has at most one logical operand 1.

logical operand 2 FL
Definition: logical operand that is the second of at least two operands to a logical operation
Concept Type: role
Necessity: Each logical operation has at most one logical operand 2.

binary logical operation has logical operand 1 FL

Definition: the binary logical operation operates on the logical operand 1

binary logical operation has logical operand 2 FL

Definition: the binary logical operation operates on the logical operand 2

conjunction FL
Definition: binary logical operation that formulates that the meaning of each of its logical operands is
true
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical operand 1 of the conjunction and the logical operand 2 of the conjunction

disjunction FL
Definition: binary logical operation that formulates that the meaning of at least one of its logical
operands is true
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Synonym: inclusive disjunction
Reference Scheme: the logical operand 1 of the disjunction and the logical operand 2 of the disjunction

equivalence FL
Definition: binary logical operation that formulates that the meaning of its logical operands are either
all true or all false
Concept Type: logical formulation kind

66 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Synonym: material equivalence
Reference Scheme: the logical operand 1 of the equivalence and the logical operand 2 of the equivalence

exclusive disjunction FL
Definition: binary logical operation that formulates that the meaning of one logical operand is true and
the meaning of the other logical operand is false
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical operand 1 of the exclusive disjunction and the logical operand 2 of the
exclusive disjunction

implication FL
Definition: binary logical operation that operates on an antecedent and a consequent and that
formulates that the meaning of the consequent is true if the meaning of the antecedent is
true
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Synonym: material implication
Necessity: Each implication has exactly one antecedent.
Necessity: Each implication has exactly one consequent.
Reference Scheme: the antecedent of the implication and the consequent of the implication

antecedent FL
Definition: logical operand that is the condition considered by a logical operation such as an
implication (e.g., what is meant by the p in “if p then q”)
Concept Type: role

consequent FL
Definition: logical operand that is the implied or result operand to a logical operation such as an
implication (e.g., what is meant by the q in “if p then q”)
Concept Type: role

implication has antecedent FL

Definition: the antecedent is the logical operand 1 of the implication

implication has consequent FL

Definition: the consequent is the logical operand 2 of the implication

logical negation FL
Definition: logical operation that has exactly one logical operand and that formulates that the meaning
of the logical operand is false
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each logical negation has exactly one logical operand.
Reference Scheme: the logical operand of the logical negation

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 67

nand formulation FL
Definition: binary logical operation that formulates that the meaning of at least one of its logical
operands is false
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical operand 1 of the nand formulation and the logical operand 2 of the nand
formulation

nor formulation FL
Definition: binary logical operation that formulates that the meaning of each of its logical operands is
false
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the logical operand 1 of the nor formulation and the logical operand 2 of the nor
formulation

whether-or-not formulation FL
Definition: binary logical operation that has a consequent and an inconsequent and that formulates
that the meaning the consequent is true regardless of the meaning the inconsequent
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each whether-or-not formulation has exactly one consequent.
Necessity: Each whether-or-not formulation has exactly one inconsequent.
Reference Scheme: the consequent of the whether-or-not formulation and the inconsequent of the
whether-or-not formulation

inconsequent FL
Definition: logical operand that is an operand irrelevant to the logical result of a logical operation such
as of a whether-or-not formulation
Concept Type: role

whether-or-not formulation has consequent FL

Definition: the consequent is the logical operand 1 of the whether-or-not formulation

whether-or-not formulation has inconsequent FL

Definition: the inconsequent is the logical operand 2 of the whether-or-not formulation

68 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

9.3.6 Quantifications

logical fo rmulation
0..1 scope formulation

scopes
over

introduces
quan tification variable
0..1 1

universal q uantificatio n

at-least-n q uantification

existential quantification

nu meric range quan tification minimum minimum

1 cardinality 1 cardinality
1
nonnegative integer
maximum
1 maximum 1
cardinalit y cardinality
at-most-n quantification cardinality

at-most-one q uantification

exactly-n q uantificatio n

exactly-o ne quan tification

Figure 9.8

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

quantification FL
Definition: logical formulation that introduces a variable and that has either the meaning: all referents
of the variable satisfy a scope formulation; or the meaning: a bounded number of referents of
the variable exist and satisfy a scope formulation, if there is one
Note: A referent of the introduced variable satisfies a scope formulation if the meaning formulated by
the scope formulation is true with every occurrence of the variable interpreted as referring to
the referent.
Note: If a quantification scopes over no logical formulation, the meaning is that the bounded number
of referents exist.
Note: Quantifications other than universal quantification and existential quantification involve
cardinalities in a way that requires distinguishability of the things a variable refers to - a means

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 69

 to determine when one thing is not the same thing as another thing. For example, the
quantification meant by “at least 2” in “EU-Rent owns at least 2 cars” means that there exists a
first car and a second car and the first car is not the second car - the two cars are distinct.
Physical things tend to be distinguished intuitively by having different physical locations at
any point in time, but abstract things are indistinguishable without distinguishing properties.
Reference schemes provide distinguishability and are often particularly important for abstract
things.
Necessity: Each quantification introduces exactly one variable.
Necessity: Each variable is introduced by at most one quantification.
Necessity: Each quantification scopes over at most one logical formulation.
Necessity: A variable that is free within a logical formulation that is scoped over by a
quantification is free within the quantification if and only if the quantification does not
introduce the variable.
Necessity: A variable that is free within a logical formulation that restricts a variable that is
introduced by a quantification is free within the quantification if and only if the
quantification does not introduce the variable.
Example: “Each car model is supplied by a car manufacturer”.
The proposition is meant by a universal quantification.
. The universal quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘car model’.
. The universal quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘car manufacturer’.
. . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘car manufacturer supplies car model’.
. . . . The ‘car manufacturer’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . The ‘car model’ role is bound to the first variable.

quantification introduces variable FL

Definition: the quantification binds the variable such that it is not free within the quantification
Note: For each referent of the variable the scope formulation, if there is one, is considered with every
occurrence of the variable interpreted as referring to the referent.

quantification scopes over logical formulation FL

Definition: each referent of the variable introduced by the quantification satisfies the logical
formulation if the meaning formulated by the scope formulation is true with every occurrence
of the variable interpreted as referring to the referent
Synonymous Form: quantification has scope formulation
Note: A quantification other than a universal quantification does not necessarily scope over a
logical formulation (e.g., formulation of “some customer exists” can simply be an existential
quantification introducing a variable that ranges over the concept ‘customer’).
Note: If a quantification scopes over a logical formulation, the variable introduced by the
quantification is a free variable of that logical formulation, except in the rare case of a vacuous
quantification.

70 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

scope formulation FL
Definition: logical formulation that a given quantification scopes over
Concept Type: role

universal quantification FL
Definition: quantification that scopes over a logical formulation and that has the meaning: for each
referent of the variable introduced by the quantification the meaning formulated by the
logical formulation for the referent is true
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each universal quantification scopes over a logical formulation.
Reference Scheme: the logical formulation that is scoped over by the universal quantification and the
variable that is introduced by the universal quantification

existential quantification FL
Definition: at-least-n quantification that has the minimum cardinality 1
Note: An existential quantification, unlike other at-least-n quantifications, does not require
distinguishability of referents.
Reference Scheme: the set of logical formulations that are scoped over by the existential quantification and
the variable that is introduced by the existential quantification

maximum cardinality FL
Definition: nonnegative integer that is an upper bound in a quantification (such as an
at-most-n quantification)
Concept Type: role

minimum cardinality FL
Definition: nonnegative integer that is a lower bound in a quantification (such as an
at-least-n quantification)
Concept Type: role

at-least-n quantification FL
Definition: quantification that has a minimum cardinality and that has the meaning: the number of
referents of the variable introduced by the quantification that exist and that satisfy a scope
formulation, if there is one, is not less than the minimum cardinality, and if the minimum
cardinality is greater than one, the referents are distinct logical formulation kind
Note: For a minimum cardinality of 1, distinctness of referents is irrelevant.
Necessity: Each at-least-n quantification has exactly one minimum cardinality.
Necessity: The minimum cardinality of each at-least-n quantification is a positive integer.
Reference Scheme: the minimum cardinality of the at-least-n quantification and the set of logical
formulations that are scoped over by the at-least-n quantification and the variable that
is introduced by the at-least-n quantification

at-least-n quantification has minimum cardinality FL

Definition: the at-least-n quantification is satisfied by the minimum cardinality or greater

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 71

at-most-n quantification FL
Definition: quantification that has a maximum cardinality and that has the meaning: the number of
distinct referents of the variable introduced by the quantification that exist and that satisfy a
scope formulation, if there is one, is not greater than the maximum cardinality
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each at-most-n quantification has exactly one maximum cardinality.
Necessity: The maximum cardinality of each at-most-n quantification is a positive integer.
Reference Scheme: the maximum cardinality of the at-most-n quantification and the set of logical
formulations that are scoped over by the at-most-n quantification and the variable that
is introduced by the at-most-n quantification
Example: “Each rental must have at most three additional drivers.” See the introduction to Clause 9 for a
semantic formulation of this rule.

at-most-n quantification has maximum cardinality FL

Definition: the at-most-n quantification is satisfied by the maximum cardinality or less

at-most-one quantification FL
Definition: at-most-n quantification that has the maximum cardinality 1
Note: A number of referents is at most one if and only if every referent is the same referent.
Reference Scheme: the set of logical formulations that are scoped over by the at-most-one quantification
and the variable that is introduced by the at-most-one quantification

exactly-n quantification FL
Definition: quantification that has a cardinality and that has the meaning: the number of referents of the
variable introduced by the quantification that exist and that satisfy a scope formulation, if
there is one, equals the cardinality
Necessity: Each exactly-n quantification has exactly one cardinality.
Necessity: The cardinality of each exactly-n quantification is a positive integer.
Reference Scheme: the cardinality of the exactly-n quantification and the set of logical formulations that
are scoped over by the exactly-n quantification and the variable that is introduced by
the exactly-n quantification
Note: An exactly-n quantification is logically equivalent to a conjunction of an at-least-n
quantification and an at-most-n quantification using the cardinality as minimum
cardinality and maximum cardinality respectively.

exactly-n quantification has cardinality FL

Definition: the exactly-n quantification is satisfied only by the cardinality

exactly-one quantification FL
Definition: exactly-n quantification that has the cardinality 1
Note: A number of referents is exactly one if and only if there is a referent and every referent is that
same referent.
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the set of logical formulations that are scoped over by the exactly-one quantification
and the variable that is introduced by the exactly-one quantification

72 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

numeric range quantification FL
Definition: quantification that has a minimum cardinality and a maximum cardinality greater than the
minimum cardinality and that has the meaning: the number of referents of the variable
introduced by the quantification that exist and that satisfy a scope formulation, if there is
one, is not less than the minimum cardinality and is not greater than the maximum
cardinality
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each numeric range quantification has exactly one maximum cardinality.
Necessity: Each numeric range quantification has exactly one minimum cardinality.
Necessity: The minimum cardinality of each numeric range quantification is less than the
maximum cardinality of the numeric range quantification.
Reference Scheme: the minimum cardinality of the numeric range quantification and the maximum
cardinality of the numeric range quantification and the set of logical formulations that
are scoped over by the numeric range quantification and the variable that is
introduced by the numeric range quantification
Note: A numeric range quantification is logically equivalent to a conjunction of an at-least-n
quantification and an at-most-n quantification using the minimum cardinality and
maximum cardinality respectively.

numeric range quantification has maximum cardinality FL

Definition: the numeric range quantification cannot be satisfied by a number greater than the
maximum cardinality

numeric range quantification has minimum cardinality FL

Definition: the numeric range quantification cannot be satisfied by a number less than the minimum
cardinality

9.3.7 Objectifications

lo g ic a l f o r m u la t io n
1

c o n s id e r s
o b j e c t i f ic a t io n

bin d s to
b in d a b le t a rg e t
is b o u n d t o 1

Figure 9.9

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 73

objectification FL
Definition: logical formulation that involves a bindable target and a considered logical formulation and
that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target refers is a state of affairs
to which the meaning of the considered logical formulation corresponds
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Note: An objectification is similar to an instantiation formulation in that it is satisfied by a
correspondence of a referent thing to a meaning. For an instantiation formulation the meaning
is a concept. For an objectification the meaning is a proposition.
Necessity: Each objectification considers exactly one logical formulation.
Necessity: Each objectification binds to exactly one bindable target.
Necessity: Each variable that is bound to an objectification is free within the objectification.
Necessity: Each variable that is free within the logical formulation that is considered by an
objectification is free within the objectification.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the objectification and the logical formulation that
is considered by the objectification
Example: ‘late return’ defined as “actuality that a given rental is returned late”.
The concept ‘late return’ is defined by a closed projection.
. The projection is on a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘actuality’.
. The projection has an auxiliary variable.
. . The auxiliary variable ranges over the concept ‘rental’.
. The projection is constrained by an objectification.
. . The objectification binds to the first variable.
. . The objectification considers an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the characteristic ‘rental is returned late’.
. . . . The ‘rental’ role is bound to the auxiliary variable.
Example: “EU-Rent reviews each corporate account at EU-Rent Headquarters”.
The statement above could be formulated using a ternary verb concept ‘company reviews
account at place’, but such a verb concept is not likely represented in a business vocabulary
because it mixes two orthogonal binary verb concepts: ‘company reviews account’ and ‘state
of affairs occurs at place’. The formulation below uses the two binary verb concepts and
employs an objectification to tie them together.
The statement is formulated by a universal quantification.
. The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘corporate account’.
. The quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘state of affairs’.
. . . The second variable is restricted by an objectification.
. . . . The objectification binds to the second variable.
. . . . The objectification considers an atomic formulation.
. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘company reviews account’.
. . . . . . The ‘company’ role is bound to the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent’.
. . . . . . The ‘account’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘state of affairs occurs at place’.
. . . . The ‘state of affairs’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . The ‘place’ role is bound to the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent Headquarters’.

74 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: “EU-Rent has reviewed each corporate account”.
The verb concept ‘company reviews account’ can be used to formulate the meaning of
‘company has reviewed account’ (the present perfect tense) by using an objectification along
with a generic verb concept for the present perfect tense, ‘state of affairs has occurred’. A
formulation of the example statement is similar to that of the previous example but uses the
verb concept ‘state of affairs has occurred’ rather than ‘state of affairs occurs at place’.
Example: “EU-Rent privately reviews each corporate account”.
A formulation of the example statement is similar to that of the previous two examples, but
uses the verb concept ‘state of affairs occurs privately’.
Example: “If a rental car is returned late because the car has a mechanical breakdown ….” In a possible
formulation of this example, objectifications of “the car has a mechanical breakdown” and “the
rental car is returned late” respectively formulate something for each role of the verb concept
‘actuality causes actuality’.

objectification considers logical formulation FL

Definition: the objectification is of the state or event that corresponds to the meaning of the logical
formulation

objectification binds to bindable target FL

Definition: the bindable target indicates the referent state or event identified by the objectification
Synonymous Form: bindable target is bound to objectification

9.3.8 Projecting Formulations

projection
projection
1

binds to
projecting formulation bindable target
is bound to 1

aggregation formulation

noun concept nominalization

verb concept nominalization

question nominalization

answer nominalization

Figure 9.10

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 75

projecting formulation FL
Definition: logical formulation of a referent thing considered with respect to a particular projection
Necessity: Each projecting formulation has exactly one projection.
Necessity: Each projecting formulation binds to exactly one bindable target.
Necessity: Each variable that is bound to a projecting formulation is free within the projecting
formulation.
Necessity: Each variable that is free within the projection of a projecting formulation is free within
the projecting formulation.
Note: The concept ‘projecting formulation’ is abstract. See its specializations for semantics.
Example: See ‘aggregation formulation’, ‘question nominalization’, and ‘answer nominalization’.

projecting formulation has projection FL

Definition: the projecting formulation is based on the projection

projecting formulation binds to bindable target FL

Definition: the bindable target indicates the referent thing considered by the projecting formulation
Synonymous Form: bindable target is bound to projecting formulation

aggregation formulation FL
Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target
bound to the projecting formulation refers is the result of the projection of the projecting
formulation
Note: The aggregation formulation is used primarily to associate a variable with a set of things,
involvements, or actualities that satisfy some condition. That is, it formulates natural language
expressions of the form: “let <variable> be the set of all things t such that <some condition
involving t>,” so that <variable> can then be used in other formulations regarding the set. The
<condition involving t> often includes some free variable introduced in the context in which
the formulation is used.
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: The projection of each aggregation formulation is on exactly one variable.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the aggregation formulation and the projection of
the aggregation formulation
Example: “The number of rental cars stored at a given branch must not exceed the car storage capacity of
the branch.” This example considers the number of elements in a set (the set of rental cars
stored at a branch). The projection of an aggregation formulation is used to define that set, and
the aggregation formulation restricts the third variable below so that its referent is that set.
The statement is formulated by an obligation formulation.
. The obligation formulation embeds a first universal quantification.
. . The first universal quantification introduces a first variable.
. . . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘branch’.
. . The first universal quantification scopes over a second universal quantification.
. . . The second universal quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘number’.
. . . . The second variable is unitary.
. . . . The second variable is restricted by a third universal quantification.
. . . . . The third universal quantification introduces a third variable.

76 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 . . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘set’.
. . . . . . The third variable is unitary.
. . . . . . The third variable is restricted by an aggregation formulation.
. . . . . . . The aggregation formulation binds to the third variable.
. . . . . . . The aggregation formulation considers a projection.
. . . . . . . . The projection is on a fourth variable.
. . . . . . . . . The fourth variable ranges over the concept ‘rental car’.
. . . . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘rental car is stored at branch’.
. . . . . . . . . . The ‘rental car’ role is bound to the fourth variable.
. . . . . . . . . . The ‘branch’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . . The third universal quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘set has number’.
. . . . . . . The ‘set’ role is bound to the third variable.
. . . . . . . The ‘number’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . The second universal quantification scopes a fourth universal quantification.
. . . . The fourth universal quantification introduces a fifth variable.
. . . . . The fifth variable ranges over the concept ‘car storage capacity’.
. . . . . The fifth variable is unitary.
. . . . . The fifth variable is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘branch has car storage capacity’.
. . . . . . . The ‘branch’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . . . . The ‘car storage capacity’ role is bound to the fifth variable.
. . . . The fourth universal quantification scopes over a logical negation.
. . . . . The logical operand of the logical negation is an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘number1 exceeds number2’.
. . . . . . . The ‘number1’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . . . . The ‘number2’ role is bound to the fifth variable.

noun concept nominalization FL

Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target
bound to the projecting formulation refers is a noun concept that is defined by the
projection of the projecting formulation
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: The projection of each noun concept nominalization is on exactly one variable.
Note: In the case of variables being free within a projection of a noun concept nominalization, the
projection is considered to define a noun concept only in the context of there being a referent
thing given for each free variable.
Note: Nouns are generally used to refer to things in the extension of the noun concept meant by the
noun. Less commonly, a noun is used to mention a noun concept itself. This is referred to as a
“mention” of the concept as opposed to a “use.”
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the noun concept nominalization and the
projection of the noun concept nominalization

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 77

 Example: “‘SUV’ is a vehicle type”. In this example, the noun concept ‘SUV’ is
mentioned as a concept rather than used to refer to SUVs.
The statement is formulated by an existential quantification.
. The existential quantification introduces a unitary variable.
. . The unitary variable ranges over the concept ‘noun concept’.
. . The unitary variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization.
. . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the unitary variable.
. . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . The projection is on one projection variable.
. . . . . The projection variable ranges over the noun concept ‘SUV’.
. The existential quantification scopes over an instantiation formulation.
. . The instantiation formulation considers the concept ‘vehicle type’.
. . The instantiation formulation binds to the unitary variable.
Example: “No rental’s pick-up branch changes”.
The statement is formulated by a logical negation.
. The logical operand of the logical negation is an existential quantification.
. . The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘rental’.
. . The quantification scopes over a second existential quantification.
. . . The quantification ranges over a second variable, which is unitary.
. . . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘unitary noun concept’.
. . . . The second variable is restricted by a noun concept nominalization.
. . . . . The noun concept nominalization binds to the second variable.
. . . . . The noun concept nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . . . The projection is on a third variable, which is unitary.
. . . . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘pick-up branch’.
. . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘rental has pick-up branch’.
. . . . . . . The ‘rental’ role binds to the first variable.
. . . . . . . The ‘pick-up branch’ role binds to the third variable.
. . . The second quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘unitary noun concept* changes’.
. . . . The ‘unitary noun concept*’ role binds to the second variable.
(See C.1.6, Intensional Roles, about the verb concept ‘unitary noun concept* changes.’)

verb concept nominalization FL

Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target
bound to the projecting formulation refers is a verb concept that is defined by the projection
of the projecting formulation
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the verb concept nominalization and the projection
of the verb concept nominalization
Note: A verb concept nominalization formulates the (anonymous) verb concept defined by a
projection. In most uses of verb concept nominalizations, the bindable target is a unitary
variable, and the effect is to define the variable to refer to the anonymous verb concept defined
by the projection. It is the only referent for which the verb concept nominalization will hold.
Note: In the case of variables being free within a projection of a verb concept nominalization, the
projection is considered to define a verb concept only in the context of there being a referent
thing substituted for each free variable.

78 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: More information about how a projection defines a verb concept is in the entry for ‘closed
projection defines verb concept’. A verb concept nominalization nominalizes only a verb
concept, not its roles.
Example: “Being established by a rental booking is a characteristic attributed to each advance rental”.
The characteristic expressed as “being established by a rental booking” is nominalized within
the statement.
The statement is formulated by a universal quantification.
. The universal quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘advance rental’.
. The universal quantification scopes over a first existential quantification.
. . The first existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘characteristic’.
. . . The second variable is restricted by an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘characteristic is attributed to thing’.
. . . . . The ‘characteristic’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . . The ‘thing’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . The first existential quantification scopes over a verb concept nominalization.
. . . The verb concept nominalization binds to the second variable.
. . . The verb concept nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . The projection is on a third variable.
. . . . The projection is constrained by a second existential quantification.
. . . . . The second existential quantification introduces a fourth variable.
. . . . . . The fourth variable ranges over the concept ‘rental booking’.
. . . . . The second existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘rental booking establishes advanced rental’.
. . . . . . . The ‘rental booking’ role is bound to the fourth variable.
. . . . . . . The ‘advanced rental’ role is bound to the third variable.

9.3.9 Nominalizations of Propositions and Questions

l o g i c a l f o r m u l a t io n
1

c o n s id e r s
p ro p o s i t i o n n o m in a li z a t i o n

b i nd s t o
b i n d a b le t a r g e t
is b o u n d t o 1

Figure 9.11

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 79

proposition nominalization FL
Definition: logical formulation that involves a bindable target and a considered logical formulation and
that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target refers is the proposition
that is formulated by the considered logical formulation
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Necessity: Each proposition nominalization considers exactly one logical formulation.
Necessity: Each proposition nominalization binds to exactly one bindable target.
Necessity: Each variable that is bound to a proposition nominalization is free within the
proposition nominalization.
Necessity: Each variable that is free within the logical formulation that is considered by a
proposition nominalization is free within the proposition nominalization.
Note: A closed logical formulation means exactly one proposition. An open logical formulation does
not mean any proposition. In the case of variables being free within a considered logical
formulation, the formulation is considered to mean a proposition only in the context of there
being a referent thing given for each free variable.
Note: The truth of a nominalized proposition is not relevant to the satisfaction of the proposition
nominalization.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the proposition nominalization and the logical
formulation that is considered by the proposition nominalization
Example: “Each EU-Rent branch posts a sign stating that no personal checks are accepted by the
branch”.
The statement is formalized by a universal quantification.
. The universal quantification is on a first variable.
. . The variable ranges over the concept ‘EU-Rent branch’.
. The universal quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘sign’.
. . . The second variable is restricted by a second existential quantification.
. . . . The second existential quantification introduces a third variable.
. . . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘proposition’.
. . . . . The third variable is restricted by a proposition nominalization.
. . . . . . The proposition nominalization binds to the third variable
. . . . . . The proposition nominalization considers a logical negation.
. . . . . . . The logical operand of the negation is a third existential quantification.
. . . . . . . . The quantification introduces a fourth variable.
. . . . . . . . . The variable ranges over the concept ‘personal check’.
. . . . . . . . The quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept
‘branch accepts monetary instrument’.
. . . . . . . . . . The ‘branch’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . . . . . . . The ‘monetary instrument’ role is bound to the fourth variable.
. . . . The second existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘sign states proposition’.
. . . . . . The ‘sign’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . . . The ‘proposition’ role is bound to the third variable.
. . The first existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘branch posts sign’.

80 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 . . . . The ‘branch’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . The ‘sign’ role is bound to the second variable.

proposition nominalization considers logical formulation FL

Definition: the proposition nominalization nominalizes the proposition whose meaning is formulated by
the logical formulation

proposition nominalization binds to bindable target FL

Definition: the bindable target indicates the referent proposition identified by the proposition
nominalization
Synonymous Form: bindable target is bound to proposition nominalization

question nominalization
Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target
bound to the projecting formulation refers is the question that is meant by the projection of
the projecting formulation
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Note: See ‘closed projection means question’ for an explanation and examples of how questions
are formulated.
Note: A closed projection means at most one question. In the case of variables being free within a
projection, the projection is considered to mean a question only in the context of there being a
referent thing given for each free variable.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the question nominalization and the projection of
the question nominalization
Example: “An agent asks each customer what car model the customer prefers”.
The statement is formulated by a universal quantification.
. The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘customer’.
. The quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘agent’.
. . The existential quantification scopes over a second existential quantification.
. . . The second existential quantification introduces a third variable.
. . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘question’.
. . . . The third variable is restricted by a question nominalization.
. . . . . The question nominalization binds to the third variable.
. . . . . The question nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . . . The projection is on a fourth variable.
. . . . . . . The variable ranges over the concept ‘car model’.
. . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘person prefers car model’.
. . . . . . . . The ‘person’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . . . . . The ‘car model’ role is bound to the fourth variable.
. . . The second existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘person1 asks person2 question’.
. . . . . The ‘person1’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . . The ‘person2’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . . The ‘question’ role is bound to the third variable.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 81

answer nominalization
Definition: projecting formulation that formulates the meaning: the thing to which the bindable target
bound to the projecting formulation refers is a proposition that is true and that completely
and correctly answers the question meant by the projection of the projecting formulation
Concept Type: logical formulation kind
Note: See ‘closed projection means question’ for an explanation and examples of how questions
are formulated.
Note: In the case of variables being free within a projection, the projection is considered to mean a
question only in the context of there being a referent thing given for each free variable.
Note: A thing referred to by a bindable target bound to an answer nominalization is a satisfactory
proposition if it correctly and completely holds the result of the answer nominalization’s
projection. A satisfying proposition incorporates the meaning formulated by the projection in
the context of there being a referent thing given for each free variable of the projection.
Further, the satisfying proposition refers to each referent of each variable in the projection. If
the projection result has multiple elements, a satisfying proposition holds them all,
conjunctively. If the projection result is empty, a satisfying projection indicates that it is
empty.
Note: Each reference in a satisfying answer should use a defined reference scheme.
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is bound to the answer nominalization and the projection of the
answer nominalization
Example: “An agent tells each customer what special offer is available to the customer”.
The statement is formulated by a universal quantification.
. The quantification introduces a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘customer’.
. The quantification scopes over an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification introduces a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘agent’.
. . The existential quantification scopes over a second existential quantification.
. . . The second existential quantification introduces a third variable.
. . . . The third variable ranges over the concept ‘proposition’.
. . . . The third variable is restricted by an answer nominalization.
. . . . . The answer nominalization binds to the third variable.
. . . . . The answer nominalization considers a projection.
. . . . . . The projection is on a fourth variable.
. . . . . . . The variable ranges over the concept ‘special offer’.
. . . . . . The projection is constrained by an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘special offer is available to
customer’.
. . . . . . . . The ‘special offer’ role is bound to the fourth variable.
. . . . . . . . The ‘customer’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . The second existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘person1 tells person2 proposition’.
. . . . . The ‘person1’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . . The ‘person2’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . . . . The ‘proposition’ role is bound to the third variable.

82 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 If exactly two special offers (Gold Customer Discount and Free One-level Upgrade) are
available to a customer having customer id ‘9876’, a satisfying answer for that customer would
be the proposition meant by the statement: “The special offers available to the customer having
the customer id ‘9876’ are the Gold Customer Discount and the Free One-level Upgrade.”

9.4 Projections

maps to
verb concept role
0..1
projection
variable 0 ..1
logical formulation variable positive integer
1..* projection
0..1 constraining position
formulation is in
is on

constrains 1
projection auxiliary variable
auxiliary
variable

closed semantic formulation

bag projection set projection

closed projection

formalizes
definition

defines
noun concept
0..1

defines
verb concept
0..1

means
question
0..1

Figure 9.12

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

projection FL
Definition: semantic formulation that introduces one or more variables corresponding to involvements
in actualities and that is possibly constrained by a logical formulation and that projects one
or more of those variables
Necessity: Each projection is on at least one variable.
Necessity: Each projection is constrained by at most one logical formulation.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 83

 Necessity: A variable that is free within a logical formulation that constrains a projection is free
within the projection if and only if the projection is not on the variable and the variable
is not an auxiliary variable of the projection.
Necessity: No projection is a logical formulation.
Necessity: A variable that is in a projection is not free within the projection.
Necessity: A variable that is free within a logical formulation that restricts another variable that is in
a projection is free within the projection.
Necessity: A variable that is free within a logical formulation that restricts an auxiliary variable of a
projection is free within the projection if and only if the variable is not the auxiliary
variable.
Note: A restriction on a variable introduced by a projection cannot involve any other variable
introduced by the projection.
Reference Scheme: the set of variables that are in the projection and the set of auxiliary variables of the
projection and the set of logical formulations that constrain the projection
Note: A projection is a structure of meaning used in formulating different kinds of meanings. Each is
explained separately. See the following entries: ‘closed projection defines noun concept’,
‘closed projection defines verb concept’ and ‘closed projection means question’. Also,
projections are incorporated into projecting formulations, which include ‘aggregation
formulation’, ‘noun concept nominalization’, ‘verb concept nominalization’, ‘question
nominalization’, and ‘answer nominalization’ each of which is explained separately with
examples in previous sub clauses.
Note: A projection introduces one or more variables corresponding to involvements in actualities. If
the projection is constrained by a logical formulation, then for each combination of variables,
one referent for each variable, the actuality is that the meaning of the constraining formulation
is true. If the projection has no constraining formulation, then for each combination of
variables, one referent for each variable, the actuality is that the referents exist.

That is, the basic meaning of a projection is a verb concept in which all of the variables
introduced by the projection correspond to roles. The basic meaning corresponds to actualities
for which the following proposition holds:
t1 is a valid referent of v1
[ AND t2 is a valid referent of v2
...
AND tn is a valid referent of vn ]
[ AND S(t1, ..., tn) ]
where v1, ..., vn are the variables introduced by the projection, t1, ..., tn are things, and S(t1, ...,
tn) is the proposition formulated by the logical formulation that constrains the projection, if
any, with those things substituted for the occurrences of the corresponding variables.

The meaning of a projection in some uses, however, can be restricted to refer to the
involvements of the things in the roles (denoted by the projection variables) in those
actualities, or to the things that have those involvements.
Note: Projections introduce variables in two ways: projection variables (variables that the projection
‘is on’) and auxiliary variables. Both correspond to involvements in the actualities that
correspond to the basic meaning, but the result of a projection includes only the involvements
that correspond to the projection variables. Auxiliary variables are used in selecting the
actualities that correspond to the projection, but are not part of the intent of the projection
itself.

84 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

projection is on variable FL
Definition: the projection introduces the variable such that satisfying referents of the variable are in the
result of the projection
Synonymous Form: variable is in projection
Synonymous Form: projection has projection variable
Necessity: No variable that is in a projection is introduced by a quantification.

projection has auxiliary variable FL

Definition: the auxiliary variable is introduced by the projection, but is left out of the result of the
projection thereby giving the possibility of duplicates in a result
Necessity: No auxiliary variable is introduced by a quantification.
Necessity: No projection is on an auxiliary variable.
Necessity: Each projection that has an auxiliary variable is constrained by a logical formulation.

logical formulation constrains projection FL

Definition: the logical formulation determines which referents of the variables introduced by the
projection are in the result of the projection
Synonymous Form: projection has constraining formulation
Note: A logical formulation that constrains a projection restricts the results of the projection. If there
is no constraining logical formulation, then there is no restriction other than what is on
variables in the projection.

auxiliary variable FL
Definition: variable that is introduced by a projection, but which is left out of the result of the projection
thereby giving the possibility of duplicate results
Necessity: Each auxiliary variable is of exactly one projection.
Reference Scheme: a projection that has the auxiliary variable and a projection position of the auxiliary
variable and the set of concepts that are ranged over by the auxiliary variable and the
set of logical formulations that restrict the auxiliary variable and whether the auxiliary
variable is unitary

projection position FL
Definition: positive integer that distinguishes a variable introduced by a projection from others
introduced by the same projection
Concept Type: role

variable has projection position FL

Definition: the variable is introduced by a projection and has the unique projection position among the
set of variables introduced by that projection
Necessity: Each variable has at most one projection position.
Necessity: Each variable that is in a projection has exactly one projection position.
Necessity: Each auxiliary variable has exactly one projection position.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 85

set projection FL
Definition: projection that has no auxiliary variable
Example: A projection formalizing the expression, “customers that are preferred,” is on a single
variable (customer). There is no auxiliary variable, so the result is necessarily a set.

bag projection FL
Definition: projection that has an auxiliary variable
Note: A bag projection treats the resulting set of actualities as a set of the corresponding
involvements of referents of the projection variables in roles in those actualities. A thing that
participates in those involvements may participate in more than one involvement and therefore
have multiple “occurrences” in the projection result. In many cases, the use of the projection
reduces the set of involvements to the set of things involved (and ignores the fact of multiple
occurrence). But in some cases the distinguished involvements/occurrences are important.
Example: A projection formalizing the expression, “account balances of customers that are preferred,” is
on a variable (account balance) and has an auxiliary variable (customer). Only balances are
in the result, but there can be duplicates where multiple customers have the same balance.

closed projection FL
Definition: projection that is a closed semantic formulation
Example: A projection formalizing the expression, “customers that are preferred,” is closed – there is no
variable that is not introduced. But within a formulation of the expression, “Each branch must
report the number of car models offered by the branch,” the projection of “car models offered
by the branch” is open because it binds to a variable (branch) that is introduced outside of the
projection.

closed projection formalizes definition

Definition: the definition conveys the meaning formulated by the closed projection and the closed
projection refers to the concepts represented in the definition
Example: The one concept ‘local car movement’ can be defined as “one-way car movement that is in-
area” or as “car movement that is in-area and that is not round-trip.” Both definitions have the
same meaning, but one is formalized in reference to the noun concept ‘one-way car movement’
(defined as “car movement that is not round-trip”) and the other in reference to the
characteristic ‘car movement is round-trip’. The two formulations are different but mean the
same noun concept.
Necessity: Each closed projection that formalizes a definition of a noun concept defines the noun
concept.
Necessity: Each closed projection that formalizes a definition of a verb concept defines the verb
concept.

closed projection defines noun concept FL

Definition: the closed projection is on exactly one variable and the closed projection formulates a set
of incorporated characteristics sufficient to determine the noun concept
Necessity: Each closed projection that defines a noun concept is on at most one variable.
Necessity: If a closed projection that defines a noun concept is a set projection that is on a
variable that is unitary then the noun concept is an individual noun concept.
Note: A closed projection defines a noun concept by formulating a set of incorporated characteristics
that determine the noun concept. These incorporated characteristics include:

86 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 1. All characteristics of the ranged-over concept of the projection variable of the projection,
if there is one.
2. If a logical formulation restricts the projection variable, the meaning of that formulation
with respect to the projection variable.
3. If the projection has a constraining formulation and the projection has no auxiliary
variable, the meaning of the constraining formulation with respect to the projection
variable.
4. If the projection has a constraining formulation and the projection has an auxiliary
variable, the characteristic of being involved in an actuality that corresponds to the “basic
meaning” of the projection.
Note: When a projection defines a noun concept, it restricts the basic meaning (the set of
corresponding actualities) to the involvements in those actualities that are denoted by the
projection variable, and further to the things participating in those involvements – the things
that play the corresponding role. If there are auxiliary variables, a given thing may participate
in more than one such involvement. In many cases, however, the projection introduces only
one variable and the actualities are of things having a particular property. If a projection that
defines a general concept has an auxiliary variable, the general concept incorporates the
characteristic of being involved in an actuality that also involves a referent of the auxiliary
variable, as if the auxiliary variable is existentially quantified. The characterization is from the
perspective of a referent of the auxiliary variable.
Example: The general concept ‘wrecked car’ defined as “car that is disabled by an accident”
A closed projection defines the general concept.
. The projection is on a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘car’.
. The projection is constrained by an existential quantification.
. . The quantification is on a second variable.
. . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘accident’.
. . The quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘accident disables vehicle’.
. . . . The ‘accident’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . The ‘vehicle’ role is bound to the first variable.

closed projection defines verb concept

Definition: the closed projection is on one variable for each role of the verb concept and the closed
projection identifies enough characteristics incorporated by the verb concept that all of its
incorporated characteristics can be determined
Necessity: If a closed projection defines a verb concept and the closed projection defines a noun
concept then the verb concept is a characteristic and the role of the characteristic is
coextensive with the noun concept.
Note: If a closed projection defines a verb concept, each variable introduced by the projection,
including auxiliary variables, is understood as a point of involvement in actualities that are
instances of the verb concept. If the projection has a constraining formulation, the meaning of
the verb concept for each combination of referents, one for each variable, is the proposition
meant by the logical formulation. If no logical formulation constrains the projection, then the
meaning of the verb concept for each combination of referents is that the referents all exist.
Note: A verb concept defined by a closed projection incorporates the following characteristics:
1. All characteristics of the concept ‘actuality’.
2. Each instance of the verb concept involves exactly one thing in each role of the verb
concept – see ‘variable maps to verb concept role’ below.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 87

 3. If the projection has a constraining formulation and the projection has no auxiliary
variable, the meaning of the constraining formulation with respect to the projection
variables.
4. If the projection has a constraining formulation and the projection has an auxiliary
variable, the meaning of the constraining formulation with respect to the projection
variables and of involving a given referent of each auxiliary variable of the projection in
its corresponding role of the “base meaning.”
Example: The characteristic ‘car is wrecked’ defined as “the car is disabled by an accident.” The closed
projection given in the example under ‘closed projection defines noun concept’ above as
defining ‘wrecked car’ also defines this characteristic. The difference between the
characteristic and the noun concept is that the extension of the noun concept is the set of
wrecked cars while the extension of the characteristic is the set of actualities that a given car is
wrecked. Elements of the two extensions are related one-to-one.
Example: The binary verb concept ‘accident disables vehicle’ defined as “the accident causes the vehicle
to be nonoperational”.
The binary verb concept is defined by a closed projection.
. The projection is on a first variable.
. . The first variable ranges over the concept ‘vehicle’.
. The projection is on a second variable.
. . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘accident’.
. The projection is constrained by an existential quantification.
. . The existential quantification is on a third variable.
. . . The third variable is restricted by an objectification.
. . . . The objectification binds to the third variable.
. . . . The objectification considers an atomic formulation.
. . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘vehicle is nonoperational’.
. . . . . . The ‘vehicle’ role is bound to the first variable.
. . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘event causes state of affairs’.
. . . . The ‘event’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . The ‘state of affairs’ role is bound to the third variable.

variable maps to verb concept role FL

Definition: the variable is in a closed projection that defines the verb concept that has the verb
concept role such that for each element in the projection result the referent of the variable is
involved in the verb concept role in a corresponding actuality in the extension of the verb
concept
Synonymous Form: verb concept role is mapped from variable
Necessity: If a closed projection defines a verb concept then each role of the verb concept is
mapped from exactly one variable that is in the closed projection and each variable
that is in the closed projection maps to exactly one role of the verb concept.
Necessity: A variable maps to a verb concept role only if a closed projection that is on the variable
defines a verb concept that has the verb concept role.
Necessity: Each variable maps to at most one verb concept role.
Note: A verb concept role that is mapped from a projection variable of a closed projection
incorporates the following characteristics (which are the same as if a general concept is defined
by the projection with the one modification that all other introduced variables are auxiliary):
1. All characteristics of the ranged-over concept of the variable, if there is one.

88 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 2. If a logical formulation restricts the variable, the meaning of that formulation with respect
to the variable.
3. If the projection has a constraining formulation, the characteristic of being involved as a
referent of the variable in a given actuality denoted by the constraining formulation.
Example: The ‘car’ role of the characteristic ‘car is wrecked’ in the example above under ‘closed
projection defines verb concept’ is mapped from the one variable in the closed projection
that defines the characteristic. Note that the role incorporates the same characteristics as the
noun concept ‘wrecked car’, and is therefore coextensive with it.
Example: In the binary verb concept ‘accident disables vehicle’ in the example above under ‘closed
projection defines verb concept’, the ‘accident’ role is mapped from the first variable and
the ‘vehicle’ role is mapped from the second variable in the projection that defines the binary
verb concept.

closed projection means question

Definition: the closed projection formulates the question such that the result of the projection answers
the question
Necessity: Each closed projection means at most one question.
Note: A question using an interrogative operator such as ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘why’, or ‘how’ is
generally formulated by a projection on a variable that ranges over a concept that matches the
operator. The interrogative ‘what’ is often used with a designation of a noun concept such as in
“What car is available?” in which case the variable ranges over the noun concept ‘car’. For
each of the other operators the variable ranges over a noun concept fitting to that operator as if
‘what’ had been used with a designation for that concept. Examples of the correspondence of
interrogative operators to noun concepts is shown below.

“When is a car available?” What time

“How is a car driven?” What method
“Where is a car?” What location
“Who can drive a car?” What person
“Why is a car available?” What cause

Note that definition of these nouns (underlined above) is outside the scope of SBVR.
However, the concept ‘cause’ is a role that ranges over the concept ‘actuality’ so an answer to
a ‘why’ question is often formulated using an objectification (the last example under
‘objectification’ considers one actuality as a cause of another).
Note: A true/false question is typically nominalized using the interrogative operator ‘whether’ as in
“The customer asked whether a car is available,” but is asked (in English) with no such
operator: “Is a car available?”. The meaning of ‘whether’ in this context is “What truth-value
does this proposition have?”. The formulation of such a question is a projection on a variable
that ranges over a characteristic type (here called ‘truth-value’) whose instances are the
characteristics ‘proposition is true’ and ‘proposition is false’. The projection is constrained
by the truth-value being that of the proposition “a car is available” formulated using
proposition nominalization.
Example: “Is a car available”?
The question is meant by a closed projection.
. The projection is on a unitary variable.
. . The variable ranges over the concept ‘truth-value’.
. The projection is constrained by a universal quantification.
. . The universal quantification introduces a second unitary variable.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 89

 . . . The second variable ranges over the concept ‘proposition’.
. . . The second variable is restricted by a proposition nominalization.
. . . . The proposition nominalization binds to the second variable.
. . . . The proposition nominalization considers an existential quantification.
. . . . . The existential quantification introduces a third variable.
. . . . . . The variable ranges over the concept ‘car’.
. . . . . The existential quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . . . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘car is available’.
. . . . . . . The ‘car’ role is bound to the third variable.
. . The universal quantification scopes over an atomic formulation.
. . . The atomic formulation is based on the verb concept ‘proposition has truth-value’.
. . . . The ‘proposition’ role is bound to the second variable.
. . . . The ‘truth-value’ role is bound to the first variable.
Note: An auxiliary variable of a closed projection that means a question is relevant to formulating the
meaning of the question, but the question is answered without identifying referents of the
auxiliary variable.

90 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

10 Providing Semantic and Logical Foundations for
Business Vocabulary and Rules
10.1 General
This clause lists and explains foundational concepts taken from respected works on formal logics and mathematics. A
mapping is then shown from the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 to these foundational
concepts.

Sub clause 10.1 provides a formal semantics for the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Clause
10.3 provides the mapping of the concepts in the SBVR Vocabularies in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 to ISO Common Logic and
to OWL/ODM.

10.2 Logical Foundations for SBVR

10.2.1 SBVR Formal Grounding Model Interpretation

10.2.1.1 Introduction

A conceptual model includes both a conceptual schema and a population of facts that conform to the schema. A conceptual
model may cover any desired time span, and contain facts concerning the past, present, or future. This notion is distinct from
changes made to a conceptual model. Any change to a conceptual model, including any change to any fact in the fact
population, creates a different conceptual model. Each conceptual model is distinct and independent, although there may be
relationships between conceptual models that share the same conceptual schema.

‘Facts’ are one of the primary building blocks of the formal interpretation of SBVR presented here. A ‘Ground Fact’ is of a
particular ‘Fact Type.’ The lowest level logical unit in SBVR – an ‘Atomic Formulation’ – is a logical formulation based
directly upon a verb concept, involving no logical operation. An atomic formulation may be considered as an invocation of a
predicate.

The formal interpretation of SBVR presented here makes no distinction about how facts are known: for example, whether they
are asserted as 'ground facts' or obtained by inference. Inferences can be performed within a particular fact model. The formal
interpretation of SBVR presented here does not define any kind of inference that can be made between fact models.

Control over the order in which inferences can be made is a common feature in the automation of inference, as found, for
example, in rules engines. SBVR deals with declarative rules expressed from a business perspective. Transitions between fact
models and the mechanization of those rules in an automated system are outside the scope of SBVR.

Closed-world assumptions are often used in automated systems, such as the well-known ‘negation by failure’ in the Prolog
language. The business orientation of SBVR makes it natural to assume open-world semantics by default. For example, if we
assume that ‘Customers’ have some unary fact such as ‘Credit OK’ then we cannot assume anything like ‘Credit not OK’ in
the absence of this fact. The formal interpretation of SBVR presented here permits fact types to be explicitly identified as
closed where this makes business sense. For example, it may be appropriate to infer ‘Credit not OK’ for a subset of customers
identified as ‘Credit-Checked Customers’ in the absence of a ‘Credit OK’ fact.

The detailed definition of SBVR uses the vocabulary defined in SBVR – in other words, SBVR is defined in terms of itself.
This inevitably makes the SBVR vocabularies higher order, but this does not force any modeler to produce exclusively higher-

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 91

order models. The formal interpretation of SBVR presented here can be used to produce first order interpretations for SBVR
vocabulaires if that is what is desired by the modeler.

The SBVR (Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules) vocabularies are used to describe business vocabularies
and business rules that may be expressed either informally or formally. Business rule expressions are classified as formal only
if they are expressed purely in terms of noun concepts and verb concepts, as well as certain logical/ mathematical operators,
quantifiers, etc. The following discussion of business rule semantics is confined to formal statements of business rules. (A
closer definition of terms is given as needed later throughout this clause.)

The rest of this clause is structured as follows. 10.2.1.2 provides some basic background and terminology, explaining our
usage of terms such as “schema,’ “model,” and “fact.” 10.2.1.3 reviews the approach to choosing open or closed world
semantics. 10.2.1.4 provides an overview of the use of quantifiers as well as alethic or deontic modal operators in specifying
business rules. 10.2.1.5 and 10.2.1.6 respectively discuss the formal semantics for static, alethic constraints and static, deontic
constraints. 10.2.1.7 considers derivation rules. 10.2.1.8 examines dynamic constraints. 10.2.1.9 reviews the option for using
higher-order logic.

10.2.1.2 Facts, Schemas, and Models

For any given business, the “universe of discourse” indicates those aspects of the business that are of interest. The term
“business domain” is commonly used in the modeling community, with equivalent meaning. A “model,” in the sense used
here, is a structure intended to describe a business domain, and is composed of a conceptual schema (fact structure) and a
population of ground facts (see later). A fact is a proposition taken to be true by the business. Population facts are restricted to
elementary and existential facts (see later).

Instantiated roles of facts refer to individuals (such as “Employee 123” or “the sales department”). These individuals are
considered as being of a particular type (such as “Employee” or “Department”) where type denotes “set of possible
individuals.”

SBVR’s ‘general concept’, ‘individual noun concept’ and ‘verb concept’ are three kinds of concept (unit of knowledge created
by a unique combination of characteristics [per ISO-1087-1]). Each is a kind of meaning – respectively, the meaning of an
improper noun phrase, the meaning of a proper noun and the meaning of a verb phrase in the context of a declarative sentence.
Instances of verb concepts are actualities that involve things that exist in the universe of discourse. These instances are not
propositions. In contrast, the logical underpinnings of these three kinds of concepts are ‘type of individual’, singleton ‘type of
individual’, and ‘fact type’, respectively.

• General concepts logically map to types of individual. Each type of individual is a set of possible instances of the
general concept according to a set of possible existential facts that can be formulated based on reference schemes.

• Individual noun concepts logically map to singleton types of individuals. Each single type of individual has exactly
one element, which is the instance of the individual noun concept.

Verb concepts map to fact types, each fact type being a set of possible ground facts that can be formulated based on the verb
concept and that use reference schemes to identify, for each fact, each thing that fills each role.

The conceptual schema declares the concepts, fact types (kinds of facts, such as “Employee works for Department”) and rules
relevant to the business domain.

The terms ‘rule’ and ‘business rule,’ in the senses used here, are defined in 12.2.2. Rules are effectively higher-level facts (i.e.,
facts about propositions), and in a loose sense are also sometimes considered under the generic term ‘fact.’ For clarity, the
term “ground fact” is used here to explicitly exclude such (meta) facts.

92 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Constraints are used to define bounds, borders, or limits on fact populations, and may be static or dynamic. A static constraint
imposes a restriction on what fact populations are possible or permitted, for each fact population taken individually.

Static constraint
Each Employee was born on at most one Date

A dynamic constraint imposes a restriction on transitions between fact populations.

Dynamic constraint
A person’s marital status may change from single to married, but not from divorced to single

Derivation rules indicate how the population of a fact type may be derived from the populations of one or more fact types or
how a type of individual may be defined in terms of other types of individuals and fact types.

Derivation rules
Person1 is an uncle of Person2 if Person1 is a brother of some Person3 who is a parent of Person2,
Each Australian is a Person who is a citizen of Country ‘AU.’

A model of the kind considered here is a fact model, not a process model. The term knowledge base is sometimes used to
reflect this focus (on what is known, as opposed to what must be done). At least two kinds of fact model may be specified:
reality models; and in-practice models. Although both these models use the same set of fact types, they may differ in the
constraints imposed on those fact types. A reality model of a business domain is intended to reflect the constraints that actually
apply to the business domain in the real world. An in-practice model of a business domain reflects the constraints that the
business chooses in practice to impose on its knowledge of the business domain.

Suppose the following two fact types are of interest: Employee was born on Date; Employee has PhoneNumber.
In the real world, each employee is born, and may have more than one phone number. Hence the reality model
includes the constraint “Each Employee was born on at least one Date” and allows that “It is possible that the
same Employee has more than one PhoneNumber.” Now suppose that the business decides to make it
optional whether it knows an employee’s birth date. Suppose also that the business is interested in knowing at
most one phone number for any given employee. In this case, the in-practice model excludes the reality
constraint “Each Employee was born on at least one Date,” but it includes the following constraint that doesn’t
apply in the reality model: Each Employee has at most one PhoneNumber.

Constraint differences between reality and in-practice models have some restrictions (for instance, in-practice uniqueness
constraints need to be at least as strong as the corresponding real world uniqueness constraints, and if a fact type role is
optional in the real world it is optional in the in-practice world, but the converse need not apply).

Reality schemas are sometimes constructed first to help determine in-practice schemas. Although a population may be added
to any schema to form a model, it is common to add populations only to in-practice schemas. So in-practice models are more
common than reality models. The possibility of incomplete knowledge arises for both reality and in-practice models but is

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 93

more prevalent with in-practice models since these tend to include more optional aspects. Adoption of open or closed world
assumptions is discussed in 10.2.1.3.

Example of incomplete knowledge

The business might know just some of a given employee’s phone numbers

We use the term “fact model” or “knowledge base” in a broad sense. Conceptually, the fact model is represented by a set of
sentences, each of which connotes either a rule or a ground fact. The fact model may be fully automated (as in, say, a database
system), manual (as in, say, a paper record system), or semi-automated. The knowledge may even be stored in human memory
(belonging to the business domain experts who may be collectively regarded as the authoritative source of those business facts
that are of interest). However, the knowledge must ultimately be expressible by sentences communicated between humans.

A fact model is a conceptual model of the business domain, using a suitable high level vocabulary and language that is readily
understood by the business domain experts. Typically this language will be a formal subset of a natural language. In particular,
the language is not a machine-oriented technical language (such as C# or Java) that might be used to implement a system to
enforce at least some of the business rules included in the model. Business domain models are meant to capture the relevant
business rules, not to implement them. Whether a given business rule is implemented at all, or how it might be implemented
(automated, semi-automated, or manual) are not issues here. Typically however, it is expected that many business rules
specified in a business domain model will likely be enforced in an automated way; and in such cases, the rules need to be
formally expressed.

Any fact model passes through a sequence of states, each of which includes a set of ground facts, which are either elementary
or existential. Roughly speaking, an elementary fact is a declaration that an individual has a property, or that one or more
individuals participate in a relationship, where the fact cannot be split into simpler facts with the same individuals (without
information loss).

Examples of elementary facts

The Country named ‘Australia’ is large
The President named ‘Bill Clinton’ was born in the State named ‘Arkansas’

An elementary fact may be treated as an instantiation of a typed, irreducible predicate of interest to the business, except that
multiple fact type readings using different predicates, possibly based on different orderings of the individuals, are considered
to express the same fact if they mean the same. Individuals are typically denoted by definite descriptions.

The sentences (1) and (2) below express the same fact:
(1) The President named ‘Bill Clinton’ was born in the State that has the State Name ‘Arkansas.’
(2) The State that has the State Name ‘Arkansas’ is the birthplace of the Presedent named ‘Bill Clinton.’
“The President named ‘Bill Clinton’” is treated here as shorthand for “The President who has the President
Name ‘Bill Clinton’” .

Instead of definite descriptions, proper names may be used if they function as individual constants in the business domain.
Lexical individuals denote themselves. Individual constants may also be introduced as abbreviations of definite descriptions.

Example of a self-denoting lexical individual

The country code ‘US’

94 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

We use the term “fact” in the sense of “proposition taken to be true by the business” (i.e., the business members are prepared to
act as if they believed the proposition is true; their attitude toward the proposition is one of epistemic commitment). This sense
of epistemic commitment does not require any special interpretation of logical operators, or use of epistemic or doxastic logic.
The logical connectives (and, or, not, if-then, etc.) may be interpreted just like truth functional operators (conjunction,
disjunction, negation, material implication, etc.) in 2-valued classical logic. An existential fact is used to simply assert the
existence of an individual,

Example of an existential fact

There is a Country that has the Country Code ‘US’

A fact type may be identified by one or more fact type readings that declare typed predicates.

Examples of fact type readings

The President named 'Mary McAleese' governs the Country that has the Country Name 'Ireland'
is an instance of the fact type
President governs Country

The Country that has the Country Name 'Ireland' is governed by the President named 'Mary McAleese'
is an instance of the fact type
Country is governed by President

Sub clause 10.2.1 uses initial capitals to denote types of individuals (other styles may be used for this purpose), and in general
allows predicates in mixfix notation.

Example of mixfix notation

President visited Country on Date

More conventional but less readable syntaxes may also be used.

Example of more conventional notation

President governs Country
may be expressed as
governs(x:President; y:Country)

Each predicate has a fixed arity, so variadic predicates are not supported.

For example, the unary "smokes" predicate in 'Person smokes' is considered to be different from the binary
"smokes" predicate in 'Person smokes Cigar Brand.'

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 95

Note that we do not identify untyped predicates simply by their name and arity.

For example, the “has” in 'Person has Disease' is considered to be a different predicate from the "has" in
'Disease has Cure.'

The fact model includes both the conceptual schema and the ground fact population (set of fact instances that instantiate the
fact types in the schema). The conceptual schema includes a generic component and a domain-specific component. The
generic component is common to all conceptual schemas: this includes relevant axioms from logic and mathematics1. The
domain-specific component includes the concept definitions and declarations of the ground fact types and business rules
relevant to the specific business domain.

Trivially, each fact model includes existential facts to declare the existence of generic constants such as numbers, but we
ignore these in our discussion, confining the use of “population” to the domain-specific population of interest. With that
understanding, the fact model at any point in time may be declared as a set of sentences that collectively express the
conceptual schema and the fact population of the domain-specific fact types in the conceptual schema.

Although in practice the conceptual schema may evolve over time (if the business domain changes its structure or scope of
interest) we ignore schema evolution here, treating the conceptual schema as fixed. Schema evolution may be handled as a
metametalevel concern. Model exchange must be enabled between a system supporting SBVR and other systems identified as
desirable targets for interoperability. Any exchange of a fact model takes place at a given point in time, and at that time the
conceptual schema is fixed (later exchanges may be used to update the fact model as required). Also, when a necessity is
originally stated, the intent is that by default the rule should stay in force.

In contrast to the conceptual schema, the (domain-specific) fact population is typically highly variable.

For example, the fact type "Employee works on Project" may initially have no instances, but over time thousands
of employees may be added or removed from various project teams.

Figure 10.1 provides a simplified picture of this situation, indicating that the fact model of sentences expressing population
facts (instances of domain-specific fact types) is a varset (variable-set) whose population at any given time is a set of facts.

Nr
sentences

Pop ulation facts

Conceptual schema
Time
t0 t1 t2 t3 t4

Figure 10.1 - Evolution of the fact model (schema plus ground fact instances)

1. For a detailed discussion of one way to formalize this, see [Halp1989]. A fact model is specified as a set of sentences in a language
based on predicate logic with identity. An interpretation is defined in the usual way (e.g., each predicate symbol maps onto a relation
over the domain of individuals) and a model (not the same as fact model) is an interpretation where all the sentences are true.

96 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

The fact model may be initially empty or pre-populated with some facts. The fact model may expand or shrink over time as
facts are added or removed from it. At any point in time, the fact model includes a set of facts. Figure 10.2 depicts this situation
in more detail, using a labeled box to denote a fact instance (f1 = fact 1, etc.).

Population f8
Facts f7
f5 f6
f4 f5 f4
f3 f3 f4 f3
f2 f2 f2 f2
f1 f1 f1 f1 Time
t0 t1 t2 t3 t4

Figure 10.2- Evolution of the ground fact population

In treating a fact model as a varset of facts that typically changes over time, we allow facts to be added or deleted
(see Figure 10.2). We might delete a fact because we revise our decision on whether it is (taken to be) true (for instance, we
might discover a mistake), or because we decide that fact is no longer of interest. Now consider the following description by
[Anto2001] of non-monotonic logic.
The term “non-monotonic logic” covers a family of formal frameworks devised to capture and represent defeasible
inference, i.e., that kind of inference of everyday life in which reasoners draw conclusions tentatively, reserving the
right to retract them in the light of further information. Such inferences are called “non-monotonic” because the set of
conclusions warranted on the basis of a given knowledge base does not increase (in fact, it can shrink) with the size of
the knowledge base itself. This is in contrast to classical (first-order) logic, whose inferences, being deductively valid,
can never be “undone” by new information.

On the surface, it would appear that we are committing to a non-monotonic logic, given that we allow facts to be deleted in
going from one state to another. However it seems reasonable to formalize those business rules that are static constraints in
terms of classical, non-monotonic logic.

For example, we might formalize the static constraint that each person was born on some date as an SBVR
logical formulation of the formula ∀x:Person ∃y:Date x was born on y.

In classifying the rule as a static constraint, we assert that it is true for each state of the fact model, taken individually. This
seems to be enough, from the point of view of exchanging fact models, which always involves just one state at that time. Note
also that the characterization of fact models as variable sets of sentences does not claim that propositions change their truth
value over time. We regard propositions to be atemporal: they are timelessly true or false, so never change their truth value.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 97

At least superficially, it is possible that a sentence in one fact model state expresses a different proposition from that expressed
by the same sentence in another fact model state. For example, the meaning of time-deictic sentence occurrences depends on
the time they were uttered or inscribed.

For instance, given the static constraint that each person lives in at most one country, we might assert for the
fact model state 1 that Terry lives in Australia, for fact model state 2 we delete “Terry lives in Australia” and add
that Terry lives in Utah, and for fact model state 3 we delete “Terry lives in Utah” and add that Terry lives in
Australia. This does not involve any change in proposition truth values, because different propositions were
being asserted in the different states. Here the verb phrase “lives in” means “currently lives in,” where ‘currently”
may be unpacked into a time-indexed expression that includes the time of that fact model state.

10.2.1.3 Open/Closed World Semantics

Adopting closed world semantics basically means that all relevant facts are known (either as primitives – not defined in terms
of other things – or derivable). So if a proposition cannot be proved true, it is assumed to be false. This closed world
assumption entails negation by failure, since failure to find a fact implies its negation. Open world semantics allows that some
knowledge may be incomplete; so if a proposition and its negation are both absent, it is unknown whether the proposition is
true.

In modeling any given business domain, attention can be restricted to propositions of interest to that domain. If a proposition
is not relevant to that domain, it is not included as a fact there, but we do not assume it is false; rather we simply dismiss it
from consideration. For any business domain, we have a finite set of types of individuals and fact types (typed predicates), and
any type of individual or fact type outside this set is simply disregarded.

It is a practical issue whether one’s knowledge pertaining to the population of a given fact type is complete or not, since this
may impact how the business derives other facts (e.g., negations) or how it reacts to query results (e.g., whether to treat “not”
as “not the case” or merely “not known to be the case”). So we regard the issue of open/closed world semantics to be relevant
to the fact model itself, not just automated implementations of the fact model.

Many implementations treat “not” in the closed-world sense of either “not known” (as a primitive or derivable fact), i.e.,
negation as failure, or “not known as a primitive fact,” i.e., semi-positive negation. For instance, Prolog-based rule engines
rely on negation by failure, and the “not” in SQL means “not recorded in a base table or derivable in a view.”

SQL example,
Figure 10-3 depicts the relational schema and a sample population for a database fragment used to store the
employee number and name of each employee, as well as the cars they drive (if any).

98 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 employee (empNr, empName) Employee Drives

empNr empName empNr carRegNr

Drives (empNr. carRegNr) 1 John Smith 1 ABC123

2 Ann Jones 2 AAA246
3 John Smith 3 DEF001

Figure 10.3 - A sample database storing some facts about employees

Suppose we want to know the employee number and name of each employee. In SQL we might formulate this
query as select * from Employee, which returns the three rows of data shown in the Employee table. This result
returns the employee number and name of those employees referenced in the database. Whether this includes
all the employees in the business domain depends on whether the database is complete with respect to the
population of the elementary fact type Employee has EmployeeName. If it is complete, the fact type is closed,
and we may treat the SQL query as equivalent to our intended query about the business domain. If it is not
complete, then the fact type is open, and we may need to take into account that there may be more employees
than listed in the result.

Knowledge about completeness is typically not stored in databases, although in principle it could be. Users typically adopt the
closed world assumption when interpreting data in relational databases. If independently of the database system they know
how complete the data is, they may take that into account in deciding how completely the query results from the database
system relate to the real world of their business domain.

Suppose we want to know the employee number of each employee who does not drive a car for the database
shown in Figure 10-3. In SQL we might formulate this query as select empNr from Employee where empNr
not in (select empNr from Drives). This returns just one employee number (viz. 3). Whether this covers all the
non-driver employees in the business domain depends on whether the population of the two fact types
(Employee has EmployeeName and Employee drives Car) is complete or not. Again, this knowledge about
completeness could be stored in the database, but typically isn’t, in which case users need to rely on their own
knowledge about completeness to decide whether the data returned is complete or not.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 99

The approach adopted here is fact-based (as opposed to attribute-based), where each fact type is modeled as a type of
relationship, never as an attribute. Annex J provides extended examples of fact types expressed in this way using a popular
fact-based modeling approach.

Example fact-based representation of a database schema

The information structure implied by the database schema shown in Figure 10-3 can be expressed as a set of
fact types and constraints as follows, using the capitalized mixfix notational style described earlier:
Types of individuals
Employee
Car
Employee Number
Employee Name
Car Registration Number
(Note that here Employee and Car represent the kind of real world individuals that typically change state.
Employee Number, Employee Name and Car Registration Number represent simple self-identifying lexical
constants.)

Fact types
Employee has Employee Number
Employee has Employee Name
Car has Car Registration Number
Employee drives Car

100 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Constraints
Each Employee has exactly one Employee Number.
For each Employee Number, at most one Employee has that Employee Number.
Each Employee has exactly one Employee Name.
Each Car has exactly one Car Registration Number.
For each Car Registration Number, at most one Car has that Car Registration Number.
It is possible that the same Employee drives more than one Car and that more than one Employee drives
the same Car.
Completeness claims about a schema can be clarified by referring to whether fact type roles are mandatory and
whether instances of fact type roles are unique. A fact type role is mandatory if, for each state of the fact model,
each instance in the population of the associated type of individual must play that fact type role. A fact type role
(or combination of fact type roles) is unique if, for each state of the fact model, each individual that instantiates
the fact type role (or each sequence of individuals that instantiates the fact type role sequence) does so once
only.

In the schema given above:

each Employee has exactly one Employee Name (mandatory fact type role) but it is optional whether
an Employee drives a car.
each Employee has exactly one Employee Name: the Employee fact type role is unique in this fact type
but the Employee Name fact type role is not (an Employee has only one Employee Name, but the same
Employee Name could refer to more than one Employee).

To consider completeness claims, we can express additional requirements in terms of the fact model populations of types of
individuals and the sequences of fact type roles they play in the population of fact types. A schema, as described earlier, is
useful for clarifying the conditions under which completeness claims may be made.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 101

 Referring again to the Employee-Car schema, for any state of the fact model, let pop(I) denote the fact model
population of the type of individual I in that state, and let pop(F) denote the fact model population of the fact type
role sequence for the fact type F in that state. If the fact model is complete with regard to capturing the real
world business domain, then for each state of the fact model the following three additional conditions are
satisfied:
(1) pop(Employee) = set of employees in the (real world) business domain (at that time)
(2) pop(Car) = set of cars in the business domain
(3) pop(Employee drives Car)= set of (employee, car) pairs from pop(Employee) × pop(Car) where that
employee drives that car in the business domain.
Requirements (1) and (2) declare that the fact model population of the Employee and Car types of individuals
always matches that of the business domain being modeled. We may regard this as asserting the closed world
assumption for those types of individuals. Requirement (3) asserts that for those employees and cars that are
included in the fact model, if they drive a car then this fact is known. In combination, requirements (1) – (3) entail
the closed world assumption for the drives fact type (if an employee drives a car in the business domain, this is
known in the fact model).
Given the schema, and requirement (1), the closed world assumption is implied for the employee name fact
type. This follows because of the mandatory and uniqueness constraints on the first fact type role (employee is
closed, so we have all the employees; having a name is mandatory, so we have at least one name for each
employee; the uniqueness constraint means that each employee has at most one name; so for all employees
we now have all their names). Note that open world semantics still applies to the employee name fact type; in
the presence of (1) and the constraints, this is equivalent to closed world semantics for that fact type.

For any given schema, the business might have complete knowledge about some parts and incomplete knowledge about other
parts. So in practice, a mixture of open and closed world assumptions may apply. We use the term “local closure” (or “relative
closure”) for the application of the closed world assumption to just some parts of the overall schema. One might assume open
world semantics by default, and then apply local closure to specific parts as desired; or alternatively, assume closed world
semantics by default and then apply “local openness.” We adopt the former approach as it seems more realistic when
modeling real business domains.

Closure (i.e., local closure) may be explicitly asserted for any type of individual, on a one-by-one basis, to declare that for
each state the fact model population agrees with that of the population of that type of individual in the actual business domain.
The relevant meta-fact type is: “type of individual is closed.” It may be reasonable to assume closure for types of individual
by default, but it seems unrealistic to assume closure for predicates.

Closure may also be asserted for fact types. Semi-closure is with respect to the fact model population of the types of individual
playing a fact type role in the predicate. If closure has also been declared for these types, then (full) closure also holds for the
fact type (i.e., closure with respect to the domain population of the types of individuals). The relevant meta-fact types are:
“fact type is semi-closed” and “fact type is closed.” The meta-fact type “concept is closed” applies to both types of individuals
and fact types, since both are concepts.

As seen earlier, closure for a fact type is sometimes implied. A functional fact type role is the complete argument of a
uniqueness constraint. For schemas whose functional fact type roles are also functional in the business domain, the following
implications hold. If a predicate includes a mandatory, functional fact type role, then that predicate is semi-closed by
implication (as in the employee name example earlier). This result may be generalized to the case of a mandatory fact type
role that has a frequency constraint of exactly n (although some attribute-based approaches do not deal reliably with various n-
ary cases). If a type of individual has a set of functional fact type roles that are disjunctively mandatory and mutually

102 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

exclusive (in other words, they are spanned by an exclusive-or constraint), then the predicates that include those fact type roles
are semi-closed by implication. If the type of individual has also been declared complete in such cases, then (full) closure
applies.

For many fact types in a business domain, especially those without functional fact type roles, it is impractical to include all the
negative instances as primitive facts.

For example, for the fact type “Employee drives Car,” there might be many thousands of cars, so one would
normally not explicitly include negated facts such as “Employee 1 does not drive Car ‘AAA246’.”

In some cases however, especially with functional fact type roles or when the population is small, it is practical to include
negated facts as base facts.

Example
To provide a concrete example of the alternative, we can consider the characteristic 'Person smokes,' and three
instances of Person: Fred, Sue, and Tom (for simplicity we will ignore reference schemes and assume that a
person may be identified by their first name).
Assume that we know that Fred smokes. If we use open-world semantics, then it is unknown whether Sue or
Tom smoke. If we apply closed world semantics, then the absence of facts that Sue or Tom smoke entails that
they don't smoke.
If, for each Person, it is known whether that person smokes or not, then we could adopt one of two approaches
to model our business domain.
(a) Use two characteristics, such as 'Person smokes' and 'Person is a nonsmoker,' with an exclusive-or
constraint between the fact types. In other words, a Person must play one fact type role or the other, but cannot
play both.
(b) Use a binary fact type such as 'Person has Smoker Status' where Smoker Status is indicated by some
suitable code such as 'S' or 'NS' (for smoker or nonsmoker respectively), together with the constraint that a
Person has exactly one Smoker Status.
In each of these cases, negated facts are explicitly treated as primitive facts and the predicates are given open
world semantics. Semi-closure is implied because of the constraints.
Now consider a business domain where we know that Fred smokes, and that Sue doesn't smoke, but are
unsure whether Tom smokes. In this case we have three alternative approaches that we could consider.
(a) Use two characteristics, such as 'Person smokes' and 'Person is a nonsmoker,' with an exclusion constraint
between the fact types. In other words, a Person may play one fact type role or the other (but not both) or may
play neither fact type role. For the given scenario, we would have the facts 'Fred smokes,' 'Sue is a nonsmoker'
and no information for Tom.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 103

 (b) Use a binary fact type such as 'Person has Smoker Status' where Smoker Status is indicated by some
suitable code such as 'S' or 'NS' (for smoker or nonsmoker respectively), together with the constraint that a
Person has zero or one Smoker Status value. For the given scenario we would have the facts 'Fred has Smoker
Status 'S,'' 'Sue has Smoker Status 'NS,'' and no information for Tom.
(c) Use a binary fact type such as 'Person has Smoker Status' where Smoker Status is indicated by some
suitable code such as 'S,' 'NS,' or '?' (for smoker, nonsmoker, or unknown, respectively), together with the
constraint that a Person has exactly one Smoker Status. In this case we treat the 'unknown' value ('?') like any
other value using 2-valued logic, rather than adopt a generic null based on 3-valued logic, as in SQL. For the
given scenario we would have the facts “Fred has Smoker Status 'S,’” “Sue has Smoker Status 'NS,’'' and “Tom
has Smoker Status '?’.''

The above discussion indicates some ways of declaring and inferring various kinds of closure in the underlying fact model,
based on a default, open world semantics. Here, all business rules that are parsed as formal are given a logical formulation
based on the fact types in the underlying model. When people formulate queries on the model population, they may either
adopt whatever closure guarantees are formally captured in the model, or instead informally rely on their own knowledge
about closure to decide whether the data returned is complete or not. Such informal knowledge is outside the fact model, and
does not impact the formal semantics of the logical formulation used in exchanging fact models.

In addition to specifying fact models at a conceptual level, languages may be defined for querying these models directly at a
conceptual level. These may include features such as the ability to specify projections in the scope of negation, as well as
projections in the scope of the “whether-or-not” operator which is used to perform conceptual left outer joins [Bloe1996.
Bloe1997] . Further details are outside the scope of this sub clause.

10.2.1.4 Quantifiers and Modalities

Static constraints apply to each state of the fact model, taken individually. These may typically be expressed as logical
formulations that are equivalent to formulae in 2-valued, first-order predicate calculus with identity. The 2-valued restriction
applies because the fact types on which the rules are based are elementary (irreducible), so their instances never involve nulls.
For convenience, we can use mixfix notation for predicates, and predefine some numeric quantifiers in addition to ∀ and ∃.
Table 10.1 summarizes the pre-defined quantifiers.

Table 10.1- Quantifiers

Symbol Example Name Meaning

∀ ∀x Universal For each and every x, taken one at a time

Quantifier

∃ ∃x Existential Quan- At least one x

tifier

∃1 ∃1x Exactly-one There is exactly one (at least one and at most one) x
quantifier

∃0..1 ∃0..1x At-most-one There is at most one x

quantifier

104 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Table 10.1- Quantifiers

∃0..n ∃0..2x At-most-n There is at most n x

(n ≥ 1) quantifier Note: n is always instantiated by a number ³ 1.

So this is really a set of quantifiers (n = 1, etc.)

∃n.. ∃2..x At-least-n There is at least n x

(n ≥ 1) quantifier Note: n is always instantiated by a number ³ 1.

So this is really a set of quantifiers (n = 1, etc.)

∃n ∃ 2x Exactly-n There is at exactly (at least and at most) n x

(n ≥ 1) quantifier Note: n is always instantiated by a number ³ 1.

So this is really a set of quantifiers (n = 1, etc.)

∃n..m ∃2..5x Numeric range There is at least n and at most m x

(n ≥ 1, m ≥ 2) quantifier

The additional existential quantifiers are easily defined in terms of the standard quantifiers.

For example, the exactly-two quantifier ∃2 may be defined as follows. Let x, x1, x2 be individual variables and Φx
be a well formed formula with no free occurrences of x1, x2. Then:

∃2x Φx =df ∃x1∃x2 [Φx1 & Φx2 & x1 ≠ x2 & ∀y(Φy ⊃ (y = x1 ∨ y = x2))]

Definition schemas for the other quantifiers may be found on page 4-11 of [Halp1989].

The rule formulations covered here may use any of the basic alethic or deontic modal operators shown in Table 10.2. These
modal operators are treated as proposition-forming operators on propositions (rather than actions). Other equivalent readings
may be used in whatever concrete syntax is used to originally declare the logical rule (e.g., “necessary” might be replaced by
“required,” and “obligatory” might be replaced by “ought to be the case”). Derived modal operators may also be used in the
surface syntax, but are translated into the basic modal operators plus negation (~).

For example, “It is impossible that p” is defined as “It is not possible that p” (~◊p), and “It is forbidden that p” is
defined as “It is not permitted that p” (Fp =df ~Pp).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 105

Table 10.2 - Modalities

Modality Modal Formula applying modal negation rules ...

= (Logically Equivalent) Modal
Formula

Formula Reading (Verbalized Formula Reading (Verbalized as):

as):

alethic necessity □p It is necessary that p ~◊~p It is not possible that not p

the negation of ~ □p It is not necessary that p ◊~p It is possible that not p

necessity:
non-necessity

possibility ◊p It is possible that p ~□~p It is not necessary that not p

the negation of ~ ◊p It is not possible that p □~p It is necessary that not p

possibility: It is impossible that p
impossibility

contingency ◊p & ~□p It is possible but not necessary ~(~ ◊p v □p) It is neither impossible nor
necessary that p
that p

deontic obligation Op It is obligatory that p ~P~p It is not permitted that not p

the negation of ~Op It is not obligatory that p P~p It is permitted that not p
obligation:
non-obligation

permission Pp It is permitted that p ~O~p It is not obligatory that not p

the negation of ~Pp It is not permitted that p O~p It is obligatory that not p
permission: It is prohibited that p
prohibition Fp It is forbidden that p

optionality Pp & ~Op It is permitted but not obligatory ~ ( ~Pp v Op) It is neither prohibited nor
that p obligatory that p

Table Legend:

□ necessity = logically equivalent

◊ possibility & and

O obligation v or (inclusive-or)

P permission ~ not

F forbidden p some proposition

106 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

The following modal negation rules apply: it is not necessary that ≡ it is possible that not (~□p ≡ ◊~p); it is not possible that ≡
it is necessary that not (~◊p ≡ □~p); it is not obligatory that ≡ it is permitted that it is not the case that (~Op ≡ P~p); it is not
permitted that ≡ it is obligatory that it is not the case that (~Pp ≡ O~p). In principle, these rules could be used with double
negation to get by with just one alethic and one deontic operator (e.g., ◊p could be defined as ~□~p, and Pp could be defined
as ~O~p).

Every constraint has an associated modality, determined by the logical modal operator that functions explicitly or implicitly as
its main operator. We can distinguish between positive, negative, and default verbalizations of constraints. In positive
verbalizations, an alethic modality of necessity is often assumed (if no modality is explicitly specified), but may be explicitly
prepended.

For example, the following static constraint

C1 Each Person was born in at most one Country.
may be explicitly verbalized with an alethic modality thus:
C1’ It is necessary that each Person was born in at most one Country.

We interpret this in terms of possible world semantics, as introduced by Saul Kripke and other logicians in the 1950s. A
proposition is necessarily true if and only if it is true in all possible worlds. With respect to a static constraint declared for a
given business domain, a possible world corresponds to a state of the fact model that might exist at some point in time.

The constraint C1 in the example above means that for each state of the fact model, each instance in the
population of Person is born in at most one country.

A proposition is possible if and only if it is true in at least one possible world. A proposition is impossible if and only if it is
true in no possible world (i.e., it is false in all possible worlds).

In the example above, constraint C1 may be reformulated as the following negative verbalization:
C1” It is impossible that the same Person was born in more than one Country.

In practice, both positive and negative verbalizations are useful for validating constraints with domain experts, especially
when illustrated with sample populations that provide satisfying examples or counter-examples respectively. The approach
described here does not stipulate a high level language for rule verbalization, so many alternative verbalizations may be used.

Many business constraints are deontic rather than alethic in nature. To avoid confusion, we recommend that, when declaring a
deontic constraint, the deontic modality always be explicitly included.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 107

 Consider the following static, deontic constraint.
C2 It is obligatory that each Person is a husband of at most one Person.
If this rule were instead expressed simply as “each Person is a husband of at most one Person,” it would not be
obvious that a deontic interpretation was intended. The deontic version indicates a condition that ought to be
satisfied, while recognizing that the condition might not be satisfied. Including the obligation operator makes the
rule much weaker than a necessity claim, since it allows that there could be some states of the fact model where
a person is a husband of more than one wife (excluding same-sex unions from instances of the husband
relationship). For such cases of polygamy, it is important to know the facts indicating that the person has
multiple wives. Rather than reject this possibility, we allow it and then typically perform an action that is designed
to minimize the chance of such a situation arising again (e.g., send a message to inform legal authorities about
the situation).
Constraint C2 may be reformulated as either of the following negative verbalizations:
C2’ It is forbidden that the same Person is a husband of more than one Person.
C2” It is not permitted that the same Person is a husband of more than one Person.

In practice, most statements of business rules include only one modal operator, and this operator is the main operator of the
whole rule statement. For these cases, we simply tag the constraint as being of the modality corresponding to its main
operator, without committing to any particular modal logic. Apart from this modality tag, there are some basic modal
properties that may be used in transforming the original high level expression of the rule into a standard logical formulation.
At a minimum, these include the modal negation rules.

We also make use of equivalences that allow one to move the modal operator to the front of the formula.

For example, suppose the user formulates rule C1 instead as:

For each Person, it is necessary that that Person was born in at most one Country.
The modal operator is now embedded in the scope of a universal quantifier. To transform this rule formulation to
a standard logical formulation that classifies the rule as an alethic necessity, we move the modal operator before
the universal quantifier, to give:
It is necessary that each Person was born in at most one Country.

For such tasks, we assume that the Barcan formulae and their converses apply, so that □ and ∀ are commutative, as are ◊ and
∃. In other words:

∀x □ Fx ≡ □ ∀xFx
∃x◊Fx ≡ ◊∃xFx

108 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

While these commutativity results are valid for all normal, alethic modal logics, some philosophical concerns have been raised
about these equivalences (e.g., see sub clauses 4.6-4.8 of [Girl2000])..

As a deontic example, suppose the user formulates rule C2 instead as:

For each Person, it is obligatory that that Person is a husband of at most one Person.
Using a deontic variant of the Barcan equivalences, we commute the ∀ and O operators, thus transforming the
rule formulation into the deontic obligation:
It is obligatory that each Person is a husband of at most one Person.

So far, our rule examples have included just one modal operator, which (perhaps after transformation) also turns out to be the
main operator. Ignoring dynamic aspects, we may handle such cases without needing to commit to the formal semantics of any
specific modal logic. The only impact of tagging a rule as a necessity or obligation is on the rule enforcement policy.
Enforcement of a necessity rule should never allow the necessity rule to be violated. Enforcement of an obligation rule should
allow states that do not satisfy the obligation rule, and take some other remedial action: the precise action to be taken is not
specified in SBVR, as it is out of scope. At any rate, a business person ought to be able to specify a deontic rule first at a high
level, without committing at that time to the precise action to be taken if the condition is not satisfied; of course, the action still
needs to be specified later in refining the rule to make it fully operational.

10.2.1.5 Static, Alethic Constraints

Rule formulations may make use of two alethic modal operators: □ = it is necessary that; ◊ = it is possible that. Static
constraints are treated as alethic necessities by default, where each state of the fact model corresponds to a possible world..

Given the fact type Person was born in Country, the constraint “Each Person was born in at most one Country”
may be captured by an SBVR logical formulation that may be automatically translated to the formula ∀x:Person
∃0..1y:Country x was born in y. This formula is understood to be true for each state of the knowledgebase.
Pragmatically, the rule is understood to apply to all future states of the fact model, until the rule is revoked or
changed. This understanding could be made explicit by prepending the formula with □ to yield the modal
formula □∀x:Person ∃0..1y:Country x was born in y.

For compliance with Common Logic, formulae such as those in the preceding example could then be treated as irregular
expressions, with the modal necessity operator treated as an uninterpreted symbol (e.g., using “[N]” for □). However we leave
this understanding as implicit, and do not commit to any particular modal logic.

For the model theory, we omit the necessity operator from the formula. Instead, we merely tag the rule as a necessity. The
implementation impact of the alethic necessity tag is that any attempted change that would cause the model of the business
domain to violate the constraint must be dealt with in a way that ensures the constraint is still satisfied (e.g., reject the change,
or take some compensatory action).

Typically, the only modal operator in an explicit rule formulation is □, and this is at the front of the rule formulation. This
common case was covered earlier. If an alethic modal operator is placed elsewhere in the rule formulation, we first try to
“normalize” it by moving the modal operator to the front, using transformation rules such as the modal negation rules (~□p ≡
◊~p; ~◊p ≡ □~p) and/or the Barcan formulae and their converses (∀x□Φx ≡ □∀xΦx and ∃x◊Φx ≡ ◊∃xΦx, i.e., □ and ∀ are
commutative, as are ◊ and ∃).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 109

 For example, the embedded formulation “∀x:Person □ ∃0..1y:Country x was born in y” (For each Person, it is
necessary that that Person was born in at most one Country.) may be transformed into “□∀x:Person
∃0..1y:Country x was born in y” (It is necessary that each Person was born in at most one Country.).

We also allow use of the following equivalences: □□p ≡ □p; ◊◊p ≡ ◊p; □◊□◊p ≡ □◊p; ◊□◊□p ≡ ◊□ p. These hold in S4, but
not in some modal logics, e.g., K or T [Girl2000, p. 35].

To make life interesting, SBVR also allows a single rule formulation to include multiple occurrences of modal operators,
including the nesting of a modal operator within the scope of another modal operator. While this expressibility may be needed
to capture some real business rules, it complicates attempts to provide a formal semantics.

In extremely rare cases, a formula for a static rule might contain an embedded alethic modality that cannot be eliminated by
transformation. For such cases, we could retain the modal operator in the rule formulation and adopt the formal semantics of a
particular modal logic. There are many normal modal logics to choose from (e.g., K, K4, KB, K5, DT, DB, D4, D5, T, Br, S4,
S5) as well as many non-normal modal logics (e.g., C2, ED2, E2, S0.5, S2, S3). For a discussion of these logics, and their
inter-relationships, see [Girl2000] (esp. pp. 48, 82). For SBVR, if we decide to retain the embedded alethic operator for such
cases, we choose S4 for the formal semantics. The possibility of schema evolution along with changes to necessity constraints
may seem to violate S4, where the accessibility relationship between possible worlds is transitive, but we resolve this by
treating such evolution as a metametalevel concern. Alternatively, we may handle such very rare cases by moving the
embedded alethic operators down to domain-level predicates (e.g., is necessary) in a similar fashion to the way we deal with
embedded deontics (see later).

10.2.1.6 Static, Deontic Constraints

Constraint formulations may make use of the standard deontic modal operators (O = it is obligatory that; P = it is permitted
that) as well as F = it is forbidden that (defined as ~P, i.e., “It is not permitted that”).

If the rule formulation includes exactly one deontic operator, O, and this is at the front, then the rule may be formalized as Op,
where p is a first-order formula that is tagged as obligatory (rather than necessary). For the purposes of this sub clause, this tag
is assigned only the following informal semantics: it ought to be the case that p (for all future states of the fact model, until the
constraint is revoked or changed). The implementation impact is that it is possible to have a state in which the rule is violated
(i.e., not satisfied), in which case some appropriate action (currently unspecified) ought to be taken to help reduce the chance
of future violations.

From a model-theoretic perspective, a model is an interpretation where each non-deontic formula evaluates to true, and the
model is classified as a permitted model if the p in each deontic formula (of the form Op) evaluates to true, otherwise the
model is a forbidden model (though it is still a model). Note that this approach removes any need to assign a truth value to
expressions of the form Op.

For example, suppose the fact type Person is a husband of Person is declared to be many to many, but that
each role of this fact type has a deontic uniqueness constraint to indicate that the fact type ought to be 1:1. The
deontic constraint on the husband fact type role verbalizes as: It is obligatory that each Person is a husband
of at most one Person. This formalizes as O∀x:Person ∃0..1y:Person x is a husband of y, which may be
captured by entering the rule body as ∀x:Person ∃0..1y:Person x is a husband of y and tagging the rule body as
deontic. The other deontic constraint (each wife should have at most one husband) may be handled in a similar
way. A more detailed treatment of this example is included in Annex J.

110 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Note that some formulae allowed by SBVR are illegal in some deontic logics (e.g., iterating modal operators such as OPp is
forbidden in von Wright’s deontic logic), and deontic logic itself is “rife with disagreements about what should be the case”
[Girl2000, p. 173].

If a deontic modal operator is embedded later in the rule formulation, we first try to “normalize” the formula by moving the
modal operator to the front, using transformation rules such as p ⊃ Oq .≡. O(p ⊃ q) or deontic counterparts to the Barcan
formulae.

In some cases, a formula for a static rule might contain an embedded deontic modality that cannot be eliminated by
transformation. In this case, we still allow the business user to express the rule at a high level using such embedded deontic
operators, but where possible we transform the formula to a first-order formula without modalities by replacing the modal
operators by predicates at the business domain level. These predicates (e.g., is forbidden) are treated like any other predicate
in the domain, except that their names are reserved, and they are given some basic additional formal semantics to capture the
deontic modal negation rules: it is not obligatory that ≡ it is permitted that it is not the case that (~Op ≡ P~p); it is not permitted
that ≡ it is obligatory that it is not the case that (~Pp ≡ O~p). For example, these rules entail an exclusion constraint between
the predicates is forbidden and is permitted.

This latter approach may also be used as an alternative to tagging a rule body as deontic, thereby (where possible) moving
deontic aspects out of the metamodel and into the business domain model.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 111

For example, consider the following rule:
Car rentals ought not be issued to people who are barred drivers at the time the rental was issued.
This deontic constraint may be captured by the following textual constraint on the domain fact type CarRental is
forbidden:
CarRental is forbidden if
CarRental was issued at Time and
CarRental was issued to Person and
Person is a barred driver at Time.
The fact type Person is a barred driver at Time is derived from other fact types (Person was barred at Time,
Person was unbarred at Time) using the derivation rule:
Person is a barred driver at Time1 iff
Person was barred at a Time2 <= Time1 and
Person was not unbarred at a Time3 between Time2 and Time1.
The deontic constraint may be formalized by the first-order formula: ∀x:CarRental ∀y:Person ∀t:Time [(x was
issued at t & x was issued to y & y is a barred driver at t) ⊃ x is forbidden]. This schema allows for the possible
existence of forbidden car rentals; if desired, some fact types could be added to describe actions (e.g., sending
messages) to be taken in reaction to such an event.
As a second example, consider the following deontic rule:
It is forbidden that more than three people are on the EU-Rent Board.
Suppose the underlying schema includes the fact type: Person is on Board. This may be used to define the
derived fact type Board has NrMembers using the derivation rule: nrMembers of Board = count each Person
who is on Board. Objectify this derived fact type as BoardHavingSize, and then add the fact type
BoardHavingSize is forbidden. The deontic constraint may now be captured by the following textual constraint
on the derived fact type:
BoardHavingSize is forbidden if
BoardHavingSize is of a Board
that has BoardName ‘EU-Rent Board’
and has NrMembers > 3.

112 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 As a third example, our earlier schema for current marriage may be recast by.objectifying the fact type Person is
a husband of Person as CurrentMarriage, and recognizing the link fact types Person is a husband in
CurrentMarriage and Person is a wife in CurrentMarriage. The deontic constraints may now be formulated as
textual constraints on the fact type CurrentMarriage is forbidden as follows:
CurrentMarriage is forbidden if
a Person1 who is a husband in CurrentMarriage
is a husband of more than one Person2.
CurrentMarriage is forbidden if
a Person1 who is a wife in CurrentMarriage
is a wife of more than one Person2.
Extended treatments of the examples above are provided in Annex J.

The approach to objectification described here works for those cases where a fact (proposition taken to be true) is being
objectified (which covers the usual cases of nominalization, including the EU-Rent Board and current marriage examples
discussed earlier), but it does not handle cases where no factual claim is being made of the proposition.

SBVR is intended to cater for rules that embed possibly non-factual propositions. However, there does not appear to be any
simple solution to providing explicit, formal semantics for such rules.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 113

 As a nasty example, consider the following business rule:
It is not permitted that some department adopts a rule that says it is obligatory that each employee of that
department is male.
This example includes the mention (rather than use) of an open proposition in the scope of an embedded
deontic operator. One possible, though weak, solution is to rely on reserved domain predicates to carry much of
the semantics implicitly. For example, suppose the schema includes the following fact types: Person is male;
Person works for Department; Department adopts Logic Rule. Objectify Department adopts Rule as
RuleAdoption, and add the following fact types: RuleAdoption is forbidden; Rule obligates the actualization of
PossibleAllMaleState; PossibleAllMaleState is actual. This uses the special predicates “obligates the
actualization of” and “is actual,” as well as a type of individual “PossibleAllMaleState” which includes all
conceivable all-male-states of departments, whether actual or not. The derived fact type PossibleAllMaleState is
actual may be defined using the derivation rule:
PossibleAllMaleState is actual iff
PossibleAllMaleState is of a Department and
each Person who works for that Department is male.
i.e., ∀x:PossibleAllMaleState [x is actual ≡ ∃y:Department (x is of y & ∀z:Person (z works for y ⊃ z is male))].
The deontic constraint may now be captured by the following textual constraint on the fact type RuleAdoption is
forbidden:
RuleAdoption is forbidden if
RuleAdoption is by a Department
and is of a Rule
that obligates the actualization of a PossibleAllMaleState
that is of the same Department.
i.e., ∀x:RuleAdoption ∀y:Department ∀z:Rule ∀w:PossibleAllMaleState [(x is by y & x is of z & z obligates the
actualization of w & w is of y) ⊃ x is forbidden]
The formalization of the deontic constraint works, because the relevant instance of PossibleAllMaleState exists,
regardless of whether or not the relevant depart actually is all male. The “obligates the actualization of” and “is
actual” predicates embed a lot of semantics, which is left implicit. While the connection between these
predicates is left informal, the derivation rule for PossibleAllMaleState is actual provides enough semantics to
enable human readers to understand the intent. An extended treatment of this example is provided in Annex J.

Alternatively, we could capture the structure of the rule using the current semantic formulation machinery, and then adopt one
of two extremes: (1) treat the rule overall as an uninterpreted sentence, or informal comment, for which humans are to provide
the semantics; (2) translate the semantic formulation directly into higher-order logic, which permits logical formulations
(which connote propositions) to be predicated over. The complexity and implementation overhead of option (2) would seem to
be very substantial.

We could try to push such cases down to first-order logic by providing the equivalent of the semantic formulation machinery
as a predefined package that may be imported into a domain model, and then identifying propositions by means of a structured
logical formulation. But that seems a fudge, because in order to assign formal semantics to such expressions, we must
effectively adopt the higher-order logic proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph.

114 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Pat Hayes has indicated his intent to add support for reification as an extension to Common Logic at some future date. This
support is intended to cater for objectification of propositions that are already being asserted as facts (i.e., propositions being
used), as well as propositions for which no factual claim is made (i.e., propositions being mentioned). When available, his
treatment for the latter case may offer a better solution for the problem under consideration. His intent is to allow
quantification and predication over propositions (or expressions that declare propositions), regardless of whether truth claims
are being asserted of those propositions, while still retaining a first-order approach. We might be able to adopt whatever he
proposes in this regard to provide a formal semantics for such problematic rules.

10.2.1.7 Derivation Rules

The formal interpretation of SBVR presented here supports rules for deriving types of individuals (subtype definitions) or fact
types using either ‘if-and-only-if’ (equivalence) formulations for full derivation, or ‘if’ for partial derivation. A subtype may
be fully derived (defined in terms of fact type roles played by its supertype), asserted (without a derivation rule), or partly
derived.

Here is one simple example of each kind of derivation rule, stated first using a high-level textual language, as
described earlier, and then recast as a predicate logic formula. The transformation from a semantic formulation
structure in a high level language into predicate logic is straightforward.
Derivation rule for fully derived subtype:
Each Australian is a Person who was born in Country ‘AU.’
∀x [Australian x ≡ (Person x & ∃y:Country ∃z:CountryCode (x is a citizen of y & y has z & z = ‘AU’))]

Derivation rule for partly derived subtype:

Person1 is a Grandparent if Person1 is a parent of some Person2 who is a parent of some Person3.
∀x:Person [Grandparent x ⊂ ∃y:Person ∃z:Person (x is a parent of y & y is a parent of z)]

Derivation rule for fully derived fact type:

Person1 is an uncle of Person2 iff Person1 is a brother of some Person3 who is a parent of Person2.
∀x:Person ∀y:Person [x is an uncle of y ≡ ∃z:Person (x is a brother of z & z is a parent of y)]

Derivation rule for partly derived fact type:

If a Patient smokes then that Patient is cancer-prone.
∀x:Patient (smokes x ⊃ cancer-prone x )

10.2.1.8 Dynamic Constraints

Dynamic constraints apply restrictions on possible transitions between business states. The constraint may simply compare
one state to the next.

Salaries should never decrease.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 115

Alternatively, the constraint may compare states separated by a given period.

Invoices ought to be paid within 30 days of being issued.

The invoice rule might be formally expressed in a high level rules language thus, assuming the fact types
Invoice was issued on Date and Invoice is paid on Date are included in the conceptual schema:
For each Invoice, if that Invoice was issued on Date1
then it is obligatory that
that Invoice is paid on Date2 where Date2 <= Date1 + 30 days.
This might now be normalized to the following formulation, moving the deontic operator to the front:
It is obligatory that each Invoice that was issued on Date1 is paid on Date2
where Date2 <= Date1 + 30 days.

There are two issues here. First, what transformation rules did we rely on to license the transformation of the rule? It would
seem that we require an equivalence rule such as p ⊃ Oq .≡. O(p ⊃ q). While this formula is actually illegal in some deontic
logics, it does seem intuitively acceptable. At any rate, the preliminary transformation work in normalizing a rule formulation
might involve more than just the Barcan equivalences or their deontic counterparts. In principle, this issue might be ignored
for interoperability purposes, so long as the business domain expert is able to confirm that the final, normalized formulation
(perhaps produced manually by the business rules modeler) agrees with their intended semantics; it is only the final,
normalized formulation that is used for exchange with other software tools.

The second issue concerns the dynamic nature of the rule. While it is obvious how one may actually implement this logical
rule in a database system, capturing the formal semantics in an appropriate logic (e.g., a temporal or dynamic logic) is a harder
task. One possibility is to provide a temporal package that may be imported into a domain model, in order to provide a first-
order logic solution. Another possibility is to adopt a temporal modal logic (e.g., treat a possible world as a sequence of
accessible states of the fact model). It may well be reasonable to defer decisions on formal semantics for dynamic rules to a
later version of the SBVR standard.

10.2.1.9 Higher-order Logic

Currently, SBVR allows users to either stay with first-order logic, or adopt higher-order logic restricted to Henkin semantics
(e.g., for dealing with categorization types). In general, standard higher-order logic allows quantification over uncountably
many possible predicates (or functions). If D = the domain of individuals, then the range of any unary predicate variable R is
the entire power set P(D) (i.e., the set of all subsets of D), the range of any binary predicate variable is the Cartesian product
P(D) × P(D), and so on for higher arity predicates. If D includes a denumerable (countable infinite, i.e., |D| = ℵ0) set, such as
the natural numbers, then P(D) is uncountably infinite. In contrast, Henkin semantics restricts quantifiers to range over only
individuals and those predicates (or functions) that are specified in the universe of discourse (a.k.a. business domain), where
the n-ary predicates/functions (n > 0) range over a fixed set of n-ary relations/operations. By restricting the ranges of predicate
and function variables, the Henkin interpretation retains certain desirable first-order properties (e.g., completeness,
compactness, and the Skolem-Löwenheim theorems) that are lost in the standard interpretation of higher-order logic.

Common Logic adopts the Henkin restriction on quantifier ranges, but does not adopt the Axiom of Comprehension, which
states that for each property there exists a set of elements having that property, i.e., for any formula φ(x) where x (possibly a
vector) is free in φ, ∃A∀x[x ∈ A ≡ φ(x)]. The intent of the Comprehension axiom (to ensure that every formula specifies a set)
may also be achieved by using lambda abstraction to name the set, e.g., λx.φ(x), which is equivalent to the set comprehension
{x| φ(x)}. The Axiom of Comprehension leads to Russell’s paradox (substituting x ∉ x for φ(x) generates a contradiction since
{x| x ∉ x} is simultaneously a member of itself and not a member of itself). The paradox may be avoided either by rejecting

116 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

the comprehension axiom (e.g., replacing it by the weaker axiom of separation, as in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory) or by
restricting the language so that formulae such as x ∉ x are illegal (as in Russell’s type theory, where a set may belong only to a
set of higher order).

Here we use set comprehensions (in a restricted sense) to define projections on schema path expressions, as a way to specify
result sets.

For example, given the fact type Employee(EmpNr) works for Company(Name), the query “Who works for
Microsoft?” corresponds to the following set comprehension:
{x:Employee | ∃ y:Company; z:CompanyName (x works for y & y has z & z = ‘Microsoft’)}
The formal semantics of such conceptual queries is based on that of the Conquer language, which provides a
sugared version of sorted finitary first-order logic with set comprehension [Anto2001].

The use here of set comprehension is quite restricted. Any expression we use to define a set must ultimately be expressible
only in terms of some basic logical operators (e.g., &) as well as predefined ground fact types which must be either elementary
or existential. Hence we adopt a limited version of the axiom of comprehension. Common Logic is open to extensions that
adopt restricted versions of the comprehension axiom. To avoid Russell’s paradox, we treat formulae such as x ∉ x as illegal.
The “is an instance of” predicate caters for set membership, but is constrained to be irreflexive, and the formation rules do not
permit expressions of the form x ∈ x – in other words, we cannot make statements involving self-membership. We do not
adopt a type theory such as Russell’s type theory, where each set may belong only to a set of a higher type.

The decision on whether to use higher-order types mainly impacts the following three aspects of fact modeling: categorization
schemes, un-normalized structures, and crossing levels/metalevels within the same model. In [Halp2004], some ways are
suggested to avoid higher-order types, by treating types as intensional individuals whose instances may sometimes be in 1:1
correspondence (but not identical) to subtypes, by requiring subtype definitions to be informative, by remodeling (including
demotion of metadata to data), and by treating types as individuals in separate models. For further discussion, see [Halp2004].

Acknowledgement: We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Pat Hayes (http://www.ihmc.us/users/

user.php?UserID=phayes) in addressing some of the logical semantics topics in this document.

10.2.2 Formal Logic & Mathematics in General

___________________________________________________

Formal Logic and Mathematics Vocabulary

Language: English
___________________________________________________

acceptable world
Definition: any state (situation) of some given universe of discourse (domain) that is implicitly
characterized, by someone with legal authority over that domain, as consistent with some set of
goals of that authority pursued by exercise of that authority

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 117

actual world
Definition: the possible world that is taken to be actual for some purpose, in particular, for the conduct of
business and the application of business rules
Note: the actual world is a set of things, situations and facts about them that some person or
organization takes to be true for some purpose. In most cases, it is the best estimate of the
actual state of the world that is of interest at a particular time.

alethic modality
Source: CDP
Definition: Historically, any of the five central ways or modes in which a given proposition might be true
or false: necessity (and non-necessity), possibility (and impossibility), and contingency
Note: (1) Although these “modes” have historically been thought of as ways in which a proposition
might be true, we think of them as ways in which one might think of the truth of a proposition:
e.g., that a proposition be qualified with the alethic modality “necessity” does not imply it is a
fact, but only signifies that the semantic community is considering it (takes it to be)
necessarily true. For some issues arising from the former approach, cf. CDP, s.v. intensional
logic. For a thorough critique of it, see PEIL. The four “modal negation equivalences” (MLP,
p. 3), such as □p ≡ ∼◊∼p, still hold under the latter approach (cf. LEVS, p. 135), which is the
more useful one in the fields of linguistic semantics and linguistic pragmatics.
Note: (2) The four alethic modalities which we consider most basic, and to which the four “modal
negation equivalences” (MLP, p. 3) apply, are necessity, possibility, and their respective
negations (non-necessity and impossibility). We also define a fifth modality, contingency
for the idea “neither impossible nor necessary.” (CDP)
Note: (3) Alethic modal logic differs from deontic modal logic in that the former deals with people’s
estimate(s) of the possible truth of some proposition, whereas deontic modal logic deals with
people’s estimate(s) of the social desirability of some particular party’s making some
proposition true.

antecedent
Source: adapted from GFOL
Definition: The wff in [or more specifically, the proposition-wff in or else the proposition denoted by] the
if-clause of an implication.
Note: Interpolation ours. Otherwise the definition is from GFOL.

argument
Source: GFOL
Definition: a [logical-] subject-term for a predicate.
Note: Interpolation in square brackets ours. By “logical subject” we mean an object playing a role
(i.e., an object filling an object hole) in a logical predicate. Thus there may be one or more
logical-subject-terms in a logical predicate.

arity
Source: IMRD (pp. 10, 64)
Definition: A logical predicate’s number of roles (i.e., of object holes).
Note: A function may be thought of as a relation; accordingly, we treat a function as a logical
predicate. MATH defines arity of a function thus: “The number of arguments taken by

118 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 something, usually applied to functions: an n-ary function is one with an arity of n, i.e., it takes
n arguments. Unary is a synonym for 1-ary, and binary is a synonym for 2-ary.”

atomic formula
Source: GFOL [“atom”]
Definition: In predicate logic, a wff without quantifiers or connectives.
Note: (1) This definition is from the cited source s.v. atom, which we deem a synonym.
Note: (2) LSO says of atomic formula: “The simplest sort of wff of a formal language; an atomic
formula of the language of predicate logic is a predicate letter followed by zero or more name
letters.” Yet it can also be a propositional variable or a propositional constant, depending on
context.

consequent
Source: GFOL
Definition: The wff in [or more specifically, the proposition-wff in or else the proposition denoted by] the
then-clause of an implication.
Note: Interpolation ours.

contingency
Definition: alethic modality that is the conjunction of possibility and non-necessity
Note: Contingency (“it is possible but not necessary that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is neither
impossible nor necessary that p”: ( ◊p & ~ □p) ≡ ∼ (∼ ◊p v □ p).

deontic modality
Source: CDP [“deontic operator”]; LEVS (pp. 276-77); LSO (p. 302); MLP (pp. 170-76)
Definition: Any of the five central ways or modes in which one might think of the social desirability of a
certain other person(s)’s making true some proposition, that is, the social desirability that the
act(s) be performed, by a certain other person(s), that would make the proposition true; viz.,
obligation (and its negation, non-obligation), permission (and its negation, nonpermission
(forbidden/prohibition)), and optionality.
Note: (1) The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the
term defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.
Note: (2) Alethic modal logic differs from deontic modal logic in that the former deals with people’s
estimate(s) of the possible truth of some proposition, whereas deontic modal logic deals with
people’s estimate(s) of the social desirability of some particular party’s making some
proposition true.
Note: (3) The four deontic modalities that we consider most basic, and to which the four “modal
negation equivalences” apply, are obligation, permission, and their respective negations
(non-obligation and prohibition). We also define a fifth modality, optionality, for the idea
“neither prohibited nor obligatory.”

domain
Source: GFOL
Definition: Of an interpretation of a formal language of predicate logic, the set of objects that may serve as
the assigned referents of the constants of the language, the arguments of functions, and the
arguments of predicates.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 119

domain grammar
Source: META (p. 4); HALT89 (sec. 3.2); IMRD (pp. 27-30)
Definition: The formation rules determining what is a wff in a given domain-specific formal language.
Note: Another term for that which is called in ORM “conceptual schema.” The definition given
above is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term defined as such
anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the above-cited
sources.

elementary verb concept

Definition: verb concept whose facts cannot be split into smaller units of information that collectively
provide the same information as the original
Concept Type: role
Example: branch has storage capacity
Example: service depot is included in local area
Example: rental car has fuel level at date/time
Example: Counter-example (this would not be considered an elementary verb concept): car
manufacturer delivers consignment to branch. This is not elementary because a
consignment is always from at most one car manufacturer and is always to at most one branch.
So the counter-example is equivalent to the combination of two binary verb concepts: car
manufacturer delivers consignment and consignment is delivered to branch.

fact type
Definition: set of all possible facts of a given kind that, in logical terms, corresponds to a set of one or
more typed predicates that are semantically interchangeable except that the order of arguments
may vary
Example: In prefix notation the typed predicates drives(Person,Car), isDrivenBy(Car, Person), and
isaDriverOf(Person, Car) could each be used for the same fact type.

first-order instance
Source: GFOL
Definition: The objects or elements taken as the [logical] subjects of the predicates of first-order
predicate logic.
Definition: [CLARIFIED DEFINITION] object or element taken as a logical subject of a predicate of first
order logic.
Note: And the distinguishing characteristic of “first-order” predicate logic, in turn, is the additional
restriction, re the formation of wffs, that subjects of predicates cannot themselves be types
or predicates, but rather only individuals (or individual-constants, individual-variables, or
function-expressions). See first-order type.

first-order type
Source: LSO (pp. 280-84) [and “type system”]; META (p. 140); TTGG (p. 5)
Definition: A type whose extension includes no types or predicates, only first order instances, in
accordance with the grammatical restrictions in first-order predicate logic.
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term
defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.

120 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

formal model
Source: based on GFOL [“model”]; META (pp. 5,6, 148-49)
Definition: An interpretation supplies semantics (referents) for a given formal language, in relation to
some domain or universe. It specifies referents for the nonlogical symbols occurring in the
formal language. A formal model of a given wff or set of wffs in a formal language is an
interpretation of the language for which the wffs are considered true.

implication
Source: GFOL
Definition: expression of the form, “if A, then B,” when A and B stand for wffs or propositions. The wff
in the if-clause is called the antecedent (also the implicans and protasis). The wff in the then-
clause is called the consequent (also the implicate and apodosis). Also called a conditional, or
a conditional statement.
Note: In SBVR we treat “implication” as if it is “material implication” (i.e., ‘p Œ q’ is equivalent to
‘~p v q’).

impossibility
Definition: alethic modality that is the negation of possibility
Note: A derived modal operator for ‘impossibility’ may be used in the surface syntax, but it is
translated into the basic modal operator for ‘possibility’ plus negation (~) (i.e., “It is
impossible that p” is defined as “It is not possible that p”: ~◊p).
Note: Impossibility (“it is impossible that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is necessary that not p”:
~◊p ≡ □ ~p.

integer
Source: GFOL [“integers”]
The natural numbers supplemented by their negative counterparts. The set {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2,
3...}.

logical variable
Source: GFOL
Definition: A symbol whose referent varies or is unknown. A place-holder, as opposed to an abbreviation
or name (a constant).
Note: This definition is from the cited source s.v. variable, which we deem a synonym.

member
Source: DEAN (p. 6); GFOL [“membership”]
Definition: An element belonging to a set.
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term
defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.

modal logic
Source: SEP
Definition: Narrowly construed, modal logic studies reasoning that involves the use of the expressions
‘necessarily’ and ‘possibly.’ However, the term ‘modal logic’ is used more broadly to cover a
family of logics with similar rules and a variety of different symbols.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 121

necessity
Source: CDP
Definition: A modal property that qualifies an assertion of a whole proposition just when it is not
considered possible that the proposition is false.
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source. Rather, we have based our
definition on passages mainly in the above-cited source. See also alethic modality
Note: Necessity (“it is necessary that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is not possible that
not p”: □≡ ~◊∼p.
Note: The following modal negation rules apply:
“it is not necessary that p” ≡ “it is possible that not p”: ~□p ≡ ◊∼p. See non-necessity

non-necessity
Definition: alethic modality that is the negation of necessity
Note: Non-necessity (“it is not necessary that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is possible that
not p”: ~ □p≡ ◊∼p

non-obligation
Definition: deontic modality that is the negation of obligation.
Note: Non-obligation (“it is not obligatory that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is permitted that
not p”: ~Op ≡ P~p.

obligation
Source: CDP [“deontic logic”]; MLP (pp. 170-76)
Definition: One of the four main deontic modalities, which qualifies as socially obligatory the making
true a certain proposition (i.e., the doing a certain act) by a certain party or parties.
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term
defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.
Note: Obligation (“it is obligatory that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is not permitted that
not p”: Op ≡ ∼P~p
Note: The following modal negation rules apply:
“it is not obligatory that p” ≡ “it is permitted that not p”: ~Op ≡ P~p. See non-obligation.

optionality
Definition: deontic modality that is the conjunction of permission and non-obligation
Note: Optionality (“it is permitted but not obligatory that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is neither
prohibited nor obligatory that p”: (Pp & ~Op ≡ ∼ (∼Pp v Op).

permission
Source: CDP [“deontic logic”]; MLP (pp. 170-76)
Definition: One of the four main deontic modalities, which qualifies as socially permissible the making
true a certain proposition (i.e., the doing a certain act) by a certain party or parties.
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term
defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.

122 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: Permission (it is permitted that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is not obligatory that
not p”: Pp ≡ ~O~p.
Note: The following model negation rules apply:
“it is not permitted that p” ≡ “it is obligatory that not p”: ~Pp ≡ O~p. See prohibition.

population
Source: IMRD (p. 164)
Definition: The extension of a type (whether type of individual, fact type, or role) for a given state of the
business domain.

possibility
Source: CDP
Definition: A modal property that qualifies an assertion of a whole proposition just when it is considered
possible that the proposition is true.
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source. Rather, we have based our
definition on passages mainly in the above-cited source. See also alethic modality
Note: Possibility (“it is possible that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is not necessary that
not p”: ◊p ≡ ∼□∼p.
Note: The following modal negation rules apply:
“it is not possible that p” ≡ “it is necessary that not p”: ~◊p ≡ □∼p. See impossibility.

possible world
Definition: any state (situation) of some given universe of discourse (domain) that is implicitly
characterized, by an accepted expert on that domain, as logically consistent with some set of
laws seen by that expert as applying to that domain
Note: “Possible world” means “logically possible world,” and not “physically possible world.”
Included within the sense of “possible world” is any “possible situation;” therefore, the notion
includes the “possible states” of any given set of objects [things] of interest - which set is
commonly called the “Universe of Discourse” (or “UoD”), a.k.a. the “domain” (or “business
domain”). Thus, in the context of a static constraint declared for a given business domain, a
“possible world” would correspond to (but not be identical to) a state of the domain’s fact
model that could exist at some point in time, which is the “present time” of the possible world.

predicate
Source: GFOL
Definition: Intuitively, whatever is said of the subject[s] of a sentence - function from individuals (or a
sequence of individuals) to truth-values
Note: Interpolation in square brackets ours. A predicate is distinguished from others by sentence
structure, not by proposition/meaning (see IMRD, pp. 63-66). Propositions or meanings
distinguish fact types, each of which may have 1 or more predicates.

prohibition
Source: CDP [“deontic logic”]; MLP (pp. 170-76)
Definition: One of the four main deontic modalities nonpermissibility, which qualifies as socially not
permissible the making true a certain proposition (i.e., the doing a certain act) by a certain
party or parties
Definition: deontic modality that is the negation of permission

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 123

 Note: See also permission. The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we
have not found the term defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on
passages mainly in the above-cited sources.
Note: A derived modal operator for ‘prohibition’ may be used in the surface syntax, but it is
translated into the basic modal operator for ‘permission’ plus negation (~). (i.e., “It is
prohibited that p” is defined as “It is not permitted that p”: ~Pp).
Note: A derived modal operator for ‘forbidden’ may be used in the surface syntax, but it is
translated into the basic modal operator for ‘permission’ plus negation (~). (i.e., “It is
forbidden that p” (Fp) is defined as “It is not permitted that p”: ~Pp).
Note: Prohibition (“it is prohibited that p”) is the modal equivalent of “it is obligatory that
not p”: ~Pp ≡ O~p.

proposition
Source: DL (p. 4)
Definition: That which is asserted when a sentence is uttered or inscribed
Note: Generally understood as “the meaning of” a declarative sentence. GFOL defines it thus: “In
logic generally (for some), the meaning of a sentence that is invariant through all the
paraphrases and translations of the sentence.”

propositional operator
Source: PLTS
Definition: An operator (or connective) joins … statements [i.e., propositions or proposition-wffs] into
compounds…. Connectives include conjunction, disjunction, implication and equivalence.
Negation is the only operator that is not a connective; it affects single statements [i.e.,
propositions or proposition-wffs] only, and does not join statements [i.e., propositions or
proposition-wffs] into compounds.
Note: By “proposition-wff” we mean a proposition-constant or proposition-variable, or a predicate
supplied with arguments so as to yield a proposition.

quantifier
Source: GFOL
Definition: In predicate logic, a symbol telling us … how many objects (in the domain) [instantiate] the
predicate…. The quantifier applies to, or binds, variables which stand as the arguments of
predicates. In first-order logic these variables must range over individuals; in higher-order
logics they may range over predicates.
Note: Interpolation in square brackets ours.

restricted higher-order instance

Source: HALT2004 (pp. 2-4, 7); MEN97 (pp. 378-80)
Definition: instance of a restricted higher-order type
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term
defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.

124 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

restricted higher-order type
Source: HALT2004 (pp. 2-4, 7, 8); MEN97 (pp. 378-80)
Definition: A higher-order type includes an instance that is itself a type. For SBVR, we restrict higher-
order types to Henkin semantics, limiting the range of predicates/functions over which we
may quantify to a fixed set, rather than allowing full range over power-sets. This restriction
retains useful properties of first-order logic (e.g., completeness).
Note: The definition given is not quoted directly from any source, since we have not found the term
defined as such anywhere. Rather, we have based our definition on passages mainly in the
above-cited sources.

set
Source: GFOL
Definition: Intuitively, a collection of elements (called members). In a set, the order of members is
irrelevant, and repetition of members is [also irrelevant]. The intuitive notion of a set leads to
paradoxes, and there is considerable mathematical and philosophical disagreement on how best
to refine the intuitive notion.
Note: Interpolation in square brackets ours.

state of affairs
Source: CDP
Definition: A possibility, actuality or impossibility of the kind expressed by a nominalization of a
declarative sentence (e.g., “This die comes up six” may be nominalized by “that this die comes
up six” or “this die’s coming up six”) the resulting nominalizations might be interpreted as
naming corresponding propositions or states of affairs

subset
Source: GFOL
Definition: set all of whose members belong to a second set (a superset of the subset)

type
Source: adapted from HALT2004 (p. 8); cf. TTGG (p. 84)
Definition: named set of possible instances, where for any given state of the business domain, exactly one
subset of the type is the population of the type in that state
Note: At any given time, the population of a type is the set of instances of that type that exist in the
business domain (i.e., that are referenced within facts that are known and are of interest to the
business) at that time. It follows that if two types are equal, then for each state of the business
domain they must have the same population.
Note: “Possible instances” here means “instances which are considered part of the type’s population,
for some state of the business domain.”
Note: Because it is a formal object that behaves quite differently in first-order predicate logic than in
second-order predicate logic (and differently still in third order, and so on), the definition of
“type” proves to be anaphoric, having a different denotation depending on whether, in the
situation where used, the intended formalization is first-order, second-order, or other-order. In
our definitions of first-order type and restricted higher order type, at least some of this
indefiniteness is removed (by the specifying of either first-order logic or restricted higher-
order logic).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 125

type of individual
Definition: type that is a set of possible individuals; kind of individual thing, e.g., Planet, CountryCode

unbound variable
Source: GFOL
Definition: free variable [which, in GFOL, is defined thus:] in predicate logic, an individual variable at
least one of whose occurrences in a wff does not lie within the scope of a quantifier on the
same letter

Universe of Discourse
Definition: set of objects [things] of interest, including their states, relationships, and situations and
forming the context of a given discussion

wff
Source: GFOL
Definition: (acronym of “well-formed formula”) - a string of symbols, each from the alphabet of a formal
language, that conforms to the grammar of the formal language; in predicate logic, a closed
wff is a wff with no free occurrences of any variable; either it has constants in place of
variables, or its variables are bound, or both (also called a sentence); an open wff is a wff with
at least one free occurrence of a variable

world
Source: CSILL
Definition: a universe, whether real, imaginary, or hypothetical
Note: From CSILL: The truth-conditional approach to meaning allows model theory to be extended
to the study of natural languages. Sentences and their parts are mapped on to elements of a
model, which represents the truth-conditions for the sentences. In possible world semantics,
models are not restricted to domains of real entities but include possible objects; that is, model
theory can provide truth-conditions in terms of possible worlds, thus allowing meaningful
expressions without requiring ontological commitment.

10.2.2.1 Conceptual Schemas and Models

conceptual schema
Definition: combination of concepts and facts (with semantic formulations that define them) of what is
possible, necessary, permissible, and obligatory in each possible world

conceptual schema includes concept

Definition: the concept is used in models based on the conceptual schema
Synonymous Form: concept is in conceptual schema
Necessity: Each role of each fact type that is in a conceptual schema is in the conceptual
schema.

conceptual schema includes fact

Definition: the fact determines something possible, necessary, permissible, or obligatory in each possible
world that can be modeled based on the conceptual schema
Synonymous Form: fact is in conceptual schema

126 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema
Definition: in each fact model based on the conceptual schema, for each instance of the fact type, the
fact model includes a corresponding fact if, for each thing filling any of the fact type’s roles in
the instance, the fact model also includes a fact of the existence of that thing
Synonymous Form: fact type is semi-closed in conceptual schema
Note: Open world semantics are assumed by default, but closure may be explicitly asserted for any
fact type, on an individual basis, to declare that each fact model population agrees with that of
the fact type’s extension in the actual business domain. Semi-closure is with respect to the
domain model population of the noun concepts playing a role in the fact type. In other words,
if the things participating in a fact are known within a model, then the fact is also known within
that model.

concept is closed in conceptual schema

Definition: in each fact model based on the conceptual schema, the entire extension of the concept is
given in the facts included in the fact model
Necessity: Each concept that is closed in a conceptual schema is in the conceptual schema.
Note: A concept can be closed in one conceptual schema and not in another.

fact model
Definition: combination of a conceptual schema and, for one possible world, a set of facts (defined by
semantic formulations using only the concepts of the conceptual schema)
Synonym: conceptual model
Note: Each necessity of the conceptual schema is satisfied by a fact model, but obligations are not
necessarily satisfied.

fact model is based on conceptual schema

Definition: the conceptual schema provides the concepts and modal facts of the fact model
Synonymous Form: conceptual schema underlies fact model

fact model includes fact

Definition: the fact corresponds to an actuality in the possible world modeled by the fact model
Synonymous Form: fact is in fact model

fact type has fact in fact model

Definition: the fact is in the fact model and the fact corresponds to an instance of the fact type

fact type is elementary in conceptual schema

Definition: the fact type is in the conceptual schema and cannot be decomposed into a set of two or
more fact types that are in the conceptual schema and that collectively have the same
meaning as the fact type
Synonymous Form: conceptual schema has elementary fact type

10.3 Formal Logic Interpretation Placed on SBVR Terms

This clause specifies how the SBVR concepts in the table below, as defined in Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12, are to be interpreted in
terms of formal logic as defined in ISO 24707 “Information technology - Common Logic (CL) - A framework for a family of
logic-based languages.” Equivalent concepts in OWL are also shown in the table where possible.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 127

The ISO 24707 interpretation of SBVR concepts shown in the table below implements the formal logic grounding principles
set forth in Clause 10.2.

Note: The cells that are empty will be specified in a future revision of this specification.

Note: All SBVR Terms are “meanings” where all CL Terms are “representations of meanings.” Therefore there is a one-to-
many relationship between SBVR Terms as meanings and CL Terms as representations of meanings; i.e., there can be
multiple CL representations of one SBVR meaning.

SBVR Term ISO CL Term (or equivalent OWL Term (or equivalent Comment
expression) expression)

BASICS - Foundation

fact sentence with an interpretation OWL statement (s, p, o)

'taken to be' true interpreted as being true;
NOTE: The mapping is many individual
(sentences) to one (meaning)

verb concept unary predicate defining the type ---

(3+ary) + (characteristic) for a functional term or atomic
sentence

verb concept unary predicate defining the type Class description defining RDF Need 2 RDF/OWL
(binary verb concept) for a functional term or atomic property or OWL object property properties related
sentence that has exactly two (note: may only apply to OWL by inverse of = one
arguments Full) binary verb concept

verb concept has verb argument role in functional term ---

concept role or atomic sentence

verb concept has verb argument role in functional term the range of an rdf:Property or
concept role or atomic sentence that has owl:ObjectProperty;
(binary verb concept) exactly two arguments alternatively, may be specified
using a restriction on the
property in OWL

verb concept role unary predicate defining the role RDF/OWL subject or object
of a name/term that is an
argument

verb concept role ranges term over which argument value restriction on property
over general concept ranges
(role ranges over general
concept)

fundamental concept

individual noun concept name individual

general concept unary predicate class

proposition sentence with an interpretation OWL statement (s, p, o);

individual

128 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 proposition is false sentence with an interpretation = OWL statement (s, p, o)
false interpreted as being false;
individual

proposition is true sentence with an interpretation = OWL statement (s, p, o)

true interpreted as being true;
individual

reference scheme approximately term

reference scheme
extensionally uses role

reference scheme is for

concept

reference scheme simply

uses role

reference scheme uses

characteristic

situational role unary predicate defining the role RDF/OWL subject or object
of a name/term that is an
argument

situational role ranges term over which argument value restriction on property
over fundamental ranges
concept
(role ranges over general
concept)

BASICS - Extension in Model

NOTE: There are two kinds of extensions in SBVR:

1. Real things that never appear in an SBVR Model themselves
2. Model extensions:
a. Individual noun concepts as model instances of general concepts (fundamental
concepts only)
b. facts as model instances of verb concepts

concept1 is coextensive (forall (p1 p2) (if (and (binary owl:equivalentProperty

with concept2 (verb verb concept p1) (binary verb
concept) concept p2)) (iff (is coextensive
with p1 p2) (forall (x y) (iff (p1 x y)
(p2 x y))))))

concept1 is coextensive (forall (c1 c2) (if (and (noun owl:equivalentClass

with concept2 (noun concept c1) (noun concept c2))
concept) (iff (is coextensive with c1 c2)
(forall (x) (iff (c1 x) (c2 x))))))

concept has extension “sentence type” has extension

(verb concept / verb concept)

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 129

 concept has extension ((forall (x)(iff enumeration of a class (OWL
(noun concept) (concept x) one Of)
(or (= aaa-1 x) ... (= aaa-n x) )
))

extension extension class

proposition corresponds approximately sentence

to state of affairs denotation

concept has instance atom (concept thing) can be specified via an rdf:type
statement (i.e., thing rdf:type
concept.)

set set

BASICS - Intension:
Characteristic

characteristic (see characteristic) (see characteristic) (see characteristic)

characteristic is essential
to concept

characteristic type

concept has implied

characteristic

concept has necessary

characteristic

concept incorporates sentence rdfs:subClassOf

characteristic (forall (u)(implies(characteristic
u)(concept u)))

delimiting characteristic

essential characteristic

implied characteristic

intension intension

necessary characteristic
BASICS - Intension: Categorization

categorization scheme

categorization type

category

concept type unary predicate class

130 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 concept1 specializes (forall (p1 p2) (if (and (binary rdfs:subPropertyOf + disjoint
concept2 verb concept p1) (binary verb
(binary verb concept) concept p2) (iff (specializes p1
p2) ((forall (x y) (if (p1 x y) (p2 x
y)))))))

concept1 specializes (forall (c1 c2) (if (specializes c1 rdfs:subClassOf + disjoint One way from
concept2 c2) (forall (x) (if (c1 x) (c2 x))))) SBVR to CL
(noun concept) (forall (c1 c2) (if (and
(specializes c1 c2) (specializes
c2 c3)) (specializes c1 c3)))

more general concept

segmentation
BASICS - Modal Logic

element of guidance
authorizes state of affairs

element of guidance
obligates state of affairs

element of guidance
prohibits state of affairs

operative business rule

proposition is necessarily
true

proposition is obligated
to be true

proposition is permitted
to be true

proposition is possibly
true

rule

structural rule
BASICS - Misc.

quantity1 is less than functional term with operator “is

quantity2 less than” and arguments
quantity1 and quantity2

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 131

 integer atom (integer x) xsd:integer There are no
explicitly defined
types in CL; there is
specific set of XML
schema datatypes
available for use
with RDF and OWL

nonnegative integer atom (nonnegative integer x) xsd:nonNegativeInteger

number atom (number x)

positive integer atom (positive integer x) xsd:positiveInteger

quantity
SEMANTIC FORMULATIONS

aggregation formulation

antecedent

at-least-n-quantification restriction, owl:minCardinality n

at-least-n-quantification
has minimum cardinality

at-most-n-quantification restriction, owl:maxCardinality n

at-most-n-quantification
has maximum cardinality

at-most-one- restriction, owl:maxCardinality 1

quantification

atomic formulation atomic sentence or atom if unary - rdf:type

if binary - rdf;triple
nothing not 3+

atomic formulation has

role binding

atomic formulation is
based on verb concept

auxiliary variable

bag projection

binary logical operation

binary logical operation

has logical operand 1

binary logical operation

has logical operand 2

bindable target

132 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 cardinality owl:cardinality

closed logical sentence with an interpretation

formulation

closed logical
formulation formalizes
statement

closed logical
formulation means
proposition

closed projection

closed projection
defines verb concept

closed projection
defines noun concept

closed projection
means question

closed semantic
formulation

conjunction conjunction with at least two owl:intersectionOf about the

conjuncts extension of a concept and not
about the meaning of a
sentence

consequent

disjunction disjunction with at least two owl:unionOf *

disjuncts

equivalence biconditional roughly owl:equivalentProperty

exactly-n quantification restriction, owl:cardinality n

exactly-n quantification
has cardinality

exactly-one restriction, owl:cardinality 1

quantification

exclusive disjunction negation of biconditional ---

existential quantification quantified sentence of type restriction,

existential owl:someValuesFrom

implication implication ---

implication has
antecedent

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 133

 implication has
consequent

inconsequent

instantiation formulation atomic sentence or atom rdf:type

instantiation formulation
binds to bindable target

instantiation formulation
considers concept

logical formulation sentence

logical formulation
constrains projection

logical formulation kind

logical formulation owl:Restriction - for specific

restricts variable kinds of restrictions (value,
number)

logical negation negation roughly owl:complementOf

logical operand argument of a functional term

logical operand 1 argument of a functional term,

first in sequence

logical operand 2 argument of a functional term,

second in sequence

logical operation term representing the operation

for a functional term

logical operation has

logical operand

maximum cardinality owl:maxCardinality

minimum cardinality owl:minCardinality

modal formulation irregular sentence ---

modal formulation
embeds logical
formulation

nand formulation negation of conjunction ---

necessity formulation

nor formulation negation of disjunction ---

noun concept formulation

134 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 numeric range restriction, owl:minCardinality n
quantification AND restriction,
owl:maxCardinality m

numeric range
quantification has
maximum cardinality

numeric range
quantification has
minimum cardinality

objectification

objectification binds to
bindable target

objectification considers
logical formulation

obligation formulation

permissibility formulation

possibility formulation

projecting formulation

projecting formulation
binds to bindable target

projecting formulation
has projection

projection

projection has auxiliary

variable

projection is on variable

projection position

quantification quantified sentence

quantification introduces approximately binding sequence

variable for quantified sentence

quantification scopes body for quantified sentence

over logical formulation

role binding binding sequence

role binding binds to binding

bindable target

role has role binding

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 135

 scope formulation

semantic formulation

set has cardinality

set projection

universal quantification quantified sentence of type restriction, owl:allValuesFrom

universal

variable name/term individual or blank node

variable has projection

position

variable is free within

semantic formulation

variable is unitary approximately a functional

property

variable ranges over ---

concept

whether-or-not truth function operation ---

formulation

whether-or-not
formulation has
consequent

whether-or-not
formulation has
inconsequent
SEMANTIC FORMULATION - Nominalization

answer nominalization

verb concept
nominalization

proposition
nominalization

proposition
nominalization binds to
bindable target

proposition
nominalization considers
logical formulation

question
nominalization

136 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 FACT MODELS

concept is closed in
conceptual schema

conceptual schema

conceptual schema
includes concept

conceptual schema
includes fact model

fact model includes fact

fact model is based on

conceptual schema

verb concept is internally

closed in conceptual
schema

10.4 Requirements for Formal Logic Conformance

10.4.1 General Requirements for Formal Logic Interpretation

Necessity: Each concept and element of guidance represented in an interchange file that conforms to sub
clause 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 is in a single body of shared meanings of a semantic community.
Necessity: Each body of shared meanings represented in an interchange file that conforms to sub clause
2.3.5 or 2.3.6 is considered independently of others, with the exception that there can be
adoption between communities and semantic equivalence.
Necessity: Each conceptual schema of a fact model that conforms to sub clause 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 is for at
most one body of shared meanings.
Necessity: Given a fact model, a compliant interchange file that conforms to sub clause 2.3.5 or 2.3.6
includes a representation of every fact that is in that fact model.

10.4.2 Enforcing a Restricted Higher Order Interpretation

Necessity: Each instance of a concept in a fact model that uses a higher order interpretation is consistent
with Henkin semantics.
Note: If a fact model is inconsistent with Henkin semantics, there is generally a mapping by which
one or more fact models with a restricted higher order interpretation can be produced.

10.4.3 Enforcing a First Order Interpretation

Necessity: Each instance of a concept in a fact model that uses a first order interpretation is a first-order
instance.
Note: If fact model is inconsistent with a first order interpretation, there is generally a mapping by
which one or more fact models with a first order interpretation can be produced.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 137

 Note: A body of shared meanings that conforms to 10.4.2 always conforms to 10.4.2 “vacuously,”
that is, no role has an instance that is a meaning.

138 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

11 Business Vocabulary
11.1 General
The following vocabulary provides words for describing business vocabularies along with the designations and verb concept
wordings they contain. A full description of a business vocabulary involves its relationship to semantic communities and
speech communities, its relationship to other vocabularies, the concepts represented, their definitions and other information
about them.

________________________________________________________

Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies

Language: English
Included Vocabulary: Meaning and Representation Vocabulary
________________________________________________________

11.2 Business Meaning

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 139

11.2.1 Communities, Meanings & Vocabularies

Figure 11.1

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

11.2.1.1 Communities

community
Definition: group of people having a particular unifying characteristic in common
Dictionary Basis: group of people having a religion, race, profession, or other particular characteristic in
common [NODE ‘community’]
Reference Scheme: a URI of the community
Example: The Car Rental Community -- people who work in the car rental business

140 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: The EU-Rent Community -- all EU-Rent employees
Example: The EU-Rent German Community -- employees of EU-Rent’s German division

community has URI

Definition: the URI uniquely identifies the community
Necessity: Each URI is the URI of at most one community.

semantic community
Definition: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things
that they have to deal with
Example: The EU-Rent Community -- those who share the body of concepts about general and specific
things of importance to the EU-Rent business.

speech community
Definition: subcommunity of a given semantic community whose unifying characteristic is the
vocabulary and language that it uses
Dictionary Basis: group of people sharing a characteristic vocabulary, and grammatical and pronunciation
patterns for use in their normal intercommunication [W3ID ‘speech community’]
Example: The EU-Rent German Community shares the German-based vocabulary of designations used in
EU-Rent’s business. The designations include German words for EU-Rent’s concepts plus
designations adopted from other languages.

speech community uses language

Definition: the speech community communicates in the language
Necessity: Each speech community uses exactly one language.

semantic community has speech community

Necessity: Each speech community is of exactly one semantic community.

subcommunity
Concept Type: role
Definition: community that is a distinct grouping within another community
Dictionary Basis: distinct grouping within a community [NODE ‘sub-community’]

community has subcommunity

Definition: the subcommunity is a distinct grouping within the community

11.2.1.2 Bodies of Shared Meanings

body of shared meanings

Definition: set of concepts and elements of guidance for which there is a shared understanding in a
given semantic community
Example: The EU-Rent Car Rental Business has a body of shared meanings which contains the set of
concepts of general and specific things of importance to the EU-Rent car rental business.
Note: When modeling a business (such as EU-Rent), the universe of discourse, defined in the body of
shared meanings, is bounded by what the business owners decide is in scope. That would be
the actual world of some part of EU-Rent’s business (e.g., rentals, as opposed to, say, premises

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 141

 management, purchase/sales of cars, or HR) and some possible worlds that are reachable from
the actual world. If the EU-Rent owners say that they are considering renting RVs or starting
up in China, then meanings about possible worlds that include these kinds of business are
included in the body of shared meanings.
If EU-Rent is not considering renting construction equipment or camping gear, then meanings
about possible worlds that include these kinds of business are not included in the body of
shared meanings – and neither are possible worlds that include impossibilities. Whether
‘Kinnell Construction rented backhoe 123 on 2012-08-28’ or ‘John rode into work on a
unicorn’ correspond to states of affairs or not, are not relevant to EU-Rent. They are out of
scope.
In-scope propositions may have to be constrained by necessities to ensure that they are not
impossible. e.g., ‘Necessity: Each rental car is stored at at most one branch [at any given
time].’
Note: A body of shared meanings contains meanings of:
• noun concepts that define kinds of thing in the business, within the scope being modeled
• verb
• concepts that define relationships between kinds of thing in the business, within the scope
being modeled
• elements of guidance that constrain or govern the things and relationships defined by the
concepts.
It does not contain ground facts or facts derived from ground facts (other than as illustrative
examples), or things in the business, or information system artifacts that model things in the
business – although it may provide vocabulary to refer to them.

body of shared meanings unites semantic community

Definition: the body of shared meanings is the set of concepts and elements of guidance for which
there is a shared understanding in the semantic community
Necessity: Each semantic community is united by exactly one body of shared meanings.
Necessity: Each body of shared meanings unites exactly one semantic community.
Note: Understanding the body of shared meanings that unites a semantic community is an obligation
for participation in the semantic community. Communication within the community is based
on an assumption of mutual understanding of the body of shared meaning.

body of shared meanings includes body of shared concepts

body of shared concepts
Definition: all of the concepts within a body of shared meanings, structured according to the relations
among them
Synonym: concept model
Note: Sub clause 11.2.5 (“Concept System Structure”) and sub clause 8.2.1.1 (“About Concepts”)
provide detail for what is meant by “the relations among [concepts]” in this Definition.

body of shared concepts includes concept

Concept Type: partitive verb concept
Synonymous Form: concept is included in body of shared concepts

142 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

semantic community shares understanding of concept
Synonymous Form: concept has shared understanding by semantic community

body of shared meanings1 contains body of shared meanings2

Concept Type: partitive verb concept
Definition: the body of shared meanings includes everything in the other body of shared meanings

11.2.1.3 Vocabularies and Terminological Dictionaries

vocabulary
Definition: set of designations and verb concept wordings primarily drawn from a single language to
express concepts within a body of shared meanings
Dictionary Basis: sum or stock of words employed by a language, group, individual, or work, or in a field of
knowledge [MWCD ‘vocabulary’]
Example: The sets of designations represented in EU-Rent’s internal glossaries, in the natural languages
in which the company does business, together with the vocabularies it has adopted, including
those defined in:
* Industry standard glossaries for car rental business,
* Standard (e.g., ISO) glossaries of business terms,
* Authoritative dictionaries for the relevant natural languages.
Note: A vocabulary contains only designations and verb concept wordings. Contrast a terminological
dictionary, which further adds definitions, descriptions, etc. A rulebook includes everything
that is in a terminological dictionary, plus representations of behavioral elements of guidance
in a body of shared guidance.
Note: Enumerating the designations in a vocabulary is not a matter of listing signifiers, but of
associating signifiers with concepts, and a concept can be identified by a definition.

speech community owns vocabulary

Definition: the speech community determines the contents of the vocabulary
Note: The speech community that owns a vocabulary has the authority to change the content of the
vocabulary.

speech community uses vocabulary

Note: A speech community may use a vocabulary that is owned by a different speech community.

vocabulary is designed for speech community

Synonymous Form: vocabulary targets speech community
Definition: the vocabulary is created for use by a speech community that does not own the vocabulary
Example: A speech community of specialists (such as accountants of engineers) creates a “layman’s
vocabulary” for their specialization, to be used in discourse with general management.
Example: The legal department of a company creates a vocabulary to be used for legal documents, such
as contracts.

vocabulary is expressed in language

Definition: the designations of the vocabulary are primarily within the language
Synonymous Form: language expresses vocabulary
Synonymous Form: vocabulary uses language

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 143

 Necessity: Each vocabulary is expressed in at least one language.
Note: Typically, the language would be a natural language, but not necessarily. See ‘language’.

vocabulary1 incorporates vocabulary2

Concept Type: partitive verb concept
Definition: the vocabulary1 includes each designation and verb concept wording that is included
in the vocabulary2
Note: When more than one vocabulary is included, a hierarchy of inclusion can provide priority for
selection of definitions.
Synonymous Form: vocabulary2 is incorporated into vocabulary1

business vocabulary
Definition: vocabulary that is under business jurisdiction

vocabulary is used to express body of shared meanings

Definition: the vocabulary includes designations and verb concept wordings of the concepts in the
body of shared meanings

vocabulary namespace is derived from vocabulary

Definition: the designations and verb concept wordings of the vocabulary namespace are from the
vocabulary
Note: This specification does not require any particular process of derivation. But a typical process is
that all designations and verb concept wordings that are directly distinguishable by their
expressions are put into one vocabulary namespace. In the case of one or more designations or
verb concept wordings being undistinguishable except by their subject fields, an additional
vocabulary namespace is derived specifically for those subject fields.

terminological dictionary
Definition: collection of representations including at least one designation or definition of each of a set
of concepts from one or more specific subject fields, together with other specifications of
facts related to those concepts
Source: based on ISO 1087-1 English (3.7.1) [‘terminological dictionary’]
Reference Scheme: a URI of the terminological dictionary
Note: Terminological dictionaries include designations and verb concept wordings representing
concepts, and definitions, descriptions, descriptive examples, notes, structural rule statements
and other representations of information about the concepts.
Note: Contrast a terminological dictionary with a rulebook, which may include representations of
behavioral elements of guidance in a body of shared guidance.

terminological dictionary includes representation

Definition: the representation is an element of the terminological dictionary
Synonymous Form: representation is included in terminological dictionary

terminological dictionary has URI

Definition: the URI uniquely identifies the terminological dictionary
Necessity: Each URI is the URI of at most one terminological dictionary.

144 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

terminological dictionary presents vocabulary
Definition: the terminological dictionary sets forth representations related to the designations and
verb concept wordings of the vocabulary
Necessity: Each terminological dictionary presents at least one vocabulary.
Note: Which terminological entries are to be included in a terminological dictionary is specified by
one or more vocabularies by using the verb concept terminological dictionary presents
vocabulary. Vocabularies may be assembled from other vocabularies using the verb concept
vocabulary1incorporates vocabulary2. Terminological dictionaries can effectively include
other terminological dictionaries by including the vocabulary(ies) that specifies the
terminological entries in the included terminological dictionary in the vocabulary that
specifies the terminological entries in the including terminological dictionary.

terminological dictionary expresses body of shared meanings

Definition: the terminological dictionary includes representations of the concepts in the body of
shared meanings

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 145

11.2.2 Concepts & Characteristics

Figure 11.2

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

11.2.2.1 Kinds of Concept

Real-world Numerical Correspondence

Definition: the categorization scheme of the concept ‘concept’ that classifies a concept based on
whether or not the concept always corresponds to one specific real-world individual
Necessity: The concept ‘individual noun concept’ is included in Real-world Numerical
Correspondence.
Necessity: The concept ‘general concept’ is included in Real-world Numerical Correspondence.

11.2.2.2 Kinds of Characteristic

essential characteristic
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.6) [‘essential characteristic’]
Definition: characteristic which is indispensable to understanding a concept

146 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Synonym: incorporated characteristic
Concept Type: role

characteristic is essential to concept

See: concept incorporates characteristic
Synonymous Form: concept has essential characteristic
Concept Type: is-property-of verb concept

necessary characteristic
Definition: characteristic that is always true of each instance of a given concept
Concept Type: role

concept has necessary characteristic

Definition: the necessary characteristic is always true of each instance of the concept
Example: If the characteristic ‘car is small’ is a necessary characteristic of the concept ‘compact car’,
then every compact car is always small.

implied characteristic
Definition: necessary characteristic of a given concept that is not incorporated by the concept
Concept Type: role
Necessity: A concept has an implied characteristic only if it follows by logical implication from some
combination of incorporations of characteristics by concepts and/or structural rules that the
characteristic is always attributed to each instance of the concept.

concept has implied characteristic

Definition: the implied characteristic is a necessary characteristic of the concept and the concept
does not incorporate the implied characteristic

delimiting characteristic
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.7) [‘delimiting characteristic’]
Definition: essential characteristic used for distinguishing a concept from related concepts
Concept Type: role
Note: Delimiting characteristics of a concept are inherited as essential characteristics by all
categories of that concept.

characteristic type
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.5) [‘type of characteristics’]
Definition: category of [the concept] ‘characteristic’ which serves as a criterion of subdivision when
establishing concept systems
General Concept: categorization type
Necessity: Each instance of each characteristic type is a characteristic.
Example: The extension of the characteristic type ‘color’ includes the characteristics ‘thing is blue’,
‘thing is red’, ‘thing is green’’ etc.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 147

11.2.2.3 Categorization Schemes

category
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.16) [‘specific concept’]
Definition: concept in a generic relation having the broader intension
Concept Type: role
Dictionary Basis: secondary or subordinate category [NODE ‘subcategory’]
Note: The broader intension of a category means that the category incorporates more
characteristics than its more general concept. Thus, it is possible that a category has a
smaller extension than its more general concept.

more general concept

Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.15) [‘generic concept’]
Definition: concept in a generic relation having the narrower intension
Concept Type: role
Note: The narrower intension of a more general concept means that the more general concept
incorporates fewer characteristics than any of its categories. Thus, it is possible that a
more general concept has a larger extension than its categories.

concept1 has more general concept2

See: concept1 specializes concept2
Synonymous Form: concept2 has category1

categorization scheme
Definition: scheme for partitioning things in the extension of a given general concept into the
extensions of categories of that general concept
Example: The general concept ‘person’ categorized by age range and gender into categories ‘boy’,
‘girl’’ ‘man’, ‘woman’.
Dictionary Basis: an orderly combination of related parts [AH (3) ‘scheme’]

categorization scheme is for general concept

Definition: the general concept is divided into category(s) by the categorization scheme
Necessity: Each categorization scheme is for at least one general concept.
Synonymous Form: general concept has categorization scheme

categorization scheme contains category

Definition: the category is included in the categorization scheme as one of the categories divided into
by the scheme
Synonymous Form: category is included in categorization scheme
partitive verb concept
Necessity: Each category that is included in a categorization scheme that is for a general concept
is a category of that general concept.

segmentation
Definition: categorization scheme whose contained categories are complete (total) and disjoint with
respect to the general concept that has the categorization scheme

148 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Synonym: partitioning

partitioning
See: segmentation

categorization type
Definition: concept type whose instances are always categories of a given concept
Note: A categorization type is either partial or complete. It is complete if it necessarily categorizes
everything of the general concept that it is for.
Example: EU-Rent’s categorization type for EU-Rent’s concept of ‘branch’ whose instances are
categories of branch: ‘airport branch’, ‘agency’, and ‘city branch’.

categorization type is for general concept

Synonymous Form: general concept has categorization type

11.2.3 Kinds of Definition

Figure 11.3

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

intensional definition
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.3.2) [‘intensional definition’]
Definition: definition which describes the intension of a concept by stating the superordinate concept and
the delimiting characteristics

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 149

 General Concept: definition
Necessity: No intensional definition is an extensional definition.

intensional definition uses delimiting characteristic

Definition: the delimiting characteristic serves to distinguish the concept defined by the intensional
definition from other concepts

definite description
Definition: intensional definition of an individual
Example: the car movement that has the movement id “UK-12345-abc-xyz”
Necessity: Each definition of an individual noun concept is a definite description.
Necessity: Each definite description is the definition of an individual noun concept.
Necessity: Each definite description uses a reference scheme for the individual.

extensional definition
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.3.3) [‘extensional definition’]
Definition: description of a concept by enumerating all of its subordinate concepts under one criterion of
subdivision
General Concept: definition
Necessity: No extensional definition is an intensional definition.

Definition Origin
Definition: the categorization scheme of the concept ‘definition’ that classifies a definition based on
whether it is owned by its speech community or adopted by its speech community

owned definition
Definition: definition that a speech community ‘owns’ and is responsible for creating and maintaining
Necessity: The concept ‘owned definition’ is included in Definition Origin.
Example: EU-Rent ‘owns’ its definition of the concept of ‘barred driver’.

speech community owns owned definition

adopted definition
Definition: definition that a speech community adopts from an external source by providing a
reference to the definition
Necessity: The concept ‘adopted definition’ is included in Definition Origin.
Necessity: Each adopted definition must be for a concept in the body of shared meanings of the
semantic community of the speech community.
Example: SBVR has adopted the concept ‘concept’ (‘unit of knowledge created by a unique combination
of characteristics’) from ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.1).
Note: By adopting the definition of ‘concept’, the SBVR community adopted the meaning of
‘concept’ as represented by the definition. A meaning cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is
adopted via a representation of the meaning - a definition.

A definition is expressed in some language, so is adopted by some speech community within

the adopting semantic community.

150 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Adoption of the definition first adopted by a semantic community (via one of its speech
communities) is the adoption of the concept.
Example: Adoption of the definition of ‘concept’ from ISO 1087 by the English-speaking SBVR speech
community.
Note: Subsequent definitions of the adopted concept (e.g., in other natural languages) must have the
same meaning as the first adopted definition.
Example: Adoption of the definition of ‘concept’ (‘unité de connaissance créée par une combinaison
unique de caractères’) from ISO 1087 by the French-speaking SBVR speech community.
Note: The primary term used for the concept does not have to be the same as the primary term in the
source.
Example: SBVR has adopted the definition of ‘object’ from ISO 1087, but uses the term ‘thing’ to
designate it.
Example: The French-speaking SBVR speech community might choose to use the synonym ‘notion’
(also used in ISO 1087) instead of ‘concept’.
Note: When an adopted concept is designated by a preferred term or verb symbol different from the
one in the source, related adopted definitions may be localized with these preferred
designations while retaining their meanings.
Example: SBVR has adopted the definition of ‘individual noun concept’ (‘concept that corresponds to
only one object’) from ISO 1087 but, using its preferred term ‘thing’ instead of ‘object’, has
localized it as ‘concept that corresponds to only one thing’.
Note: When a concept’s definition is adopted, all other concepts in the referenced source that are
used in the definition are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting speech
community’s vocabulary or implicit within the source vocabulary.

speech community adopts adopted definition citing reference

Definition: the speech community agrees that the definition identified by the reference can serve as the
adopted definition
Note: The reference is the name of the source and the designation used in the source with, if
available, informally-styled referencing within the source - ‘(3.2.1)’ in the example below.
Example: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.1) [‘concept’]

definition serves as designation

Definition: the definition acts as a designation of the concept defined by the definition
Note: In the case of a concept for which no designation is given, the concept is represented by its
definition.

designation is implicitly understood

Definition: the designation is generally understood by its owning community without an explicit
definition for the concept it designates

derivable concept
Definition: concept whose extension can be determined from its definition or from rules

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 151

11.2.4 Conceptualization Decisions

concept of
thing existing
independently

concept of
thing existing
dependently

concept of concept of
thing as thing as
occurrent unitary
concept
concept of concept of
thing as thing as
continuant composite

concept of
thing as
primitive

concept of
thing as
developed

Figure 11.4

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

concept of thing as unitary

Definition: concept that conceptualizes its instances as not being made up of discrete parts or elements
Note: A thing is conceptualized as unitary if a semantic community doesn’t think of it as having
components, even though some other community may be aware of and concerned about its
decomposition.
Example: EU-Rent finance department treats a car as unitary, while its maintenance staff treat it as
composite.

concept of thing as composite

Definition: concept that conceptualizes its instances as being made of discrete parts or elements that
have corresponding concepts in their own right
Necessity: No concept of thing as unitary is a concept of thing as composite.

152 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

concept of thing as primitive
Definition: concept that conceptualizes its instances as not being developed or derived from anything
else
Dictionary Basis: not developed or derived from anything else [NODE ‘primitive’]

concept of thing as developed

Definition: concept that conceptualizes its instances as being developed or derived from something else
Necessity: No concept of thing as primitive is a concept of thing as developed.

concept of thing as occurrent

Definition: concept that conceptualizes its instances as existing only at a point in time
Dictionary Basis: the fact of something existing or being found in a place or under a particular set of conditions
[NODE ‘occurrence’ 2] + the fact or frequency of something happening [NODE ‘occurrence’ 1]

concept of thing as continuant

Definition: concept that conceptualizes its instances as existing over a period of time
Dictionary Basis: a thing that retains its identity even though its states and relations may change. [NODE
‘continuant’ 2]
Necessity: No concept of thing as occurrent is a concept of thing as continuant.

concept of thing existing independently

Definition: concept that conceptualizes each instance to exist independently of other things such that
existence cannot be ended by the ending of the existence of any other thing

concept of thing existing dependently

Definition: concept that conceptualizes each instance as existing only as long as one or more other
things continue to exist
Necessity: No concept of thing existing independently is a concept of thing existing dependently.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 153

11.2.5 Concept System Structure

Figure 11.5

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

Elements of Concept System Structure

Definition: the categorization scheme of the concept ‘meaning’ that classifies a meaning based on
its part in organizing a community’s concept system
Necessity: The concept ‘association’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘property association’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘characteristic’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘partitive verb concept’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.

154 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Necessity: The concept ‘categorization’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘classification’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘characterization’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘is-role-of-proposition’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘is-facet-of-proposition’ is included in Elements of Concept System Structure.
Necessity: The concept ‘verb concept objectification’ is included in Elements of Concept System
Structure.

unary verb concept

See: characteristic

11.2.5.1 Kinds of Connection

association
Definition: verb concept that has more than one role and that has a nonhierarchical subject-oriented
connection drawn from experience, based on practical rather than theoretical considerations
Source: based on ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.23) [‘associative relation’, ‘pragmatic relation’]
Dictionary Basis: to join (things) together or connect (one thing) with another [MWU verb (3) ‘associate’]
Example: The verb concept ‘additional driver is authorized in rental’
Example: The verb concept ‘car manufacturer supplies car model’
Example: The verb concept ‘car manufacturer delivers consignment to branch’

property
Definition: quality or trait actually belonging to a thing itself
Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing [MWUD property]
Example: Consider three statements: “Meeting 1 starts at 1PM”, “Meeting 2 starts at 2PM”, “Meeting 1
ends at 2PM”. These describe three distinguishable properties: starting at 1PM, ending at 2PM
and starting at 2PM. Each ‘property’ should not be confused with the verb concept role of the
respective property association (which roles could be labeled “starting time” or “ending time”),
because starting at 1PM is a different property than starting at 2PM. Also, the ‘property’ is not
the thing that fills role (it’s not 1PM or 2PM), because starting at 2PM is a different property
than ending at 2PM.
Example: Example: car group has daily price for member affiliation. This example involves a ternary
property association, rather than a binary one. (Examples of “member affiliation” might
include AARP membership, AAA membership, Costco membership, etc.)
Note: By “actually” we mean “in the universe of discourse” (the things that we are talking about), not
in a model of the universe of discourse. This meaning of “property” should not be confused
with the meaning of “property” in an IT modeling context. There is no 1:1 relationship
between “property association” in SBVR and “attribute” or “property” in a class or entity
model.

property association
Definition: association that is defined with respect to a given concept such that each instance of the
association is an actuality that a given instance of the concept has a particular property
Necessity: Each instance of each property association is an actuality that a thing has a particular
property.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 155

 Dictionary Basis: a quality or trait belonging to a person or thing; [MWUD ‘property’]
Synonym: is-property-of verb concept
Example: The association ‘engine size of car model’
Example: The association ‘person has eye color’

is-property-of verb concept

See: property association

partitive verb concept

Definition: verb concept where each instance is an actuality that a given part is in the composition of
a given whole
Source: based on ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.22) [‘partitive relation’]
Dictionary Basis: to place, list, or rate as a part or component of a whole or of a larger group, class, or aggregate
[MWU (2a) ‘include’]
Necessity: Each partitive verb concept is a binary verb concept.
Necessity: Each instance of each partitive verb concept is an actuality that a given part is in the
composition of a given whole.
Example: The verb concept ‘country is included in region’
An example of an instance of that verb concept is that Sweden is included in Scandinavia.
Example: The verb concept ‘branch is included in local area’
Example: The verb concept ‘car model is included in car group’
Example: To reflect the composition of a mechanical pencil, the verb concepts: ‘barrel is included in
mechanical pencil’, ‘lead-advance mechanism is included in mechanical pencil’, ‘lead (refill)
is included in mechanical pencil’, and ‘refill eraser is included in mechanical pencil’ [an
example in ISO704]
Synonym: part-whole verb concept
Note: For more discussion and examples see: Annex B.3.4, C.7, as well as the EU-Rent examples in
Annex G.

part-whole verb concept

See: partitive verb concept

categorization
Definition: proposition that a given general concept specializes a given general concept
Dictionary Basis: the state of being categorized [MWU]
Example: The general concept ‘high-end customer’ specializes the general concept ‘customer.’
Example: The general concept ‘points rental’ specializes the general concept ‘rental.’
Example: The general concept ‘airport branch’ specializes the general concept ‘branch.’
Note: For more discussion and examples see: Annex B.2.1, I.2, C.5, C.6, as well as the EU-Rent
examples in Annex G.

classification
Definition: proposition that the instance of a given individual noun concept is an instance of a
given general concept
Dictionary Basis: to place in the same group with others : associate in a class [MWU (3) “assort”]

156 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: The individual noun concept ‘Euro’ specializes the general concept ‘currency’
Example: The individual noun concept ‘Ford Motor Company’ specializes the general concept ‘car
manufacturer’
Example: The individual noun concept ‘Switzerland’ specializes the general concept ‘country’
Synonym: assortment
Note: For more discussion and examples see: Annex B.3.5, as well as the EU-Rent examples in
Annex G.

assortment
See: classification

characterization
Definition: proposition that a given concept incorporates a given characteristic
Dictionary Basis: to describe the essential character or quality of [MWU (2) “characterize”]
Example: The proposition that the concept ‘authorized driver’ incorporates the characteristic ‘person is
licensed’
Example: The proposition that the concept ‘Eiffel Tower’ incorporates the characteristic ‘structure
is quadrilateral’

is-role-of proposition
Definition: proposition that a given role ranges over a given general concept in some situation
Example: The role ‘replacement car’ in the situation of a breakdown during a rental ranges over the
general concept ‘rental car’
Example: The role ‘pick-up branch’ in the situation of a rental ranges over the general concept ‘branch’
Note: For more discussion and examples see: Annex B.3.2, C.5, as well as the EU-Rent examples in
Annex G.

is-facet-of proposition
Definition: proposition that a given concept has a given facet
Example: The concept ‘rental car’ has the facet ‘asset’ from the viewpoint of financial accounting.
Example: The concept ‘person’ has the facet ‘driver’ from the viewpoint of car rental.
Note: A given community may choose to include any number of facets, including just one or none at
all.
Note: For more discussion and examples see: Annex B.3.3, as well as the EU-Rent examples in
Annex G.

11.2.5.2 Contextualization

Context of Thing
Definition: the segmentation of the concept ‘noun concept’ that classifies a noun concept based
on whether the noun concept’s real-world individuals are perceived by the semantic
community as in their uninvolved essence or as to their involvement in a situation or from a
viewpoint
Necessity: The concept ‘fundamental concept’ is included in Context of Thing.
Necessity: The concept ‘contextualized concept’ is included in Context of Thing.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 157

fundamental concept
Definition: general concept whose real-world individuals are perceived by a given semantic
community as being in their essence, apart from any situation in which they are involved or
viewpoint from which they are considered
Dictionary Basis: a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is
[NODE ‘essence’]
Concept Type: concept type
Example: car (as contrasted with ‘rental car’)
Example: person (as contrasted with ‘customer’)
Note: Each semantic community decides what is within its body of shared meanings. A concept that
is considered as fundamental by one community may, to another community, be a role or facet
or category of a more broadly-defined concept.

contextualized concept
Definition: role or facet
General Concept: noun concept

situational role
Definition: general concept that corresponds to things being in some situation, such as playing a part,
assuming a function, or being used in some circumstances
General Concept: general concept, role
Concept Type: concept type

facet
Definition: concept that generalizes a given concept but incorporates only those characteristics that
are relevant to a particular viewpoint
General Concept: contextualized concept
Dictionary Basis: a particular way in which some thing may be considered; its particular nature, appearance, or
quality; the particular part or feature of it [NODE ‘aspect’]
Synonym: aspect

aspect
See: facet

concept has facet

Definition: the facet generalizes the concept and incorporates only those characteristics that are
relevant to a particular viewpoint

situation
Definition: state of affairs that is a set of circumstances that provides the context from which roles
played may be understood or assessed
Dictionary Basis: a set of circumstances in which one finds oneself; a state of affairs [NODE ‘situation’]
Dictionary Basis: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it
can be fully understood or assessed [NODE ‘context’]
Note: A situation typically pertains for some period of time, during which changes may occur.

158 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Example: The situation ‘breakdown during rental’ is the set of circumstances that starts with the
breakdown of a car while on rental and continues until the broken-down car, having been
replaced by another car, has been returned to a EU-Rent location.

viewpoint
Definition: perspective from which something is considered

11.2.5.3 Verb Concept Objectification

general concept objectifies verb concept

Definition: the general concept incorporates each characteristic that is incorporated by the verb
concept and the general concept incorporates no characteristic that is not incorporated
by the verb concept
Synonymous Form: verb concept has verb concept objectification
Synonymous Form: general concept has objectified verb concept
Necessity: Each verb concept is objectified by at most one general concept.
Necessity: Each general concept that objectifies a verb concept is coextensive with the verb
concept.
Example: The general concept ‘sponsorship’ objectifies the verb concept ‘company sponsors
publication’. Each sponsorship is an actuality that a given company sponsors a given
publication.
Note: See Annex I.4.4 and Annex C.9 for additional discussion.

verb concept objectification

Definition: general concept that objectifies a given verb concept
Concept Type: role

objectified verb concept

Definition: verb concept that is objectified by a given general concept
Concept Type: role

11.3 Business Representation

11.3.1 Symbolization

Issue # 15623: replace Figure

Issue # 15684: replace Figure

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 159

Figure 11.6

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

11.3.1.1 Subject Fields

subject field
Definition: field of specific knowledge
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.1.2) [‘subject field’]

representation is in subject field

Definition: the representation is recognized and used in discourse regarding the subject field

vocabulary namespace is specific to subject field

Definition: each designation and verb concept wording that is in the vocabulary namespace is in
the subject field

160 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

representation is in designation context
Definition: the representation is recognized and used in discourse regarding the designation context

vocabulary namespace is specific to designation context

Definition: each designation and verb concept wording that is in the vocabulary namespace is in
the designation context

designation context
Concept Type: role
Definition: concept that characterizes the domain of usage within which the expression of a
representation has a unique meaning for a given speech community
Example: When EU-Rent uses the term ‘site’:
* within the context of the concept termed ‘vehicle rental’ (another EU-Rent term), it denotes
EU-Rent’s shared understanding of a ‘place from which EU-Rent vehicles are picked up and
returned’.
* within the context of the concept termed ‘vehicle maintenance’ (another EU-Rent term), it
denotes EU-Rent’s shared understanding of a ‘place where EU-Rent’s vehicle fleet is serviced
and repaired’.
Example: When EU-Rent uses the term ‘customer’:
* within the context of the concept termed ‘vehicle rental’ (another EU-Rent term), it denotes
EU-Rent’s shared understanding of ‘rental-customer-ness’ (Definition: ‘individual who
currently has a EU-Rent car on rental, or has a reservation for a future car rental, or has rented
a car from EU-Rent in the past 5 years’).
* within the context of the concept termed ‘vehicle sales’ (another EU-Rent term), it denotes
EU-Rent’s shared understanding of ‘car-purchaser-ness’ (Definition: ‘individual who has
purchased at least one car from EU-Rent that is still within its warranty period’).

11.3.1.2 Kinds of Designation

term
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.4.3) [‘term’]
Definition: verbal designation of a general concept in a specific subject field
General Concept: designation
Note: A term is typically formed using a common noun or noun phrase.
Example: EU-Rent agrees the word ‘car’ denotes its shared understanding of ‘rental-car-ness’ within
<rental context>.
Example: EU-Rent agrees the word ‘vehicle’ denotes its shared understanding of ‘car-ness’ within
<rental context>.
Example: EU-Rent agrees the word ‘customer’ denotes its shared understanding of ‘rental-customer-
ness’ within <rental context>.
Example: EU-Rent agrees the word ‘customer’ denotes its shared understanding of ‘car-purchaser-ness’
within <car-sales context> -- i.e., when EU-Rent disposes of cars after they reach their mileage
or age threshold.
Example: EU-Rent agrees the word ‘renter’ denotes its shared understanding of ‘rental-customer-ness’.
(within any context).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 161

name
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.4.2) [‘appellation’]
Definition: verbal designation of an individual noun concept
General Concept: designation
Necessity: No name is a term
Note: The expression of a name is typically a proper noun.

nonverbal designation
Definition: designation that is not expressed as words of a language
Necessity: No nonverbal designation is a term.
Necessity: No nonverbal designation is a name.
Note: A verbal designation, such as a term or name, can contain parts that are nonverbal. Some
abbreviations are nonverbal while others, being expressed as words, are terms or names.

icon
Definition: nonverbal designation whose signifier is a picture
Dictionary Basis: a usu. pictorial representation [MWCD ‘icon’]

Example: as a designation for the concept ‘u-turn’

verb symbol
Definition: designation that represents a verb concept and that is demonstrated by a verb concept
wording
Reference Scheme: a verb concept wording that incorporates the verb symbol
Example: In the expression, ‘Each customer rents a car’, ‘rents’ is a verb symbol denoting a verb
concept.
Example: In the expression, ‘A driver of a car returns the car to a branch office’, ‘of’ is a verb symbol
for one verb concept (relating a driver to a car) and ‘returns to’ is another verb symbol
denoting a verb concept (relating a driver to a car and a branch office).

verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol

Synonymous Form: verb symbol is incorporated into verb concept wording
Necessity: Each verb concept wording incorporates at most one verb symbol.
Necessity: Each verb symbol is incorporated into at least one verb concept wording.
See: verb concept wording demonstrates designation

verb concept role designation

Definition: designation that is of a verb concept role and that is recognizable in use in the context of
another role of the same verb concept
Necessity: No verb concept role designation is a term.
Necessity: No verb concept role designation is a placeholder.
Necessity: No verb concept role designation represents a situational role.

162 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: A verb concept role designation should not be confused with a placeholder or with a term for a
situational role, even though all of these can have the same expression. A situational role is a
general concept and is not a verb concept role.
Note: A verb concept role designation should not be confused with a placeholder, which is part of a
verb concept wording. In uses of a verb concept wording, placeholders are replaced. A verb
concept role designation can replace a placeholder. Verb concept role designations occur in
statements and definitions to refer to what fills the role.
Example: The verb concept role designation, ‘CEO’, for a role in the verb concept ‘corporation has CEO’
does not represent a situational role and is not the same thing as the ‘CEO’ placeholder in that
verb concept wording. Here we see different designations have the same signifier, ‘CEO’.
The verb concept role designation represents the verb concept role in the context of using the
verb concept, such as in the phrases ‘EU-Rent’s CEO’ and ‘the CEO of some corporation’.
But a situational role, even if defined in terms of the verb concept can be used independently,
as in the statement, ‘Every CEO is a person’. The placeholder ‘CEO’ of the verb concept
wording ‘corporation has CEO’ is part of the form and gets replaced in each use of the form.
In the statement, ‘EU-Rent has exactly one CEO’, the ‘CEO’ placeholder of the verb concept
wording ‘corporation has CEO’ is replaced by ‘exactly one CEO’, comprised of a quantifier
and the verb concept role designation ‘CEO’, which is understood to represent the verb
concept role because of its context: it is used in relation to a corporation.
Note: Sub clause 13.7.4 shows an example of a verb concept role designation, ‘prior example’, and
shows examples of verb concept roles having no verb concept role designation.

11.3.1.3 Designations and Things in the Real-world

term denotes thing

Definition: the thing is an instance of the concept that is represented by the term

thing has name

Definition: the thing is the instance of the individual noun concept that is represented by the
name
Synonymous Form: name references thing
Note: A use of an individual noun concept by its name denotes the thing that is in the extension of the
individual noun concept.

res
Definition: thing that is not a meaning

res is sensory manifestation of signifier

11.3.1.4 Designation Preference and Prohibition

preferred designation
Definition: designation that is selected by its owning speech community for a given concept from
among alternative designations for that concept as being most desirable or productive
Example: EU-Rent’s preferred designations for indicating the USA Dollar, Canadian Dollar, and
Mexican Peso are, respectively, “USD”, “CAD”, and “MXN” (ISO 4217 currency codes).

prohibited designation
Definition: designation that is declared unacceptable by its owning speech community

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 163

 Example: In EU-Rent, use of the dollar sign ($) by itself is prohibited, to avoid confusion between the
USA Dollar, Canadian Dollar, and Mexican Peso.
Note: What is prohibited is the use of a given expression to represent a given meaning. The same
expression may be permitted, even preferred, to represent another meaning.
Necessity: No preferred designation is a prohibited designation.

speech community regulates its usage of signifier

expression is unambiguous to speech community

Definition: the expression is understood by each member of the speech community to represent
exactly one and the same meaning
Note: In SBVR, a fully and accurately styled expression is assumed to be unambiguous. (Formal
assessment of the expression, of course, may find that it is not.) The verb concept “expression
is unambiguous to speech community” is not used for such expressions.
Only informal statements (unstyled or partially styled) should use this verb concept. In
communicating expressions, recipients need a sense of the viability of what is being
communicated. Use of the verb concept to indicate that an expression is unambiguous indicates
that an informal assessment has been made and that the meaning of the expression is thought to
be clear.
Caution should be exercised in this regard. Even expressions thought to be self-evidently
unambiguous may be found not to be so. Practitioners should generally err on the side of
caution, especially in expressing elements of guidance.

164 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

11.3.2 Forms of Business Representation

Figure 11.7

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

11.3.2.1 Representation Formality

Representation Formality
Definition: the segmentation of the concept ‘representation’ that classifies a representation based
on whether or not it is ‘formal’

informal representation
Definition: representation in which not every word is annotated (‘tagged’) in accordance with a notation
that can be mapped to SBVR
Necessity: No informal representation is a formal representation.
Necessity: The concept ‘informal representation’ is included in Representation Formality.
Note: Some of the words of an informal representation may be annotated -- i.e., defined, or ‘tagged’,
terms, names, verbs, or keywords.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 165

formal representation
Definition: representation in which every word is annotated (‘tagged’) in accordance with a notation that
can be mapped to SBVR
Necessity: No formal representation is an informal representation.
Necessity: The concept ‘formal representation’ is included in Representation Formality.

11.3.2.2 Concept Expression

description portrays meaning

Note: The meaning of a description that portrays a concept is most likely not that concept. A
description can be a statement, in which case, its meaning is a proposition.

description
Definition: representation that provides a detailed account of something, a verbal portrait
Dictionary Basis: a spoken or written representation or account of a person, object, or event [NODE ‘description’]
Necessity: No description that portrays a concept is a descriptive example that illustrates that
concept.
Necessity: No description that portrays a concept is a note that comments on that concept.
Necessity: No description that portrays a concept is a reference that supports that concept.

descriptive example illustrates meaning

Note: The meaning of a descriptive example is typically a proposition.

descriptive example
Definition: representation that provides descriptive material that is a sample of the thing defined
Source: based on MWCD and NODE
Dictionary Basis: one (as an item or incident) that is representative of all of a group or type [MWCD ‘example’]
Dictionary Basis: a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule [NODE ‘example’]
Necessity: No descriptive example that illustrates a concept is a definition of that concept.
Necessity: No descriptive example that illustrates a concept is a description that portrays that
concept.
Necessity: No descriptive example that illustrates a concept is a note that comments on that
concept.
Necessity: No descriptive example that illustrates a concept is a reference that supports that
concept.
Example: Chris Cushing is an example of EU-Rent’s concept of ‘rental customer’.
Example: The vehicle with VIN#88744332 is an example of EU-Rent’s concept of ‘rental car’.

note comments on meaning

Note: The meaning of a note that comments on a concept is most likely not that concept. A note is
typically a statement whose meaning is a proposition.

note
Definition: representation that annotates or explains
Necessity: No note that comments on a concept is a definition of that concept.

166 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Necessity: No note that comments on a concept is a description that portrays that concept.
Necessity: No note that comments on a concept is a descriptive example that illustrates that
concept.
Necessity: No note that comments on a concept is a reference that supports that concept.
Synonym: remark
Synonym: comment

comment
See: note

remark
See: note

11.3.2.3 Business Content of a Communication

communication content
Definition: representation that is a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more
statements and deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker
Source: MWCD (1a)
Synonym: message content
Synonym: document content

document content
See: communication content

message content
See: communication content

communication content is composed of representation

Concept Type: partitive verb concept

reference supports meaning

reference
Definition: representation that is the mention or citation of a source of information used to direct a
reader elsewhere for additional information about a given concept
Dictionary Basis: a mention or citation of a source of information in a book or article [NODE ‘reference’]
Necessity: No reference that supports a concept is a definition of that concept.
Necessity: No reference that supports a concept is a description that portrays that concept.
Necessity: No reference that supports a concept is a descriptive example that illustrates that
concept.
Necessity: No reference that supports a concept is a note that comments on that concept.
Example: ‘The Highway Code’ published by HMSO, 2005.
Example: The descriptions of car models’ capacity, fuel economy, and performance taken from the
manufacturers’ specifications.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 167

reference points to information source
Definition: the communication content plays the role of an information source for the reference

information source
Concept Type: role
Definition: communication content that is used as a resource to supply information or evidence

11.3.2.4 Sets of Business Representations

speech community representation set

Definition: the set of representations determined by a given speech community to represent in its
language all meanings in its body of shared meanings
Synonym: representation set
Reference Scheme: the speech community that determines the speech community representation set
Note: Besides being an element of a speech community representation set, an individual
representation can appear multiple times
1. as a component of other representations in that set - e.g., a term can be used in
multiple definitions and statements, and
2. in terminological dictionaries and/or rulebooks - once for each time the meaning of
the representation appears in the terminological dictionary or rulebook.

speech community representation set includes representation

Definition: the representation is an element of the speech community representation set
Synonymous Form: representation is included in speech community representation set

representation uses vocabulary

Definition: the representation is expressed in terms of the vocabulary

speech community determines speech community representation set

Definition: the speech community is responsible for the expression of representations that are included
in the speech community representation set
Necessity: Each speech community representation set is determined by exactly one
speech community.
Note: The speech community is responsible for translating the informal representations of the speech
community representation set into the language of the speech community.

rulebook
Definition: terminological dictionary plus a collection of representations including at least one
guidance statement for each of a set of one or more elements of guidance, together with
any number of other representations of facts related to those elements of guidance
Reference Scheme: a URI of the rulebook
Note: Each rulebook includes a terminological dictionary plus, optionally, names of behavioral
elements of guidance, and guidance statements, synonymous statements, terms for guidance
types, descriptions, references, notes, descriptive examples, and other statements (e.g.,
regarding enforcement levels) about the behavioral elements of guidance.

168 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

rulebook has URI
Definition: the URI uniquely identifies the rulebook
Necessity: Each URI is the URI of at most one rulebook.
Note: A rulebook contains representations (designations, verb concept wordings, definitions, notes,
descriptive examples, etc.) of all meanings of a body of shared meanings. This can include
representations of elements of guidance when a body of shared guidance is included in a body
of shared meanings.

Contrast a rulebook with a vocabulary, which contains only designations and verb concept
wordings. Also contrast a terminological dictionary, which contains everything that is in a
rulebook except representations of behavioral elements of guidance.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 169

170 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
12 Business Rules
12.1 Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules

___________________________________________________________________

Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules

Language: English
Included Vocabulary: Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies
___________________________________________________________________

12.2 Categories of Guidance

The common sense understanding of ‘rule’ is that a rule always tends to remove some degree of freedom. This common sense
understanding should be contrasted with that for ‘advice’, where a degree of freedom is never removed, even potentially.

The degree of freedom removed by a rule might concern the behavior of people (in the case of an operative business rule), or
their understanding of concepts (in the case of a structural rule). In the latter case, the restricting of freedom is built-in (i.e.,
“structural” or “by definition”). In the former case, people can still potentially violate or ignore the rule - that is a matter of
free will, appropriate enforcement, and sometimes discretion (for example if the rule is offered simply as a guideline or
suggestion).

Nonetheless, an operative business rule always mandates or suggests some out-of-bounds criteria for behavior, thereby
potentially removing a degree of freedom. For example, the meaning of “It is prohibited that an order be paid by promissory
note” indicates that workers are not completely free to accept IOUs for payment of orders. That particular degree of freedom
has been removed or diminished. Depending on enforcement level, violating the rule could well invite response, which might
be anything from immediate prevention and/or severe sanction, to mild tutelage. Note that other degrees of freedom have not
been removed or diminished by this particular rule. For example, unless other rules pertain to how orders are paid, workers are
free to accept cash, credit cards, or other means of payment - those means are allowed. The general implication is that rules
indirectly prescribe what is allowable - whatever the rules do not specifically proscribe is allowed.

An advice is just the opposite of a rule. Whereas a rule always potentially removes some degree of freedom, an advice always
confirms or reminds that some degree of freedom does exist or is allowed. That degree of freedom might concern the behavior
of people (in the case of an operative business rule), or their understanding of concepts (in the case of a structural rule).

It might be helpful to think of an advice as an ‘un-rule’ or ‘no-rule’. For example, the meaning of “It is permitted that an order
be paid by cash” is that such behavior is allowed - that indeed, paying by cash is acceptable. In other words, there is (or should
be) no rule to the contrary.

Since an advice never removes degrees of freedom, why is it sometimes useful to capture? There are many possible reasons,
but probably foremost among them are to re-assure workers or others that some degree of freedom does exist; to use as a basis
for admonishing workers about applying some rule that actually does not exist; or to ‘remember’ the resolutions to some rule-
related issue where the outcome was in favor of ‘no rule’.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 171

Figure 12.1

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

12.2.1 Guidance

body of shared guidance

Definition: all of the elements of guidance within a body of shared meanings

body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance

Definition: the body of shared guidance is the set of elements of guidance that are included in the
body of shared meanings

172 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Synonymous Form: body of shared guidance is included in body of shared meanings

body of shared guidance includes element of guidance

Synonymous Form: element of guidance is included in body of shared guidance

element of guidance
General Concept: proposition
Definition: means that guides, defines, or constrains some aspect of an enterprise
Note: This sense of ‘means’ (as in ‘ends and means’, rather than ‘is meant as’) arises from the
Business Motivation Model [BMM].
Note: The formulation of an element of guidance is under an enterprise’s control by a party
authorized to manage, control or regulate the enterprise, by selection from alternatives in
response to a combination of assessments.

element of guidance is practicable

Concept Type: characteristic
Definition: the element of guidance is sufficiently detailed and precise that a person who knows the
element of guidance can apply it effectively and consistently in relevant circumstances to
know what behavior is acceptable or not, or how something is understood
Dictionary Basis: able to be done or put into practice successfully; able to be used, useful [ODE]
Note: The sense intended is: “It’s actually something you can put to use or apply.”
Note: The behavior, decision, or calculation can be that person’s own.
Note: Whether or not some element of guidance is practicable is decided with respect to what a
person with legitimate need can understand from it.
• For an operative business rule, this understanding is about the behavior of people and what
form compliant behavior takes.
• For a structural rule, this understanding is about how evaluation of the criteria vested in
the rule always produces some certain outcome(s) for a decision or calculation as opposed
to others.
Note: A practicable business rule is also always free of any indefinite reference to people (e.g.,
“you,” “me”), places (e.g., “here”), and time (e.g., “now”). By that means, if the person is
displaced in place and/or time from the author(s) of the business rule, the person can read it and
still fully understand it, without (a) assistance from any machine (e.g., to “tell” time), and (b)
external clarification.

element of governance
Definition: element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the
actions of an enterprise and the people in it
Dictionary Basis: conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority:
control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events) [ODE, “govern”]

element of governance is directly enforceable

Definition: violations of the element of governance can be detected without the need for additional
interpretation of the element of governance
Concept Type: characteristic

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 173

 Note: ‘Directly enforceable’ means that a person who knows about the element of governance could
observe relevant business activity (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly
whether or not the business was complying with the element of governance.
Necessity: Each element of governance that is directly enforceable is practicable.

business policy
Definition: element of governance that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an
enterprise
Note: Compared to a Business Rule, a Business Policy tends to be:
- less structured
- less discrete or not atomic
- less carefully expressed in terms of a standard vocabulary
- not directly enforceable.
Dictionary Basis: definite course or method of action selected (as by a government, institution, group, or
individual) from among alternatives and in the light of given conditions to guide and usually
determine present and future decisions [MWUD “Policy” 5a]
Necessity: No business policy is a business rule.
Example: The policy expressed as “A prisoner is considered to be on a hunger strike after missing several
meals in a row.”
Example: The policy expressed as “The prison medical authority will intervene if a hunger striker’s life
is in danger.”
Example: The EU-Rent policy expressed as “Rental cars must not be exported.”
Example: The policy expressed as “Each customer who complains will be personally contacted by a
representative of the company.”

proposition is based on verb concept

Definition: the proposition is formulated using the verb concept
Example: The EU-Rent business rule that is expressed as “It is obligatory that each rental specifies a car
group.” (or, in RuleSpeak, “A rental must have a car group.”) is based on the EU-Rent verb
concept ‘rental specifies car group’.

12.2.2 Rules

rule
Definition: proposition that is a claim of obligation or of necessity
Dictionary Basis: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure
within a particular area of activity ... a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere
of knowledge, describing, or prescribing what is possible or allowable. [ODE]

business rule
Definition: rule that is under business jurisdiction
General Concept: rule, element of guidance
Note: A rule’s being under business jurisdiction means that it is under the jurisdiction of an authority
that can opt to change or discard the rule at its own discretion. Laws of physics may be relevant
to a company; legislation and regulations may be imposed on it; external standards and best
practices (other than business rules) may be relied upon. These things are not business rules

174 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 from the company’s perspective, since it does not have the standing to change them. The
company will decide how to react to laws and regulations, and will create or adopt business
rules to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. Similarly, it will create or adopt
business rules to ensure that standards or best practices (other than business rules) are
implemented as intended. See sub clause A.2.3.
Note: See sub clause E.2.3 and the OMG’s Business Motivation Model [BMM], which shares the
concepts ‘business policy’ and ‘business rule’ with SBVR. In the BMM, business policy and
business rule are kinds of directive, and regulation is a kind of influencer. Influencers are
related indirectly to directives, via potential impact and assessment. This supports stake
holders of the business in identifying the impacts of influencers on the business and then
assessing what directives are needed to deal with these impacts. The enterprise BMM can
provide information on earlier, relevant assessments, the directives that were created or
changed, the courses of action that were adopted, and the desired results (which can be
compared with actual results if they are available).

There is also a special relationship between directive and regulation - that a directive from an
authoritative source within an enterprise may be treated like a regulation by other organization
units in the enterprise. For example, if the Health and Safety Unit of a business issued a
directive about safe handling of products and materials, other organization units (such as
Manufacturing, Warehousing and Distribution) would treat it as a regulation, in that they
would have to comply with it in an acceptable way, although their assessments of its impact on
their operations and their decisions on compliance might well be different.

business rule is derived from business policy

Synonymous Form: business policy is basis for business rule

structural rule
Definition: rule that is a claim of necessity
Synonym: definitional rule

definitional rule
See: structural rule

structural business rule

Definition: structural rule that is a business rule
Necessity: Each structural business rule is practicable.
Synonym: definitional business rule

definitional business rule

See: structural business rule

operative business rule

Definition: business rule that is a claim of obligation
Definition: element of governance that is directly enforceable
Dictionary Basis: a prescribed, suggested, or self-imposed guide for conduct or action : a regulation or principle
<his parents laid down the rule that he must do his homework before going out to play> <a
very sound rule for any hiker is to mind his own business […] F.D.Smith & Barbara Wilcox>
<made it a rule never to lose his temper> […] [MWU (1a) ‘rule’]

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 175

 Dictionary Basis: a prescribed guide for conduct or action [MWCD ‘rule’]
Necessity: No operative business rule is a structural business rule.
Synonym: behavioral business rule

behavioral business rule

See: operative business rule

12.2.3 Enforcement

enforcement level
Definition: a position in a graded or ordered scale of values that specifies the severity of action imposed in
order to put or keep an operative business rule in force
Dictionary Basis: a position on a real or imaginary scale of amount, quantity, extent, or quality [NODE ‘level’]
Dictionary Basis: compel observance of or compliance with [NODE ‘enforcement’]
Synonym: level of enforcement
Example: An example set of levels of enforcement, based on [BMM]

Enforcement Level: strict

Definition: strictly enforced (If you violate the rule, you cannot escape the penalty.)

Enforcement Level: deferred

Definition: deferred enforcement (Strictly enforced, but enforcement may be
delayed — e.g., waiting for resource with required skills.)

Enforcement Level: pre-authorized

Definition: pre-authorized override (Enforced, but exceptions allowed, with prior
approval for actors with before-the-fact override authorization.)

Enforcement Level: post-justified

Definition: post-justified override (If not approved after the fact, you may be
subject to sanction or other consequences.)

Enforcement Level: override

Definition: override with explanation (Comment must be provided when the
violation occurs.)

Enforcement Level: guideline

Definition: guideline (suggested, but not enforced.)

operative business rule has enforcement level

12.2.4 Possibilities and Permissions

advice
Definition: element of guidance that is practicable and that is a claim of permission or of possibility

176 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Necessity: No business policy is an advice.
Necessity: No business rule is an advice.
Synonym: business advice of permission or possibility

advice is derived from business policy

Synonymous Form: business policy is basis for advice

advice of possibility
Definition: advice that is a claim of possibility
Note: Every necessity implies a possibility. So if a necessity is introduced by a structural rule, there is
no practical reason to introduce the implied possibility. In such cases, best practice generally
favors keeping the number of elements of guidance to be managed to a minimum.
Example: (In a bank) The element of guidance that “It is possible that an account balance is negative.”
Necessity: No advice of possibility is an advice of permission.

advice of contingency
Definition: advice of possibility that is a claim of contingency
Note: The purpose of an advice of contingency is to preempt application of definitional “rules” that
might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the
authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses
have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the
business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past.
Note: In alethic logic, a proposition that is possible but not necessary is termed ‘contingent’. If
people in a business were to treat it as a necessity, they would miscategorize things in the real
world. This typically leads to refusal of activity (that should be permitted) because unnecessary
preconditions are not met, e.g., refusing to accept a rental booking because the person wishing
to rent is under 21.
Example: (In EU-Rent) Advising that it is not necessary for a qualified driver to be over 21. This might
be expressed in various ways, for example as: “It is neither necessary nor impossible that the
age of a qualified driver is at least 21,” or “It is possible (but not necessary) that a qualified
driver be under 21.”
Example: (In EU-Rent) Advising that it is not necessary for a bad experience that occurs during a rental
to be notified before the end of the rental. This might be expressed in various ways, for
example as: “It is neither necessary nor impossible that the notification date/time of a bad
experience during a rental is the actual return date/time of the rental or earlier.” It is possible
(but not necessary) that the notification of a bad experience during a rental occurs after the car
has been returned.”

advice of permission
Definition: advice that is a claim of permission
Note: Every obligation implies a permission. So if an obligation is introduced by a behavioral rule,
there is no practical reason to introduce the implied permission. In such cases, best practice
generally favors keeping the number of elements of guidance to be managed to a minimum.
Example: (In a bank) There is no rule that a person must be over some given age in order to open a
savings account: “There is no minimum age for opening a savings account.” This is understood
as an advice of permission because ‘minimum age’ is defined as “age that must be reached in
order to take part in a given activity” and no restriction has been placed on it. In other words,
the behavior ‘opening a bank account’ is not to be disallowed based on age.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 177

 Example: There is no rule that orders placed by FAX will not be accepted: “Placing an order by FAX is
acceptable.” In other words, placing an order by FAX is not prohibited.

advice of optionality
Definition: advice of permission that is a claim of optionality
Note: The purpose of an advice of optionality is to preempt application of behavioral "rules" that
might be assumed to exist, but are not actually included in the body of shared guidance of the
authority. Often, the reason for this assumption in a business is that other, similar businesses
have such rules. Typically, the reason for providing such explicit advice is that people in the
business have mistakenly applied the non-existent rule in the past.
Note: In deontic logic, a proposition that is permissible but not obligatory is termed ‘optional’. If
people in a business were to treat it as an obligation, they would demand compliance that is not
required by the business, e.g., to be shown picture id, or that the car be driven to the specified
return branch (as the following examples illustrate).
Example: (In EU-Rent) Advising that it is not obligatory that a renter show picture identification at the
time of a rental pick-up. This might be expressed in various ways, for example as: “It is neither
obligatory nor prohibited that at rental pick-up time the renter shows picture identification,” or
“It is not obligatory (but permitted) that a renter shows picture id in order to pick up his car.”
Example: (In EU-Rent) Advising that it is not obligatory (or prohibited) that a rented car be dropped off
only at the return branch specified in the rental agreement. This might be expressed, for
example, as “At the end of a rental, it is not obligatory (but permitted) that a rental car be
dropped off at the rental agreement-specified EU-Rent return branch.”

12.3 Statements of Guidance

The surface syntax people use to express guidance is language-specific. It is also dependent on the particular rule language
(e.g., SBVR Structured English, RuleSpeak, ORM, etc.). This clause does not standardize any particular rule language.
Instead, it provides a normative vocabulary for the kinds of guidance statements that business people assert. These kinds of
guidance statements are general with respect to any particular language.

The categories presented in this sub clause are intended for business people. Business people see and hear surface syntax.
Therefore, the categories defined in 12.2 are based on form or style of expression. For example, if a business person says “It is
obligatory that not p,” the form or style of the expression remains an obligation statement. That interpretation reflects the
‘common sense’ of the statement.

This emphasis on form or style of expression distinguishes this sub clause from Clause 10, which provides deeper logical
analysis. For example, if a business person says “It is obligatory that not p,” logical analysis following Clause 10 takes the
meaning of the expression to be a prohibition (which might not be “common sense”). The key to distinguishing the perspective
of this sub clause from the logical analysis of Clause 10 is emphasized by the unfailing use of “statement” in the names of the
concepts in this sub clause. When “statement” appears, it is always the case that the concept so named refers to the style and
form of surface expression, rather than underlying meaning based on logical analysis.

178 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 statement expresses  proposition

guidance
statement

Kind of Guidance Statement

rule business policy expresses  advice

statement statement statement
1
business
policy
expresses 

expresses

operative structural
business rule rule
statement statement advice of 1 advice of 1
1 1 permission
expresses possibility
expresses
operative structural
statement of advice statement of advice
business rule rule
of permission of possibility

obligation necessity
optionality contingency
statement statement permission possibility
statement statement
statement statement
prohibition impossibility expresses  expresses 
statement statement non-obligation non-necessity
1 1
statement statement
restricted advice of advice of
restricted
permission optionality contingency
possibility
statement statement

Figure 12.2

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

12.3.1 Categories of Business Statement

guidance statement
Definition: statement that expresses an element of guidance
Definition: statement that provides advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty,
especially as given by someone in authority
Dictionary Basis: a statement that provides advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty,
especially as given by someone in authority [NODE ‘guidance’]

Kind of Guidance Statement

Definition: the categorization scheme of the concept ‘guidance statement’ that classifies a
guidance statement based on the surface syntax of the guidance statement

business policy statement

Definition: guidance statement that expresses a business policy
Necessity: The concept ‘business policy statement’ is included in Kind of Guidance Statement.

rule statement
Definition: guidance statement that expresses an operative business rule or a structural rule
Necessity: The concept ‘rule statement’ is included in Kind of Guidance Statement.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 179

structural rule statement
Definition: rule statement that expresses a structural rule
Note: One structural rule can be expressed as various equivalent kinds of statements by introducing
or removing negation. The following are examples of the same rule, expressed in three forms.
Example: [as a necessity statement] “It is necessary that the pick-up branch of a one-way rental is
not the return branch of that rental.”
Example: [as an impossibility statement] “It is impossible that the pick-up branch of a one-way rental
is the return branch of that rental.”
Example: [as a restricted possibility statement] “It is possible that the pick-up branch of a rental is
the return branch of the rental only if the rental is not a one-way rental.”

operative business rule statement

Definition: rule statement that expresses an operative business rule
Necessity: No operative business rule statement is a structural rule statement.
Note: One operative business rule can be expressed as various equivalent kinds of statements by
introducing or removing negation. The following are examples of the same rule, expressed in
three forms.
Example: [as an obligation statement] “It is obligatory that a rental that is open has no driver that is a
barred driver.”
Example: [as a prohibition statement] “It is prohibited that a rental be open if a driver of the rental is
a barred driver.”
Example: [as a restricted permission statement] “It is permitted that a rental be open only if no
driver of the rental is a barred driver.”

advice statement
Definition: guidance statement that expresses an advice of permission or an advice of possibility
Necessity: The concept ‘advice statement’ is included in Kind of Guidance Statement.

statement of advice of permission

Definition: advice statement that expresses an advice of permission
Note: One advice of permission can be expressed as various equivalent kinds of statements by
introducing or removing negation. The following are examples of the same advice, expressed
in alternative forms.
Example: [as a permission statement] “It is permitted that the drop-off branch of a rental is not the
return branch of the rental.”
Example: [as a non-obligation statement] “It is not obligatory that the drop-off branch of a rental be
the return branch of the rental.”
Example: [as a non-obligation statement] “The drop-off branch of a rental need not be the return
branch of the rental.”

statement of advice of possibility

Definition: advice statement that expresses an advice of possibility
Example: “The notification date/time of a bad experience that occurs during a rental can be after the
actual return date/time of the rental.”
Necessity: No statement of advice of possibility is a statement of advice of permission.

180 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Note: One advice of possibility can be expressed as various equivalent kinds of statements by
introducing or removing negation. The following are examples of the same advice, expressed
in two forms.
Example: [as a possibility statement] “It is possible that the notification date/time of a bad experience
that occurs during a rental is after the actual return date/time of the rental.”
Example: [as a non-necessity statement] “It is not necessary that the notification date/time of a bad
experience that occurs during a rental be on or before the actual return date/time of the rental.”

12.3.2 Business Statements

12.3.2.1 Business Statements of Operative Business Rules

obligation statement
Definition: operative business rule statement that is expressed positively in terms of obligation rather
than negatively in terms of prohibition
Necessity: No obligation statement is a prohibition statement.
Necessity: No obligation statement is a restricted permission statement.
Example: “It is obligatory that a rental incurs a location penalty charge if the drop-off location of the
rental is not the EU-Rent site of the return branch of the rental.”
Example: “A rental must incur a location penalty charge if the drop-off location of the rental is not the
EU-Rent site of the return branch of the rental.”

prohibition statement
Definition: operative business rule statement that is expressed negatively in terms of prohibition
rather than positively in terms of obligation
Necessity: No prohibition statement is a restricted permission statement.
Example: “It is prohibited that the duration of a rental be more than 90 rental days.”
Example: “The duration of a rental must not be more than 90 rental days.”

restricted permission statement

Definition: operative business rule statement that is expressed as permission being granted only
when a given condition is met
Example: “It is permitted that a rental is open only if an estimated rental charge is provisionally charged
to the credit card of the renter of the rental.”
Example: “A rental may be open only if an estimated rental charge is provisionally charged to the credit
card of the renter of the rental.”
Note: A restricted permission statement should not be confused with a statement of advice of
permission. The latter should never contain ‘only’, which is always interpreted as eliminating
or diminishing a degree of freedom (i.e., indicating the presence of a rule). This inclusion of
‘only’ is the key characteristic of restricted permission statements.
Note: Every restricted permission statement can be rephrased as a conditional prohibition statement.
The pattern “it is permitted that p only if q” can be stated equivalently as “it is prohibited that p
if not q” or “it is not permitted that p if not q” (refer to Clause 10). For example, the following
three statements mean the same thing:
1. “It is permitted that a rental is open only if an estimated rental charge is provisionally
charged to the credit card of the renter of the rental.”

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 181

 2. “It is prohibited that a rental is open if an estimated rental charge is not provisionally
charged to the credit card of the renter of the rental.”
3. “It is not permitted that a rental is open if an estimated rental charge is not provisionally
charged to the credit card of the renter of the rental.”

12.3.2.2 Business Statements of Structural Rules

necessity statement
Definition: structural rule statement that is expressed positively in terms of necessity rather than
negatively in terms of impossibility
Necessity: No necessity statement is an impossibility statement.
Necessity: No necessity statement is a restricted possibility statement.
Example: “It is necessary that each rental has exactly one requested car group.”
Example: “Each rental always has exactly one requested car group.”

impossibility statement
Definition: structural rule statement that is expressed negatively in terms of impossibility rather than
positively in terms of necessity
Necessity: No impossibility statement is a restricted possibility statement.
Example: “It is impossible that the same rental car is owned by more than one branch.”
Example: “The same rental car is never owned by more than one branch.”

restricted possibility statement

Definition: structural rule statement that is expressed as possibility being acknowledged only when a
given condition is met
Example: “It is possible that a rental is an open rental only if the rental car of the rental has been picked
up.”
Example: “A rental can be an open rental only if the rental car of the rental has been picked up.”
Note: A restricted possibility statement should not be confused with a statement of advice of
possibility. The latter should never contain ‘only’, which is always interpreted as eliminating
or diminishing a degree of freedom (i.e., indicating the presence of a rule). This inclusion of
‘only’ is the key characteristic of restricted possibility statements.
Note: Every restricted possibility statement can be rephrased as a conditional impossibility
statement. The pattern “it is possible that p only if q” can be stated equivalently as “it is
impossible that p if not q” or “it is not possible that p if not q” (refer to Clause 10). For
example, the following three statements mean the same thing:
1. “It is possible that a rental is an open rental only if the rental car of the rental has been
picked up.”
2. “It is impossible that a rental is an open rental if the rental car of the rental has not been
picked up.”
3. “It is not possible that a rental is an open rental if the rental car of the rental has not been
picked up.”

182 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

12.3.2.3 Business Statements of Permission

permission statement
Definition: statement of advice of permission that is expressed positively in terms of permission
rather than negatively in terms of non-obligation
Necessity: No permission statement is a non-obligation statement.
Example: “It is permitted that the drop-off branch of a rental is not the return branch of the rental.”

non-obligation statement
Definition: statement of advice of permission that is expressed negatively in terms of non-obligation
rather than positively in terms of permission
Example: “It is not obligatory that the drop-off branch of a rental be the return branch of the rental.”
Example: “The drop-off branch of a rental need not be the return branch of the rental.”

optionality statement
Definition: statement of advice of permission that expresses an advice of optionality
Note: An optionality statement may take various forms, each expressing the meaning of the same
advice of optionality, as illustrated by the following examples.
Example: “It is neither prohibited nor obligatory that the renter shows photo identification at the pick-up
time of a rental.”
Example: “It is permitted but not obligatory that the renter shows picture identification at the pick-up
time of the rental.”

12.3.2.4 Business Statements of Possibility

possibility statement
Definition: statement of advice of possibility that is expressed positively in terms of possibility rather
than negatively in terms of non-necessity
Necessity: No possibility statement is a non-necessity statement.
Example: “It is possible that the notification date/time of a bad experience that occurs during a rental is
after the actual return date/time of the rental.”
Example: “The notification date/time of a bad experience that occurs during a rental can be after the
actual return date/time of the rental.”

non-necessity statement
Definition: statement of advice of possibility that is expressed negatively in terms of non-necessity
rather than positively in terms of possibility
Example: “It is not necessary that the notification date/time of a bad experience that occurs during a
rental be on or before the actual return date/time of the rental.”

contingency statement
Definition: statement of advice of possibility that expresses an advice of contingency
Note: A contingency statement may take various forms, each expressing the meaning of the same
advice of contingency, as illustrated by the following examples.
Example: “It is possible but not necessary that a renter’s age is less than 21 years.”
Example: “It is neither impossible nor necessary that a renter’s age is less than 21 years.”

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 183

12.4 Fundamental Principles for Elements of Guidance

12.4.1 The Severability Principle

Principle: The meaning of an element of guidance may be expressed separately from any other element of guidance;
nonetheless, a body of shared guidance that includes the element of guidance will be evaluated as if all the elements of
guidance had been expressed jointly and all had to hold true.

In everyday business, elements of guidance are individual elements of meaning that exist separately. Often, they are also
expressed separately – e.g., by individual sentences. In a body of shared guidance of any size, such separate expression of
dissimilar or disjoint elements of guidance is a practical necessity for readability and manageability.

In SBVR, a body of shared guidance is nonetheless logically considered as a whole. In other words, each element of guidance
is always applied in all situations where that element of guidance is relevant – even if expressed separately. This is true even if
the element of guidance is expressed without direct reference to related elements of guidance that are relevant for the same
situation.

This fundamental understanding is called the Severability Principle.1

The MWUD definition of “severable” is:

capable of being severed … ; especially : capable of being divided into legally independent rights or obligations
used of a statute or contract of which the part to be performed consists of distinct items to which the consideration
may be apportioned so that the invalidity or failure of performance as to one item does not necessarily affect the
others

This captures the sense of what SBVR means by ‘severable’. If one element of guidance is invalidated or violated somehow,
the rest still apply.

It should be noted that expressing elements of guidance separately and without reference to related elements of guidance may
increase the chance of conflicts, but does not create it per se. Even a single element of guidance can have internal conflicts.
Conflicts must be resolved by proper specification, including cases where exceptions are intended, as discussed in
“Accommodations, Exceptions and Authorizations” on page 185.

It should also be noted that the Severability Principle does not apply across separate bodies of shared guidance. Therefore
conflicts and exceptions, as discussed in “Accommodations, Exceptions and Authorizations” on page 185, can only exist
within a single body of shared guidance. They cannot exist across two or more bodies of shared guidance.

12.4.2 The Accommodation Principle

Principle: An element of guidance whose meaning conflicts with some other element(s) of guidance must be taken that way; if
no conflict is intended, the element(s) of guidance must be expressed in such a way as to avoid the conflict.

Exceptions to elements of guidance must be accommodated explicitly; that is, cases where exceptions to elements of guidance
are intended must be worded in such a way to avoid any conflict in the meanings.

1. This SBVR principle is the business counterpart to what in propositional logic is often called the universal ‘and’. This assumption
requires that all separate Propositions be true (for a body of shared guidance). Therefore, an implicit ‘and’ must be considered to exist
between all such Propositions.

184 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

In SBVR, statements can mean only what the actual words presented in the statements indicate they mean. Therefore, to
indicate that an exception is intended always requires additional or alternative specification (i.e., accommodation). Otherwise
the meanings of the statements would simply (and necessarily) be taken to be in conflict.

12.4.3 The Wholeness Principle

Principle: An element of guidance means only exactly what it says, so it must say everything it means.

Each element of guidance must be self-contained; that is, no need to appeal to any other element(s) of guidance should ever
arise in understanding the full meaning of a given element of guidance.

The full impact of an element of guidance for a body of shared guidance, of course, cannot be understood in isolation. For
example, an element of guidance might be in conflict with another element of guidance, or act as an authorization in the body
of shared guidance. The Wholeness Principle simply means that if a body of shared guidance is deemed free of conflicts, then
with respect to guidance, the full meaning of each element of guidance does not require examination of any other element of
guidance. In other words, each element of guidance can be taken at face value for whatever it says.

12.5 Accommodations, Exceptions and Authorizations

Figure 12.3

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

12.5.1 Relating Elements of Guidance to States of Affairs

element of guidance authorizes state of affairs

Definition: the element of guidance entails that the state of affairs may be an actuality
Synonymous Form: element of guidance gives permission for state of affairs

element of guidance obligates state of affairs

Definition: the element of guidance entails that the state of affairs must be an actuality

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 185

element of guidance prohibits state of affairs
Definition: the element of guidance entails that the state of affairs must not be an actuality

12.5.2 Authorizations

SBVR makes a ‘light world’2 assumption about rules. In a light world, anything that is not expressly prohibited is assumed
permitted, and anything not expressly declared as impossible is assumed possible. Business rule practice indicates that this
choice is the appropriate one for the large majority of business problems.

Occasionally, practitioners may discover ‘dark areas in a light world’ – areas in which the opposite assumption is appropriate.
In such a dark area, anything not expressly permitted is assumed prohibited, or anything not expressly declared as possible is
assumed impossible. Dark areas of the former kind – the more important and common of the two cases – might involve use of,
and/or access to, resources that are deemed especially sensitive, dangerous, scarce, and/or valuable. For that reason, it makes
sense to grant permission for use and/or access explicitly. Such permissions are often called ‘authorizations’.

In everyday business language, an authorization is generally understood to mean a sanction or a warrant [MWUD].
[MWUD “sanction” noun]: 6a. explicit permission or recognition by one in authority that gives validity to the act of
another person or body
[MWUD “warrant” noun]: 2a. a commission or document giving authority to do something : an act, instrument, or
obligation by which one person authorizes another to do something which he has not otherwise a right to do and thus
secures him from loss or damage

For SBVR, it is important to note that an authorization is explicit (from “sanction”), and that without it, there is not otherwise
a right to do something (from “warrant”).

12.5.3 Exceptions
Authorizations fall under the more general topic of exception. In everyday business language, to ‘make an exception’ is
generally understood to mean [MWUD “exception” 1] “the act of excepting or excluding: exclusion or restriction (as of a
class, statement, or rule) by taking out something that would otherwise be included.” An ‘exception’ is what is omitted from
consideration.

In SBVR, the Severability Principle permits elements of guidance to be given separately (individually), raising the possibility
that one element of guidance might actually be intended as an exception with respect to another. The general element of
guidance and its exceptions are always in the same body of shared guidance.

SBVR’s approach to exceptions, which includes authorizations, is based on the fundamental principles for elements of
guidance given in sub clause 12.3. The following describes how exceptions and authorizations may be specified in SBVR.

12.5.4 Approaches to Capturing Accommodations, Exceptions and Authorizations

Approach 1 – General Elements of Guidance that Accommodate More Specific Cases

This approach uses the verb concepts specified above (in 12.4.1) to allow for more specific cases to be specified for some
more general element of guidance. This discussion will use the ‘element of guidance authorizes state of affairs’ verb

2. Ronald G. Ross, “The Light World vs. the Dark World ~ Business Rules for Authorization,” Business Rules Journal, Vol. 5, No. 8
(August 2004), URL: http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b201.html

186 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

concept, but it should be noted that the other two verb concepts would be applied similarly, as appropriate to the business
situation.

A state of affairs being ‘authorized’ means that some specific element of guidance in a body of shared guidance entails that the
state of affairs may validly occur, i.e., is not an error or conflict with the more general rule. Support for exceptions (and
authorizations) in this approach is accomplished as follows.

• An operative business rule is specified to declare that some given area of business activity is prohibited except where
there is some explicit advice of permission given (i.e., a ‘dark’ area is declared).

• Explicit advice(s) of permission, qualified as appropriate, are specified to declare selective exceptions/authorizations.
Without such permissions, there would otherwise be no right to do something.

In general, a logical OR is always assumed between the more specific cases given separately from the more general element of
guidance. The body of shared guidance can contain any number of ‘exceptions’ to general cases without introducing conflicts
as long as the general case element of guidance allows for exceptions.

The two Examples illustrate different subjects for authorization. The first authorizes an action (use of a vehicle on an ice road)
under given conditions, whereas the second authorizes people to carry out an action (making a payment).

EXAMPLE
Two guidance statements, expressing a general rule and a more specific case for EU-Rent:
Vehicle Usage Rule
A vehicle may use an ice road only if the use is authorized by a Vehicle Usage Advice.
Arctic Circle Exemption
Any ice road that is north of the Arctic Circle may be used by any vehicle.
The Arctic Circle Exemption is a Vehicle Usage Advice.
These elements of guidance work together like this:
The first element (an operative business rule) sets up the dark area, prohibiting
any use that is not explicitly authorized. It does this by use of the verb concept
‘element of guidance authorizes state of affairs’.
The second element is one of perhaps many Vehicle Usage Advices. The
concept ‘Vehicle Usage Advice’ is a category of advices within EU-Rent’s
body of shared guidance.

Note that this Example assumes the standard SBVR constructs have been used, e.g., ‘vehicle’ and ‘ice road’ are assumed to
be defined terms; as well as the verb concept (vehicle uses ice road) being defined and objectified as ‘use’. For simplicity,
‘being north of the Arctic Circle’ is taken to be a characteristic of an ice road, but other, more elaborate solutions could have
been worked out.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 187

 EXAMPLE

Three guidance statements, expressing a general case and two more specific cases, with facts that classify the specific cases
and connect them to the general case:

Guidance Statements:
Payments Business Rule
A person may make a payment only if a Payment Authorization authorizes that the person make the
payment.
Senior Manager Exemption
Any senior manager may make any payment.
Jane Smith may make any payment.

Facts:
The Senior Manager Exemption is a Payment Authorization.
“Jane Smith may make any payment” is a Payment Authorization.
The first element (an operative business rule) sets up the dark area, prohibiting any payment that is not explicitly
authorized. The verb concept used is ‘element of guidance authorizes state of affairs’.

The second element is a blanket advice of permission that allows any person who is a senior manager to make a payment.
The third element stipulates that a specific person (Jane Smith) may make payments.

This Example assumes the defined verb concept ‘person makes payment’. It also assumes that the terms used are defined
(e.g., person, payment) and that Jane Smith is a known person (and no assumption beyond that is made about her). The two
facts classify the second and third elements as ‘Payment Authorizations’, a category of advices of permission in the body of
shared guidance, and thus relate them to the general case, in which ‘Payment Authorization’ plays a role.

Regarding any person and payment, the exception condition of the rule statement is that the person be explicitly permitted to
make the payment, either directly (as in the case of Jane Smith) or indirectly (as in the case of any senior manager). The
advice of permission statements express, for certain persons and any payment, that a person is permitted to make the
payment. It can be determined, for every instance of the verb concept ‘person makes payment’, that the condition is
satisfied. As long as a person satisfies either exception condition of the rule, that person is permitted to make any payment
– i.e., that he or she has ‘authorization’.

Approach 2 – Using a Business Concept

Another acceptable approach, illustrated below by a reworking of the second Example given for Approach 1, is that the
business has some concept(s) to help express authorizations.

188 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 EXAMPLE

Consider the following rule and supporting statements that use the concept ‘authorized payer’, which has been defined as
“person that may make any payment”.

Rule Statement: Only an authorized payer may make a payment.

Specification of Authorized Payers:

• Each senior manager is an authorized payer.
• Jane Smith is an authorized payer.

Given the definition of ‘authorized payer’, these two statements meet the same business requirement as the advice
statements in the second Example given for Approach 1 – that senior managers and Jane Smith may make any payment.
Regardless of the definition of ‘authorized payer’, these two statements clearly satisfy the condition of the rule statement by
identifying instances of ‘authorized payer’, which is the concept considered by the condition in the rule.

Approach 3 – Formulating Elements of Guidance to Avoid Exceptions

A third approach is to simply specify a set of elements of guidance whose conditions are mutually-exclusive.

EXAMPLE

Two rules, expressed as individual statements with mutually-exclusive conditions:

1. The state sales tax must be charged on each order shipped within the state.

2. The state sales tax must not be charged on an order shipped out-of-state.

Note that the second rule above would not be considered to be “an exception” to the first. Rather, its expression includes
“out-of-state” to differentiate it from orders shipped “within the state”. This accommodation avoids a collision between the
meanings of the rules that would otherwise arise.

12.6 Relating Structural Rules to Concepts

Structural rules often, but not always, propose necessary characteristics of concepts. Here are three cases:

1. A structural rule uses universal quantification (e.g., “each” or “all”) to propose a necessary characteristic of a concept.
The structural rule proposes that something is always true about all instances of the concept.

2. A structural rule proposes a necessary characteristic of an individual noun concept - no universal quantification is
used because it is implicit in referring to the one and only instance of the individual noun concept.

3. Cases other than 1 and 2 above: a structural rule does not propose a necessary characteristic of a concept, but it
proposes something to be necessarily true. See Rule 4 in the examples below.

A fact that a concept has a necessary characteristic is a structural rule that the characteristic is always true about each instance
of the concept. How is it a structural rule? It is a proposition that the necessary characteristic is always true of each instance
of the concept. Conversely, a structural rule proposes that a characteristic is a necessary characteristic of a concept if and only

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 189

if the structural rule proposes that the characteristic is always true about each instance of the concept. The structural rule does
not imply that the concept incorporates the characteristic, because necessary characteristics can be either incorporated or
implied.

There is a logical connection between concepts and structural rules. A starting point of the logical connection is these two
necessary truths about concepts:

1. For each concept, each characteristic it incorporates is attributed to each instance of the concept.

2. For each individual noun concept, the instance of the individual noun concept exists.

From this starting point, considering concepts together, there are any number of propositions can be proved to be true by
logical implication. A structural rule is logically connected to concepts when it proposes that one of these propositions is
necessarily true. Structural rule statements often facilitate a deeper understanding of concepts, but a structural rule never
changes a concept. Rather, it proposes what logically follows from an understanding of concepts, and in some cases, from
business decisions that define specific thresholds.

In cases where definitions of concepts taken together do not logically imply something proposed in a structural rule statement,
there is an inadequacy or mistake in either the relevant definitions or in the rule statement. The case of inadequate definitions
is common and is acceptable in some communities. It occurs when a community shares a tacit understanding of many of its
concepts. Words either have no explicit definitions or have definitions that use words that have no explicit definitions.
Structural rule statements in this context can be correct, even if they logically follow from a tacit understanding of what
characteristics are incorporated by concepts.

Practices of developing concept systems range from creating highly precise, rigorously complete definitions for all concepts to
creating no or few definitions, or largely descriptive or informal ones, but many structural rules. Where highly precise,
rigorously complete definitions are given there is less need for structural rules because such rules would appear redundant.
Where definitions are missing or unclear, or largely descriptive or informal, structural rules are important to sharing a common
understanding of concepts.

Advices of possibility relate to concepts following the same pattern by which structural rules relate to concepts.

Where there is a definition, a concept is just what the definition says, no more and no less. Something called a “definition” as
used in common speech is not necessarily a definition as defined by SBVR. It might be just a general description. It is only a
definition if it defines the concept, differentiating it from others. As a matter of practice, a simple test for adequacy and
correctness of definitions is to restate a rule by substituting a definition of a concept into a rule statement in place of the
concept’s designation. Does the restatement express the same meaning as the original statement? If not, the so-called
definition is inadequate or incorrect. Consider the example below:

sports car
Definition: kind of car

Rule 1: A rental of a sports car must include collision coverage.

A restatement of Rule 1, “A rental of a kind of car must include collision coverage,” expresses a different meaning, so the
definition is inadequate. Here is an adequate definition:

sports car
Definition: small, fast automobile equipped for racing

When the adequate definition is substituted into a restatement of the rule, the same rule is expressed. Consider some examples
of structural rules related to ‘sports car’.

Rule 2: Each sports car is always small.

190 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Rule 2 expresses a characteristic attributed to all sports cars by the definition of ‘sports car’. It is an incorporated characteristic
of ‘sports car’.

Rule 3: Each Corvette is always a sports car.

Rule 3 does not change the meaning of ‘sports car’. Rather, it expresses an understanding that every Corvette is a small, fast
automobile equipped for racing. This understanding is found in the meaning of Corvette. Agreement on this understanding
might come from analysis of a definition of ‘Corvette’, or it might be established by a business decision about meaning based
on tacit knowledge. Structural rules expressing such business decisions are often important guides to business knowledge.

EU-Rent Speedway
Definition: the test track owned by EU-Rent where any small car is testable

Rule 4: A test track always exists.

Rule 4 follows logically from the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent Speedway’. An individual noun concept always has one
instance. So there is always a EU-Rent Speedway, and therefore, a test track.

Rule 5: The EU-Rent Speedway is always in Germany.

Rule 5 does not appear to follow logically from an understanding of definitions. It might well be true that the EU-Rent
Speedway is in Germany, but Rule 5 proposes that it is always true - true in all possible worlds. Structural rules are about what
is true in all possible worlds, so a statement of a fact, not a rule, is more appropriate here:

Fact 6: The EU-Rent Speedway is in Germany.

Rule 7: Every sports car is always testable at the EU-Rent Speedway.

Finally, Rule 7 proposes a necessary characteristic of the concept ‘sports car’. This characteristic is an implied characteristic
because it is not an incorporated characteristic of ‘sports car’. It follows logically from the combination of characteristics of
‘sports car’ and ‘EU-Rent Speedway’.

12.7 Creation and Adoption of Elements of Guidance

12.7.1 General
Certain organizations, called authorities, have the need and the standing to create and adopt elements of guidance. Such
organizations are not merely communities – they must conduct business in some organized fashion.

Elements of guidance may be adopted from external authorities. These external authorities might be membership-based
associations for certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications), for certain professional practices (e.g.,
accountancy, law, human resources), or for certain domain expertise (e.g., biofuels, photography, software engineering). If
elements of guidance are adopted, the concepts – noun concepts and verb concepts – used in defining the elements of guidance
must be included in the body of shared concepts of the adopting authority. This usually means that the concepts have been
adopted from, or defined in collaboration with, the providing authority that is the source of the adopted elements of guidance.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 191

Figure 12.4

This diagram shows the SBVR XMI Metamodel and SBVR vocabulary by two different interpretations. See Clause 13 and Annex C.

authority
Definition: organization with the standing to create or adopt elements of guidance
Dictionary Basis: power to require and receive submission : the right to expect obedience : superiority derived
from a status that carries with it the right to command and give final decisions [MWUD ;
authority’ 2a]
power to influence thought and opinion [MWUD ; authority’ 3a]
Example: a business (e.g., EU-Rent), a governmental body, a standards organization, a professional
society, a club, a homeowner’s association
Note: People who create, adopt or use elements of guidance must understand the concepts on which
they are based. Therefore, any person working within an authority who is involved in creating,
adopting, and/or using an element of guidance must be a member of the semantic community
for each concept referenced within the statement(s) for such element of guidance.
Note: An authority might be a specialist body that creates elements of guidance for other authorities
to adopt, rather than applying the elements of guidance itself.
Note: The group of people and organizations to which given elements of guidance apply is often
broader than the authority that has jurisdiction over the elements of guidance. Example: The
group of people to whom the elements of guidance of an airline frequent-flyer program apply
is much wider than the authority (airline or airline suborganization) that has jurisdiction over
those elements of guidance.
Note: It is possible and common for a person or organization to be subject to business rules of more
than one authority.

192 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

authority authors guidance statement
Definition: the authority authors a guidance statement that expresses some element of guidance
Note: An authority may author guidance statements for adopted elements of guidance as well as for
elements of guidance it defines.

authority defines element of guidance

Definition: the authority authors the first guidance statement that expresses the element of
guidance
Necessity: Each element of guidance is defined by exactly one authority.

adopting authority
Concept Type: role
Definition: authority that adopts some element of guidance

owning authority
Concept Type: role
Definition: authority that has business jurisdiction over some element of guidance

adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference
Definition: the authority adopts the element of guidance from the owning authority citing a
reference that points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of guidance
Necessity: The reference that is cited by an owning authority that adopts an element of guidance
from an owning authority points to a guidance statement that expresses the element of
guidance and that is included in a rulebook that is determined by a speech community
of the owning authority.
Note: An element of guidance cannot be adopted in the abstract; it is adopted via a representation of
the meaning - a guidance statement
Note: Subsequent guidance statements of the adopted element of guidance (e.g., in other natural
languages) must have the same meaning as the first adopted guidance statement.
Note: When a guidance statement is adopted, all concepts in the referenced source that are used in the
guidance statement are also adopted. These adoptions may be explicit in the adopting
authority’s vocabulary, or implicit, within the source vocabulary.
Note: The primary guidance statement used for the element of guidance does not have to be the same
as the primary guidance statement in the source. Concepts used in the element of guidance
should be represented by their preferred terms and verb symbols in the adopting body of shared
guidance.
Example: EU-Rent has adopted an behavioral business rule from from an industry glossary: “Before
handover of a rented car, the rental contract must be signed by the customer responsible for the
rental”. EU-Rent uses its own preferred terms, ‘rental contract document’ and ‘renter’ for its
primary guidance statement: “The rental contract document of a rental must be signed by the
renter of the rental before handover of the rented car of the rental”.

authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance

Synonymous Form: element of guidance is in the jurisdiction of authority
Definition: the authority defines the element of guidance or adopts the element of guidance

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 193

194 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
13 SBVR’s Use of MOF and XMI
13.1 General
The SBVR XMI Metamodel (see Clause 15.2) is a MOF-based metamodel that supports a MOF representation of the
concepts represented by the SBVR vocabularies. The UML figures in Clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12 show the SBVR
vocabulary and the SBVR XMI Metamodel at the same time. This is because the vocabulary used by people and the
MOF-based metamodel reveal the same concept system. Conceptual integration across vocabularies and languages
involves one set of concepts (one model) expressed using different vocabularies or different languages.

SBVR’s use of MOF and how the SBVR XMI Metamodel handles certain semantic modeling challenges using MOF 2.0
are described below. The SBVR XMI Metamodel is available as an XML document (see 15.2). It is drawn from the text
of Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 12. UML Figures in those clauses illustrate the Metamodel using an interpretation explained in
13.2 below. This interpretation should not be confused with the 'Business Object Model' interpretation of the same
figures explained in Annex C, which is based on a different profile. An example model that instantiates the SBVR XMI
Metamodel is then shown and explained. Finally, the SBVR Content Model for SBVR is explained.

Models of business concepts, business vocabularies and business guidance can be communicated in terms of SBVR using
XML documents that conform to the SBVR XMI XML schema (see Clause 15.3) created from the SBVR XMI
Metamodel (see 15.2).

13.2 SBVR's Use of MOF

The following terms used in this clause are not words defined by SBVR. Their meanings come from MOF 2.0.

metamodel package association association end class attribute data type

model link element data value

How each of these is used with respect to SBVR is explained below. The UML figures in Clauses 8 through 11 use
normal UML notation to show the SBVR XMI Metamodel except for custom notations described below.

13.2.1 Metamodels

A model is a representation of facts. A model instantiates a metamodel which describes the structure and language by
which facts are represented in models. A metamodel is itself a model which instantiates the MOF model (the meta-
metamodel). The diagram below illustrates how SBVR fits into the MOF metamodeling architecture.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 195

 MOF
«m eta-met amodel»

«instantiates» «instantiates»

SBVR Other MOF-based metamodels

Vocabularies in «r eflects repr esentation» (UML, CWM, ...)
«metamodel»
clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 (see 15.1)
(see 13.2.1)

«instantiates» «instantiates»

SBVR Model of SBVR Other MOF-based SBVR models

Content of clauses «models content» (EU-Rent, ...)
«model»
7 thr ough 12 (see 15.3)
(see 13.5)

The SBVR XMI Metamodel (see Clause 15.2) instantiates the MOF model. It describes SBVR Content models, which
represent facts built on SBVR concepts represented in these vocabularies:

Meaning And Representation Vocabulary

Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary

Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies

Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules

The combination of these vocabularies is the SBVR Vocabulary.

The SBVR XMI Metamodel does not include definitions, rules, notes, examples or semantic formulations. Rather, it
mirrors the SBVR namespaces for those vocabularies. It provides a MOF means of expression (classes and associations)
where the SBVR vocabulary namespaces identify an English language means of expression (designations and verb
concept wordings). Both use the same signifiers. A result of this alignment of the SBVR XMI Metamodel with the SBVR
vocabulary is that knowledge of the vocabulary implies knowledge of the Metamodel and vice versa. The SBVR XMI
Metamodel is serialized as an XML document (see 15.2).

13.2.2 SBVR Content Models

SBVR Content models represent facts that are about or within a body of shared meanings. For example, facts about EU-
Rent’s concepts, rules, their representations and their semantic formulations can be represented in a SBVR Content
model. A thing represented in a model is identified by facts about the thing that satisfy a reference scheme. An example
SBVR Content model is shown in 13.4 below. SBVR Content models are often incomplete representations of a body of
shared meanings. The size of a model depends on what facts are being represented, which can be as little as a single fact.

One particular SBVR Content model is the SBVR Content Model for SBVR (see sub clause 15.4), which is a model of
SBVR in terms of itself. It is described in sub clause 13.5 below.

196 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

An SBVR Content Model instantiates the SBVR XMI Metamodel. It represents a fact model, which combines a
conceptual schema and a set of facts. The conceptual schema is described by the SBVR model of SBVR. The facts are
expressed in terms of the concepts in the conceptual schema and are limited to what is possible according to the
conceptual schema.

All uses of the terms “conceptual schema” and “fact model” in this clause are as defined in sub clause 10.2.2.1.

13.3 MOF Model Elements for SBVR

The SBVR Vocabulary is mapped to MOF elements that make up the SBVR XMI Metamodel. It should not be construed
from this one-way mapping that a MOF class is the same thing as an SBVR concept or that there is any semantic
equivalence between MOF and SBVR.

SBVR model content is represented in SBVR Content models according to the SBVR XMI Metamodel. SBVR Content
models instantiate the SBVR XMI Metamodel, not the UML Metamodel. Another transform would be needed to represent
SBVR model content using UML.

Both the mapping of the SBVR Vocabulary to MOF and the representation of SBVR model content using MOF are
described below, divided using the following headings.

Heading Purpose
MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel Prescriptive description of the mapping of the SBVR Vocabulary into a
MOF-based metamodel
Elements of SBVR Content Models Prescriptive description of how facts are represented within an SBVR
Content model
Rationale Design rationale explaining aspects of SBVR or MOF that led to the MOF
representations described here

13.3.1 MOF Packages for SBVR Vocabulary Namespaces

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

The SBVR Vocabulary is mapped to the SBVR XMI Metamodel, which is made up of multiple packages shown in the
diagram below. Each package is a MOF-based reflection of one of SBVR’s vocabulary namespaces.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 197

 Meaning and Representat ion
Vocabulary

«merge»

«merge»

Vocabulary f or Describing
Business Vocabularies

Logical Formulation of «merge»

Semantics Vocabulary

Vocabulary f or Describing
Business Rules

«merge»

«merge»

SBVR

The merge relationships between the packages exactly reflects the include relationships between the corresponding SBVR
vocabularies.

Elements of SBVR Content Models

The packages that make up the SBVR XMI Metamodel contain classes and associations. The elements of SBVR Content
Models are elements of those classes and associations.

Rationale
Each of the packages merged into the SBVR package can serve as a metamodel in its own right as a subset of the overall
SBVR XMI Metamodel. These packages correspond with compliance points described in Clause 2.

SBVR XMI Metamodel packages can be imported or merged into other MOF-based metamodels. For example, a
metamodel of organizational structure can import SBVR’s ‘Meaning and Representation Vocabulary’ package as a
starting point for modeling organization types and organizational roles. Similarly, a metamodel of business process can
import SBVR’s ‘Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules’ package in order to relate processes to rules and can
import SBVR’s ‘Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary’ package for modeling semantic formulations of rules
that govern processes. Such rules can use concepts from the metamodel of business process (e.g., ‘process’) if those
concepts are also modeled using elements of classes in the SBVR XMI Metamodel packages (e.g., an element of the class
‘noun concept’ for the concept ‘process’). Also, other metamodels can import individual model elements from SBVR in
cases where a portion of SBVR smaller than a package is wanted. Importing from SBVR is appropriate only when using
SBVR concepts as defined by SBVR.

198 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

13.3.2 MOF Classes for SBVR Noun Concepts

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

Each designation in a vocabulary namespace for a noun concept that is not a role is mirrored in the SBVR XMI
Metamodel as a class. The signifier of the designation is the name of the class. The signifier of each synonym of the
designation is an alias for the class.

The metamodel includes generalizations between classes reflecting generalizations between the represented noun
concepts. Each SBVR concept besides ‘thing’ specializes ‘thing’, so the classes have the class ‘thing’ as a superclass
either directly or indirectly.

The classes in the metamodel that mirror the following concepts are abstract (isAbstract = true):

Clause 8: meaning, concept, expression, state of affairs, actuality, thing, set, fact

Clause 9: semantic formulation, closed semantic formulation, logical formulation, modal formulation,
logical operation, binary logical operation, quantification, projecting formulation,
bindable target

Clause 11: community, situation, res

Example Vocabulary:

characteristic
General Concept: verb concept
Synonym: unary verb concept

Figure:
verb concept

characteristic
also: unary verb concept

SBVR XMI Metamodel:

verb concept

characteristic
{element import characteristic as unary verb concept}

Elements of SBVR Content Models

Where a class represents a noun concept, an element (in an SBVR Content model) that instantiates the class represents a
fact that an instance of the noun concept exists. References to the element within the SBVR Content model indicate
references to the instance of the noun concept. Note that it is possible that two elements in an SBVR Content model

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 199

represent the same actual thing (13.3.1 explains situations where this is likely and tells how to relate the two elements
within the SBVR Content model). Also, a lack of an element in an SBVR Content model implies nothing - it does not
imply that something does not exist.

An element of an abstract class exists in a MOF-based model only by instantiating a nonabstract subclass of that abstract
class.

Rationale
Use of aliasing, though not common in MOF-based metamodels, keeps a strong alignment of the SBVR XMI Metamodel
with the SBVR vocabulary.

The SBVR XMI metamodel is intended to provide for representing meanings and their representations. It is not intended
for representing things in general. Making some classes abstract simplifies interpretation of SBVR Content models by
limiting them to SBVR’s scope.

Some UML figures in Clauses 8 through 12 show partitioning or disjoint categories using UML notation, but those
features are not included in MOF 2.0, so partitioning and disjointness are not reflected in the SBVR XMI Metamodel.
Also, MOF 2.0 does not support association classes. Each case of an association class in a figure corresponds with a verb
concept and a noun concept, and each of the two is represented separately in the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

13.3.3 MOF Boolean Attributes for SBVR Characteristics

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

A characteristic is represented in MOF as an optional Boolean attribute as shown below.

Example Vocabulary:

variable is unitary

Figure:

v a ri a b l e
is u n it a r y

SBVR XMI Metamodel:

variab le

is unitary : C ore::Prim itiveT ypes::Boolean [0..1]

Elements of SBVR Content Models

For an element in an SBVR Content model, the meaning of the value TRUE is that the characteristic is attributed to the
thing represented by the element. A meaning of FALSE is that the thing represented by the element does not have the
characteristic. A meaning of the attribute being null is the same as the attribute being unspecified for the element.

Rationale
The attribute is optional in support of the Open World Assumption, explained in 13.4.2 below.

200 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

13.3.4 MOF Associations for SBVR Binary Verb Concepts

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

Each binary verb concept is represented in MOF terms as an association. Association names match verb concept
wordings. If a verb concept has only one verb concept wording, the association's name is the expression of that verb
concept wording, but with subscripts raised to normal text. The names of the association's ends are the placeholder
expressions from the verb concept wording. The ends are owned by the association so that individual links can be
serialized using XMI.

In cases of more than one verb concept wording (synonymous forms), one is chosen to name the association that does not
imply a designation in an attributive namespace. Then there is an alias for the association for each other verb concept
wording that has matching placeholder expressions (which implies matching association end names).

In figures in the normative clauses, a label on an association line that includes a reading direction arrow (“ ”)
is meant to be read starting with the name of the class on the first end and ending with the name of the class on the other
end, except where a name for an end is already in the label. The association names match this reading exactly. Including
the names of an association's ends in the association’s name makes the association's name unique within a package, as
required by MOF.

In cases where an association’s ends both connect to the same class, subscripts are used on placeholders to distinguish
them. In the association name and its ends’ names the subscripts are raised to normal text and serve to distinguish the
ends.

Example Vocabulary:

concept1 specializes concept2

Synonymous Form: concept2 generalizes concept1

Figure:

specializes
generalizes

concept

SBVR XMI Metamodel:

concept1 specializes concept2

concept1
concept2
concept

{element import concept1 specializes concept2 as concept2 generalizes concept1}

Some structural rules impose multiplicity constraints for binary verb concepts. These are shown in the Figures in Clauses
8 through 12 and are included in the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

Elements of SBVR Content Models

Where an association represents a binary verb concept, a link of the association within an SBVR Content model
represents a fact of that binary verb concept. The absence of a link implies nothing. There are no defaults.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 201

Rationale
Partitive verb concepts are shown in figures as UML shared aggregation, which is not supported by MOF 2.0. All
association ends in the SBVR XMI metamodel are noncomposite.

13.3.5 MOF Attributes for SBVR Roles of Verb Concepts

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

A role of a binary verb concept that has a designation in an attributive namespace is understood in MOF terms as an
attribute owned by the subject class. Such designations appear in figures as names on association ends. In the example
below, ‘element’ is in an attributive namespace for the concept ‘set,’ so it is mirrored in the SBVR XMI Metamodel as an
attribute.

Example Vocabulary:

thing is in set
Synonymous Form: set includes thing
Synonymous Form: set has element

Figure:
includes
set thing
is in element

SBVR XMI Metamodel:

thing is in set
set thing

element : thing [*]

{element import thing is in set as set includes thing}

In each case where an attribute and an association end represent the same role, the SBVR XMI Metamodel includes a tag
that tags both the attribute and the association end. The tag connects them to show their correlation. The tag’s name is
“org.omg.sbvr.sameRole,” its value is "" (the empty string), and its elements are the attribute and the association end.

Where structural rules impose multiplicity constraints, they are shown in figures and are included in the SBVR XMI
Metamodel for association ends and for attributes.

Elements of SBVR Content Models

Where a role of a binary verb concept is understood in MOF terms as an attribute, specification of the attribute for an
element in an SBVR Content model represents the entire extension of that verb concept for the element. There are no
defaults. If the attribute is unspecified for an element, it is simply unspecified; it is not presumed by default to have no
value. If anything is specified, all values of the attribute are specified. Specification that the attribute is null means there
is no instance of the verb concept for the element.

Rationale
The attributes described in the sub clause are in addition to the associations that represent the binary verb concepts - the
reason for the distinction is explained below.

202 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

To preserve ‘set’ semantics, any two values of the same attribute of the same element in an SBVR Content Model
represent two different things. Where an attribute has two or more values, it can be concluded that each of the values
represents a thing that is distinct from the others.

13.3.6 MOF Classes for SBVR Ternary Verb Concepts

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

MOF 2.0 does not support ternary associations. Therefore, a ternary verb concept is represented in MOF terms as a class
with one single-valued, required attribute for each role of the verb concept. The class’s name takes the same form as the
name of an association for a binary verb concept. If there are multiple verb concept wordings for a ternary verb concept,
aliases are used.

Example Vocabulary:

state of affairs involves thing in role

Figure:

thing

state of affairs role

state of affairs involves thing in role

SBVR XMI Metamodel:

state of affairs involves thing in role

state of affairs : state of affairs [1]

thing : thing [1]
role : role [1]

Elements of SBVR Content Models

In an SBVR Content model, an element of such a class represents a fact of the ternary verb concept.

13.3.7 Data Values

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

The classes ‘text’ and ‘integer,’ representing ‘text’ and ‘integer,’ have data attributes shown below.

SBVR XMI Metamodel:

text integer

value : Cor e::Pr imitiveTypes::String [0..1] value : Core::PrimitiveTypes::Integer [0..1]

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 203

Elements of SBVR Content Models
If one of these attributes is specified in an SBVR Content model, the represented text or integer is the specified value.
Specification of null is equivalent to not specifying anything. There are no defaults.

The concepts ‘text’, ‘integer’, and ‘number’ are SBVR noun concepts, so their instances can be represented like
instances of other noun concepts (see 13.2.2 MOF classes for SBVR Noun Concepts) without using the ‘value’ attributes
shown above. A specific number can be identified by a designation. The ISO 6093 Number Namespace includes
designations of all integers and of numbers with decimal places. Each designation in the ISO 6093 Number Namespace shall
be interpreted according to [ISO 6093].

Each text value is a Unicode string and is considered without regard to markup.

Rationale
The attributes are optional because SBVR allows that texts and integers, like other kinds of things, can be described by
facts without necessarily being identified. Also, the data types ‘String’ and ‘Integer’ in MOF have size limitations, so
the attributes cannot be used for all cases. To refer to a string or integer that is beyond the MOF limitations, a model can
identify the string or integer using facts about it that satisfy a reference scheme. For example, the number 999999999999
can be identified as having a designation in the ISO 6093 Number Namespace with the signifier “999999999999”.

13.3.8 XMI Names

MOF Elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel

A named element is tagged with an ‘org.omg.xmi.xmiName’ tag if its XMI name differs from its MOF name. XMI
names are determined from MOF names by upcasing each character that follows a blank and then removing the blank.
The names, which come from the SBVR vocabularies, do not contain any characters that are invalid in XML identifiers.

13.4 Using MOF to Represent Semantics

The SBVR XMI Metamodel is a direct reflection of the SBVR vocabulary, which represents SBVR meanings, but this
direct representation of SBVR meanings requires two semantic modeling capabilities not directly provided by MOF 2.0.
The two following clauses explain how the two capabilities, multiclassification and the Open World Assumption, are
supported by the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

13.4.1 Multiclassification

MOF 2.0 requires that each element is described by one class (its “metaClass”). Sometimes a thing cannot be represented
by an element of a single class. This happens when a thing is an instance of multiple concepts, neither one specializing
the other. To represent this case, multiple elements are used, one per concept. A link of the association ‘thing1 is
thing2’ (representing the verb concept ‘thing1 is thing2’) is used to indicate that the multiple elements represent the
same thing. A consumer of a model in which two elements represent the same thing should assume that a fact represented
in reference to either element applies to both elements (since they both represent the same thing).

As an example, consider the noun concepts ‘closed logical formulation’ and ‘obligation formulation.’ Neither
specializes the other. Where an obligation formulation is a closed formulation that formulates a proposition, a model uses
one element of type ‘closed logical formulation’ and a separate element of type ‘obligation formulation’ along
with a ‘thing1 is thing2’ link that says the two elements represent the same thing.

204 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

13.4.2 Open World Assumption

The open world assumption is that representation of facts in a model does not imply that those are the only facts of a
particular type nor that they are the only facts of a particular type about a subject thing - there are no implications to be
taken from what is not represented in a model. For example, consider facts about a set S. The two facts, “1 is in S” and
“2 is in S,” do not convey the same meaning as “S = {1, 2}” because the two facts do not imply anything about whether
other things are in S.

In general, models represent facts with an open world assumption. But some reference schemes use roles of binary verb
concepts extensionally, so models represent a complete extension with respect to a subject thing being identified.

MOF supports the open world assumption about instantiation of classifiers (classes and associations). MOF’s attributes
support representation of an entire extension of an attribute with respect to a given subject. In order to enable a clear
distinction in a model between individual facts and complete extensions with respect to a subject, association links are
used to represent individual facts of a binary verb concept while attributes are used when identifying a complete
extension of a binary verb concept with respect to a particular subject. This means that a fact can in one model be
represented by a link, and in another by a value of an attribute of an element. The fact is represented using an attribute
only when the complete extension of the verb concept is being represented for the subject. Examples of both cases
appear in the example below. SBVR has a designation in an attributive namespace for every role that is extensionally
used by a reference scheme such that the SBVR XMI Metamodel has the required attributes to satisfy all of SBVR’s
reference schemes.

13.5 Example SBVR Content Model

Consider the following example, which includes a small portion of a vocabulary and a rule statement.

company

officer

company appoints officer

EU-Rent

General Concept: company

EU-Rent must appoint at least 3 officers.

The following figure is a UML instance diagram showing an SBVR Content model of the example. For simplicity, only
facts expressible in terms of the Meaning And Representation Vocabulary and the Logical Formulation of Semantics
Vocabulary are shown. Some end names are elided where they are obvious from the class names or for ‘thing1 is
thing2’ (where it makes no difference). For elements of the vocabulary, the three layers of expression, representation,
and meaning are apparent in the diagram. The rule, shown at the bottom, connects to the meanings of the elements of the
vocabulary though its logical formulation.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 205

The example SBVRContent model is expressed below in XML based on the SBVR XML Schema. The xmi:id values are
arbitrary and have no special meaning, but they build on the related signifiers to help readability. The XML tags, which
include the namespace prefix ‘sbvr’, are the XMI names for model elements of the SBVR XMI Metamodel.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<xmi:XMI xmi:version="2.1" xmlns:xmi="http://schema.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.1"
xmlns:sbvr="http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20070901/SBVR.xml">
For ‘company’:

<sbvr:designation xmi:id="company" signifier="company-t" meaning="company-c"/>

<sbvr:generalConcept xmi:id="company-c"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="company-t" value="company"/>

206 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

For ‘officer’:

<sbvr:designation xmi:id="officer" signifier="officer-t" meaning="officer-c"/>

<sbvr:generalConcept xmi:id="officer-c"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="officer-t" value="officer"/>
For ‘company appoints officer’:

<sbvr:sententialForm xmi:id="companyAppointsOfficer" expression="cao-t" meaning="cao-c" placeholder="cao-p1 cao-p2"/>

<sbvr:binaryVerbConcept xmi:id="cao-c" role="cao-r1 cao-r2"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptWordingDemonstratesDesignation verbConceptWording="companyAppointsOfficer" designation="appoints"/>
<sbvr:designation xmi:id="appoints" signifier="appoints-t" meaning="cao-c"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="cao-t" value="company appoints officer"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="appoints-t" value="appoints"/>

<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="cao-p1" expression="company-t" startingCharacterPosition="i1" meaning="cao-r1"/>

<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="cao-p1" designation="company"/>
<sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType role="cao-r1" generalConcept="company-c"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRole xmi:id="cao-r1"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i1" value="1"/>

<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="cao-p2" expression="officer-t" startingCharacterPosition="i18" meaning="cao-r2"/>

<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="cao-p2" designation="officer"/>
<sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType role="cao-r2" generalConcept="officer-c"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRole xmi:id="cao-r2"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i18" value="18"/>
For ‘EU-Rent’ with “General Concept: company”:

<sbvr:designation xmi:id="EU-Rent" signifier="EU-Rent-t" meaning="EU-Rent-c"/>

<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="EU-Rent-c"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="EU-Rent-t" value="EU-Rent"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="EU-Rent-c" concept2="company-c"/>
For “EU-Rent must appoint at least 3 officers”:

<sbvr:statement xmi:id="stmt" expression="stmt-t" meaning="stmt-p"/>

<sbvr:text xmi:id="stmt-t" value="EU-Rent must appoint at least 3 officers"./>
<sbvr:proposition xmi:id="stmt-p"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationFormalizesStatement closedLogicalFormulation="ob2" statement="stmt"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationMeansProposition closedLogicalFormulation="ob2" proposition="stmt-p"/>
<sbvr:obligationFormulation xmi:id="ob"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulation xmi:id="ob2"/>
<sbvr:thing1IsThing2 thing1="ob" thing2="ob2"/>
<sbvr:modalFormulationEmbedsLogicalFormulation modalFormulation="ob" logicalFormulation="am3"/>
<sbvr:at-least-nQuantification xmi:id="am3" scopeFormulation="atom" minimumCardinality="i3"/>
<sbvr:quantificationIntroducesVariable quantification="am3" variable="v"/>
<sbvr:variable xmi:id="v" ranged-overConcept="officer-c" restrictingFormulation="" isUnitary="false"/>
<sbvr:atomicFormulation xmi:id="atom" roleBinding="bind1 bind2"/>
<sbvr:atomicFormulationIsBasedOnverbConcept atomicFormulation="atom" verbConcept="cao-c"/>
<sbvr:roleBinding xmi:id="bind1"/>
<sbvr:roleBindingBindsToBindableTarget roleBinding="bind1" bindableTarget="EU-Rent-c"/>

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 207

 <sbvr:verbConceptRoleHasRoleBinding verbConceptRole="cao-r1" roleBinding="bind1"/>
<sbvr:roleBinding xmi:id="bind2"/>
<sbvr:roleBindingBindsToBindableTarget roleBinding="bind2" bindableTarget="v"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRoleHasRoleBinding verbConceptRole="cao-r2" roleBinding="bind2"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i3" value="3"/>

</xmi:XMI>
The example shows some of the points explained previously about SBVR Content models.

• Fact Model - the entire XML content represents a fact model, which is a combination of a conceptual schema and a
set of facts. The conceptual schema of the fact model is identified in the heading where it says, xmlns:sbvr=”http://
www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20070901/SBVR.xml.” The URL identifies a document that serializes the SBVR Content Model
for SBVR, which describes the concepts and rules that make up the conceptual schema (see 13.4 and 15.3). The
elements of the XML content represent the set of facts of the fact model.

• Multiclassification - There is an occurrence of ‘thing1IsThing2’ which is used to connect a pair of elements that represent
the same thing. There is an element of type ‘obligationFormulation’ (xmi:id="ob") and another element of type
‘closedLogicalFormulation’ (xmi:id="ob2"). Neither type specializes the other so there is one element of each type and a
‘thing1IsThing2’ link indicates that the two elements represent the same thing.

• Open World Assumption - Links, rather than attributes, are always used where there is an open world assumption, such
as for the fact that the individual noun concept ‘EU-Rent’ specializes the concept ‘company’ - there is no indication
that these concepts are not involved in other specializations.

• Attributes giving Complete Extensions for a Subject - Each specification of an attribute occurs where the entire
extension of the attribute is being specified for a subject thing, such as for identifying the two placeholders of the verb
concept wording ‘company appoints officer’ or the two roles of the verb concept. The one ‘variable’ in the example is
serialized with “restrictingFormulation=””” representing that it has no restricting formulation. In a number of cases,
attributes are unspecified because the entire extension of the attribute for an element is not being specified. For
example, the attribute ‘representation’ is unspecified for the elements representing meanings (e.g., ‘company-c’ and
‘officer-c’ - there can be any number of representations of a meaning, and the example model does not specify them all.
However, each representation has exactly one meaning, so the ‘meaning’ attribute is specified for each representation to
identify its one meaning.

13.6 The SBVR Content Model for SBVR

The SBVR Content Model for SBVR represents facts concerning all of the formally captioned contents of Clauses 7
through 12. In general, this includes all of the information given in the SBVR specification about its concepts that can be
represented in terms of the SBVR XMI Metamodel. This includes:
• noun concepts and their designations
• verb concepts and their verb concept wordings
• specializations/generalizations
• concept types
• definitions and, where formal, their semantic formulations
• necessity statements and, where formal, their semantic formulations
• vocabularies, language, namespaces and their URIs
• notes, examples, sources, descriptions

208 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

The SBVR Content Model for SBVR is like the example in sub clause 13.3 above except that it is about SBVR’s
vocabulary and meanings, not EU-Rent’s. The complete SBVR Content Model for SBVR is serialized as XML documents
listed in 15.4. It can be used and extended by other SBVR Content models that build on SBVR’s concepts.

13.7 XMI for the SBVR Model of SBVR

XML patterns are shown below for the various parts of vocabulary descriptions and vocabulary entries used in Clauses 7
through 12. These patterns are used to create the XML documents that serialize the SBVR Content Model for SBVR.
Each pattern is shown for a corresponding SBVR Structured English entry (see Annex A for entry descriptions).

The XML patterns provide a normative definition of which SBVR concepts are represented by each use of SBVR
Structured English in the vocabulary descriptions and entries contained in Clauses 7 through 12.

The general principles used for the patterns are these: First, the facts of what is presented using SBVR Structured English
are represented using XML. Second, for the objects referenced by those facts, further facts are represented to satisfy
reference schemes for those objects wherever sufficient detail is given. The principles are applicable to SBVR-based
communication in general. The XML files identified in sub clause 13.3, which are created based on these principles
following the patterns below, are examples of XML serializations of SBVR Content models.

The xmi:id values used in the patterns below are replaced by different values in the actual XML documents because the
multitude of repetitions of the patterns need their own unique xmi:id values. But the xmi:id values shown below
consistently and correctly show relationships within the patterns. Most xmi:id values are referenced only locally within
the XML elements for the same Structured English entry, but some are referenced beyond that scope and are shown in
bold blue (e.g., "vocabulary") so that references to them are easily followed. The different types of vocabulary entries
(term, name and verb concept wording) are mutually exclusive. They each introduce an xmi:id value "meaning" which is
referenced in other patterns.

Made-up names (e.g., “Xyz Vocabulary”), terms (e.g., “example term”) and verb concept wordings (e.g., “example is
seen”) are used to show the patterns and to show how signifiers and other expressions appear in XML. Certain
assumptions are made by the patterns based on the way the vocabularies in Clauses 7 through 12 are interrelated. The
patterns assume that a vocabulary being described has a name in the Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary (of Clause 7). The
patterns assume that where a term or name is used with a formal interpretation in Structured English, that term or name
is found by way of the vocabulary namespace derived from the vocabulary being described. These assumptions are
correct regarding Clauses 7 through 12, but they cannot necessarily be assumed about all vocabulary descriptions.

Each pattern has a part that remains unchanged for the kind of entry or caption shown (except for differences in xmi:id
values as described above) and a part that varies based on the content of the entry. The part that varies is shown in bold
italics. It can be a text or integer value, a quoted xmi:id of an object introduced elsewhere, or an XML tag.

The final XML documents created from the vocabulary clauses can differ slightly from what is exactly produced from the
templates, but the represented meaning does not differ. In cases where two objects are created and then connected by a
‘thing1IsThing2’ link, the objects can be combined into one if they are of the same class or if one class specializes the
other. In cases where the patterns would create two identical XML elements, only one is actually created. For example,
all uses of an element for the integer 1 can use the same element.

13.7.1 XML Patterns for Vocabularies

Xyz Vocabulary

<sbvr:vocabulary xmi:id="vocabulary"/>
<sbvr:nameReferencesThing thing="vocabulary" name="XyzVocabulary"/>

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 209

 <sbvr:name xmi:id="XyzVocabulary" signifier="v-s" meaning="vocabulary-concept"/>
<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="vocabulary-concept" instance="vocabulary"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="v-s" value="Xyz Vocabulary"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="XyzVocabulary" namespace="vocabularyRegistrationNamespace"/>
<sbvr:vocabularyNamespace xmi:id="vocabularyNamespace"/>
<sbvr:vocabularyNamespaceIsDerivedFromVocabulary vocabularyNamespace="vocabularyNamespace" vocabulary="vocabulary"/>
The pattern above assumes the Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary has a vocabulary namespace like this:
<sbvr:vocabularyNamespace xmi:id="vocabularyRegistrationNamespace"/>
Included Vocabulary: Abc Vocabulary

<sbvr:vocabulary1IncorporatesVocabulary2 vocabulary1="vocabulary" vocabulary2="Abc"/>

<sbvr:namespace1IncorporatesNamespace2 namespace1="vocabularyNamespace" namespace2="Abc-ns"/>
The pattern above assumes there is a vocabulary named Abc Vocabulary like this:
<sbvr:vocabulary xmi:id="Abc"/>
<sbvr:vocabularyNamespace xmi:id="Abc-ns"/>
Language: English

<sbvr:language xmi:id="language"/>
<sbvr:vocabularyNamespaceIsForLanguage vocabularyNamespace="vocabularyNamespace" language="language"/>
<sbvr:nameReferencesThing thing="language" name="English"/>
<sbvr:name xmi:id="English" signifier="l-s" meaning="l-c"/>
<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="l-c" instance="language"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="l-s" value="English"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="English" namespace="ISO639-2English"/>
<sbvr:vocabularyNamespace xmi:id="ISO639-2English"/>
<sbvr:namespaceHasURI namespace="ISO639-2English" URI="lm-u"/>
<sbvr:URI xmi:id="lm-u"
value="http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/English_list.php"/>
Namespace URI: http://some.uri
<sbvr:namespaceHasURI namespace="vocabularyNamespace" URI="vn-uri"/>
<sbvr:URI xmi:id="vn-uri" value="http://some.uri"/>
Speech Community: English Mechanics
<sbvr:speechCommunityOwnsVocabulary speechCommunity="em" vocabulary="vocabulary"/>
<sbvr:conceptHasInstance concept="em-concept" instance="em"/>
<sbvr:speechCommunity xmi:id="em"/>
It is assumed for this entry that there is a name ‘English Mechanics’ for an individual noun concept like this:
<sbvr:name xmi:id="em-name" signifier="em-s" meaning="em-concept"/>
<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="em-concept"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="em-s" value="English Mechanics"/>
The captions “Description:”, “Note:” and “Source:” are handled for a vocabulary in the same way as for terms within a
vocabulary, as shown below, except that the related meaning is given as meaning="vocabulary-concept".

210 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

13.7.2 XML Patterns for General Concepts

example term

<sbvr:term xmi:id="exampleTerm" signifier="et-s" meaning="meaning"/>

<sbvr:generalConcept xmi:id="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="et-s" value="example term"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="exampleTerm"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="exampleTerm" namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
If there is no “See:” caption, then the following is included:
<sbvr:preferredDesignation xmi:id="exampleTermPreferred"/>
<sbvr:thing1IsThing2 thing1="exampleTermPreferred" thing2="exampleTerm"/>
Concept Type: role
<sbvr:role xmi:id="meaningAsRole"/>
<sbvr:thing1IsThing2 thing1="meaningAsRole" thing2="meaning"/>
The pattern above is used if the concept type is an SBVR concept. The pattern below is used if the concept type is
not an SBVR concept.

Concept Type: example type

<sbvr:conceptHasInstance concept="exampleType-c" instance="meaning"/>
There is assumed to be a term ‘example type’ for a general concept like this:
<sbvr:term xmi:id="exampleType" signifier="exampleType-s" meaning="exampleType-c"/>
<sbvr:generalConcept xmi:id="exampleType-c"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="exampleType-s" value="example type"/>
Definition: example that is seen
<sbvr:definition xmi:id="def-formal" expression="def-formal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="def-formal-e" value="example that is seen"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="meaning" concept2="example-concept" />
<sbvr:closedProjectionFormalizesDefinition closedProjection="def-formal-projection" definition="def-formal"/>
<sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesNounConcept closedProjection="def-formal-projection" nounConcept="meaning"/>
The closed projection of the definition (not shown) has xmi:id="def-formal-projection". It is assumed for this entry
and several others that there is a term ‘example’ for a general concept like this:
<sbvr:term xmi:id="example" signifier="example-s" meaning="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:generalConcept xmi:id="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="example-s" value="example"/>
Definition: example that shows something
<sbvr:definition xmi:id="def-semiformal" expression="def-semiformal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="def-semiformal-e" value="example that shows something"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="meaning" concept2="example-concept" />
Definition: whatever demonstrates
<sbvr:definition xmi:id="def-informal" expression="def-informal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="def-informal-e" value="whatever demonstrates"/>
Description: A description of something
<sbvr:descriptionPortraysMeaning description="desc" meaning="meaning"/>

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 211

 <sbvr:description xmi:id="desc" expression="desc-e"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="desc-e" value="A description of something"./>
Dictionary Basis: example
None

Example: An example of an example

<sbvr:descriptiveExampleIllustratesMeaning descriptiveExample="de" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:descriptiveExample xmi:id="de" expression="de-e"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="de-e" value="An example of an example"/>
General Concept: example
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="meaning" concept2="example-concept" />
Necessity: Each example is seen.
<sbvr:statement xmi:id="nec-stmt" expression="nec-e" meaning="nec"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="nec-e" value="Each example is seen"./>
<sbvr:proposition xmi:id="nec" isNecessarilyTrue="true"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationFormalizesStatement closedLogicalFormulation="nec-formulation" statement="nec-stmt"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationMeansProposition closedLogicalFormulation="nec-formulation" proposition="nec"/>
A closed logical formulation of the statement (not shown) has xmi:id="nec-formulation".

Note: This note says little.

<sbvr:noteCommentsOnMeaning note="note" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:note xmi:id="note" expression="note-e"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="note-e" value="This note says little"./>
Possibility: Some example is seen.
<sbvr:statement xmi:id="pos-stmt" expression="pos-e" meaning="pos"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="pos-e" value="Some example is seen"./>
<sbvr:proposition xmi:id="pos" isPossiblyTrue ="true"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationFormalizesStatement closedLogicalFormulation="pos-formulation" statement="pos-stmt"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationMeansProposition closedLogicalFormulation="pos-formulation" proposition="pos"/>
A closed logical formulation of the statement (not shown) has xmi:id="pos-formulation".

Reference Scheme: An id of the example term and the set of authors of the example term
<sbvr:referenceScheme xmi:id="refScheme" simplyUsedRole="ethi-r2" extensionallyUsedRole="etha-r2"
identifyingCharacteristic=""/>
It is assumed for this entry that there is a binary verb concept ‘example term has id’ whose ‘id’ role has
xmi:id="ethi-r2".

It is assumed for this entry that there is a binary verb concept ‘example term has author’ whose ‘author’ role has
xmi:id="etha-r2".

See: example general concept designation

Same as “Synonym: example general concept designation”.

Source: ISO 1087-1 [‘example’]

<sbvr:referenceSupportsMeaning reference="ref" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:reference xmi:id="ref" expression="source-e"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="source-e" value="ISO 1087-1 [‘example’]"/>

212 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Subject Field: Philosophy
<sbvr:representationIsInSubjectField representation="exampleTerm" subjectField="philosophy"/>
<sbvr:conceptHasInstance concept="philo-concept" instance="philosophy"/>
<sbvr:subjectField xmi:id="philosophy"/>
It is assumed for this entry that there is a name ‘Philosophy’ for an individual noun concept like this:
<sbvr:name xmi:id="philo-name" signifier="philo-s" meaning="philo-concept"/>
<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id=" philo-concept"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="philo-s" value="Philosophy"/>
Synonym: example general concept designation
<sbvr:term xmi:id="exampleObjectTypeDesignation" signifier="eotd-s" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="eotd-s" value="example general concept designation"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="exampleObjectTypeDesignation"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="exampleObjectTypeDesignation" namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>

13.7.3 XML Patterns for Individual Noun Concepts

Example Name

<sbvr:name xmi:id="exampleName" signifier="en-s" meaning="meaning"/>

<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="en-s" value="Example Name"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="exampleName"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="exampleName" namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
If there is no “See:” caption, then the following is included:
<sbvr:preferredDesignation xmi:id= "exampleNamePreferred"/>
<sbvr:thing1IsThing2 thing1="exampleNamePreferred" thing2="exampleName"/>
Definition: the example that is seen
<sbvr:definiteDescription xmi:id="defDesc-formal" expression="defDesc-formal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="defDesc-formal-e" value="the example that is seen"/>
<sbvr:concept1SpecializesConcept2 concept1="meaning" concept2="example-concept" />
<sbvr:closedProjectionFormalizesDefinition closedProjection="defDesc-formal-projection" definition="defDesc-formal"/>
<sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesNounConcept closedProjection="defDesc-formal-projection" nounConcept="meaning"/>
The closed projection of the definition (not shown) has xmi:id="defDesc-formal-projection". Note that informal and
semiformal definitions of individual noun concepts follow the same pattern as shown for general concepts above
with the exception that they are rendered as sbvr:definiteDescription.

The captions “Concept Type:”, “Description:”, “Dictionary Basis:”, “Example:”, “General Concept:”, “Necessity:”,
“Note:”, “Possibility:”, “See:”, “Source:”, “Subject Field:” and “Synonym:” are handled for a name in the same way as
for terms as shown above.

13.7.4 XML Patterns for Verb Concepts

example is seen
<sbvr:sententialForm xmi:id="exampleIsSeen" expression="eis-e" meaning="meaning" placeholder="eis-p"/>
<sbvr:verbSymbol xmi:id="example.isSeen" signifier="isSeen-s" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:characteristic xmi:id="meaning" role="eis-r"/>

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 213

 <sbvr:verbConceptWordingDemonstratesDesignation verbConceptWording="exampleIsSeen" designation="example.isSeen"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="eis-e" value="example is seen"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="isSeen-s" value="is seen"/>
<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="eis-p" expression="example-s" startingCharacterPosition="i1" meaning="eis-r"/>
<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="eis-p" designation="example"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i1" value="1"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRole xmi:id="eis-r"/>
<sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType role="eis-r" generalConcept="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="exampleIsSeen"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="example.isSeen"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptWordingIsInNamespace verbConceptWording="exampleIsSeen" namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
<sbvr:attributiveNamespaceIsWithinVocabularyNamespace attributiveNamespace="example-ans"
vocabularyNamespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
<sbvr:attributiveNamespace xmi:id="example-ans"/>
<sbvr:attributiveNamespaceIsForSubjectConcept attributiveNamespace="example-ans"
subjectConcept="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="example.isSeen" namespace="example-ans"/>

example1 follows example2

<sbvr:sententialForm xmi:id="example1FollowsExample2" expression="efe-e" meaning="meaning" placeholder="efe-p1 efe-p2"/>
<sbvr:verbSymbol xmi:id="efe-follows" signifier="follows-s" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:binaryVerbConcept xmi:id="meaning" role="efe-r1 efe-r2"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptWordingDemonstratesDesignation verbConceptWording="example1FollowsExample2" designation="efe-follows"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="efe-e" value="example1 follows example2"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="follows-s" value="follows"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="example1-s" value="example1"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="example2-s" value="example2"/>
<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="efe-p1" expression="example1-s" startingCharacterPosition="i1" meaning="efe-r1"/>
<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="efe-p2" expression="example2-s" startingCharacterPosition="i18" meaning="efe-r2"/>
<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="efe-p1" designation="example"/>
<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="efe-p2" designation="example"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i1" value="1"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i18" value="18"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRole xmi:id="efe-r1"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRole xmi:id="efe-r2"/>
<sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType role="efe-r1" generalConcept="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType role="efe-r2" generalConcept="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing=" example1FollowsExample2"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing=" efe-follows"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptWordingIsInNamespace verbConceptWording="example1FollowsExample2"
namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
Definition: the example1 comes after the example2 in a sequence
<sbvr:definition xmi:id="efe-def-formal" expression="efe-def-formal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="efe-def-formal-e" value="the example1 comes after the example2 in a sequence"/>
<sbvr:closedProjectionFormalizesDefinition closedProjection="efe-projection" definition="efe-def-formal"/>
<sbvr:closedProjectionDefinesverbConcept closedProjection="efe-projection" verbConcept="meaning"/>
<sbvr:variableMapsToVerbConceptRole variable="efe-var1" verbConceptRole="efe-r1"/>
<sbvr:variableMapsToVerbConceptRole variable="efe-var2" verbConceptRole="efe-r2"/>
The definition formally defines ‘example1 follows example2’ and has a closed projection (not shown) with
xmi:id="efe-projection" projectionVariable="efe-var1 efe-var2".

214 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Definition: the first example is after the second
<sbvr:definition xmi:id="efe-def-informal" expression="efe-def-informal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="efe-def-informal-e" value="the first example is after the second"/>
See: example1 has prior example

Same as “Synonymous Form: example1 has prior example”.

Issue # 15684: Revise text

Synonymous Form: example1 has prior example

<sbvr:sententialForm xmi:id="example1HasPriorExample" expression="ehpe-e" meaning="meaning" placeholder="ehpe-p1
ehpe-p2"/>
<sbvr:verbSymbol xmi:id="ehpe-has" signifier="has-s" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptWordingDemonstratesDesignation verbConceptWording="example1HasPriorExample" designation="ehpe-has"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptRoleDesignation xmi:id="example.priorExample" signifier="priorExample-s" meaning="efe-r2"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="ehpe-e" value="example1 has prior example"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="has-s" value="has"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="priorExample-s" value="prior example"/>
<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="ehpe-p1" expression="example1-s" startingCharacterPosition="i1" meaning="efe-r1"/>
<sbvr:placeholder xmi:id="ehpe-p2" expression="priorExample-s" startingCharacterPosition="i14" meaning="efe-r2"/>
<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="ehpe-p1" designation="example"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i1" value="1"/>
<sbvr:positiveInteger xmi:id="i14" value="14"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="example1HasPriorExample"/>
<sbvr:verbConceptWordingIsInNamespace verbConceptWording="example1HasPriorExample"
namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
<sbvr:attributiveNamespaceIsWithinVocabularyNamespace attributiveNamespace="example-ans"
vocabularyNamespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
<sbvr:attributiveNamespace xmi:id="example-ans"/>
<sbvr:attributiveNamespaceIsForSubjectConcept attributiveNamespace="example-ans"
subjectConcept="example-concept"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="example.priorExample" namespace="example-ans"/>
If there is a term ‘prior example’ for a general concept like this:
<sbvr:term xmi:id="priorExample" signifier="priorExample-s" meaning="priorExample-c"/>
then the following is included:
<sbvr:placeholderUsesDesignation placeholder="ehpe-p2" designation="priorExample"/>
<sbvr:roleRangesOverObjectType role="efe-r2" generalConcept="priorExample-c"/>
The captions “Concept Type:”, “Description:”, “Dictionary Basis:”, “Example:”, “General Concept:”, “Necessity:”,
“Note:”, “Possibility:” and “Source:” are handled for a verb concept wording in the same way as for terms as shown
above.
Issue # 10630: Revise text

13.7.5 XML Patterns for Sets of Elements of Guidance (Rule Sets)

Xyz Rules

<sbvr:set xmi:id="ruleSet"/>
<sbvr:nameReferencesThing thing="ruleSet" name="XyzRules"/>
<sbvr:name xmi:id="XyzRules" signifier="XyzRules-s" meaning="ruleSet-concept"/>

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 215

 <sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="ruleSet-concept" instance="ruleSet"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="XyzRules-s" value="Xyz Rules"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="XyzRules"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation=" XyzRules " namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
Vocabulary: Abc Vocabulary

None.

The captions “Description:”, “Note:”, and “Source:” are handled for a rule set in the same way as for terms within a
vocabulary, as shown above, except that the related meaning is given as meaning="ruleSet-concept".

13.7.6 XML Patterns for Guidance Statements

Each example must be seen.

<sbvr:guidanceStatement xmi:id="stmt-formal" expression="stmt-formal-e" meaning="meaning"/>

<sbvr:elementOfGuidance xmi:id="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="stmt-formal-e" value="Each example must be seen"./>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationFormalizesStatement closedLogicalFormulation="stmt-formal-formulation"
statement="stmt-formal"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationMeansProposition closedLogicalFormulation="stmt-formal-formulation" proposition="meaning"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="ruleSet" thing="meaning"/>
The closed logical formulation of the statement (not shown) has xmi:id="stmt-formal-formulation".

Guidance Type: operative business rule

In this case where the guidance type is an SBVR concept, the line above that says,
“<sbvr:elementOfGuidance xmi:id="meaning"/>”, is replaced with this:
<sbvr:operativeBusinessRule xmi:id="meaning"/>
Guidance Type: exemplary rule
<sbvr:conceptHasInstance concept="exemplaryRule-c" instance="meaning"/>
This pattern is used if the concept type is not an SBVR concept. There is assumed to be a term ‘exemplary rule’ for
a general concept like this:
<sbvr:term xmi:id="exemplaryRule" signifier="exemplaryRule-s" meaning="exemplaryRule-c"/>
<sbvr:generalConcept xmi:id="exemplaryRule-c"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="exemplaryRule-s" value="exemplary rule"/>
Enforcement Level: strict
<sbvr:operativeBusinessRuleHasLevelOfEnforcement
operativeBusinessRule="meaning"
levelOfEnforcement="strict-instance"/>
<sbvr:conceptHasInstance concept="strict-concept" instance="strict-instance"/>
<sbvr:levelOfEnforcement xmi:id="strict-instance"/>
It is assumed that the name ‘strict’ represents an individual noun concept like this:
<sbvr:name xmi:id="strict" signifier="strict-s" meaning="strict-concept"/>
<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="strict-concept"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="strict-s" value="strict"/>
Name: Rule 25

216 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 <sbvr:nameReferencesThing thing="meaning" name="Rule25"/>
<sbvr:name xmi:id="Rule25" signifier="Rule25-s" meaning="rule25Meaning"/>
<sbvr:individualConcept xmi:id="rule25Meaning" instance="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="Rule25-s" value="Rule 25"/>
<sbvr:thingIsInSet set="vocabulary" thing="Rule25"/>
<sbvr:designationIsInNamespace designation="Rule25" namespace="vocabularyNamespace"/>
Synonymous Statement: It is obligatory that each rule be seen.
<sbvr:guidanceStatement xmi:id="synstmt-formal" expression="synstmt-formal-e" meaning="meaning"/>
<sbvr:text xmi:id="synstmt-formal-e" value="It is obligatory that each rule be seen"./>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationFormalizesStatement closedLogicalFormulation="synstmt-formal-formulation"
statement="synstmt-formal"/>
<sbvr:closedLogicalFormulationMeansProposition closedLogicalFormulation="synstmt-formal-formulation" proposition="meaning"/>
The closed logical formulation of the statement (not shown) has xmi:id="synstmt-formal-formulation".

The captions “Description:”, “Example:”, “Note:” and “Source:” are handled for a guidance statement in the same way as
for terms as shown above.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 217

218 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
14 Index of Vocabulary Entries (Informative)

A
acceptable world 117
actual world 118
adopted definition 150
adopting authority 193
adopting authority adopts element of guidance from owning authority citing reference 193
advice 176
advice is derived from business policy 177
advice of contingency 177
advice of optionality 178
advice of permission 177
advice of possibility 177
advice statement 180
aggregation formulation 76
alethic modality 118
answer nominalization 82
antecedent 67, 118
argument 118
arity 118
aspect 158
association 155
assortment 157
at-least-n quantification 72
at-least-n quantification has minimum cardinality 71
at-most-n quantification 72
at-most-n quantification has maximum cardinality 72
at-most-one quantification 72
atomic formula 119
atomic formulation 60
atomic formulation has role binding 60
atomic formulation is based on verb concept 61
attributive namespace is for subject concept 40
attributive namespace is within vocabulary namespace 40
attributive namespace 39
authority 192
authority authors guidance statement 193
authority defines element of guidance 193
authority has business jurisdiction over element of guidance 193
auxiliary variable 85

B
bag projection 86
behavioral business rule 176
binary logical operation 66
binary logical operation has logical operand 1 66
binary logical operation has logical operand 2 66
binary verb concept 24
bindable target 58
body of shared concepts includes concept 142

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 219

body of shared concepts 142
body of shared guidance includes element of guidance 173
body of shared guidance 172
body of shared meanings includes body of shared concepts 142
body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance 172
body of shared meanings unites semantic community 142
body of shared meanings 141
body of shared meanings1 contains body of shared meanings2 143
business policy statement 179
business policy 174
business rule is derived from business policy 175
business rule 174
business vocabulary 144

C
cardinality 49
categorization 156
categorization scheme 148
categorization scheme contains category 148
categorization scheme is for general concept 148
categorization type is for general concept 149
categorization type 149
category 148
characteristic 24
characteristic is essential to concept 147
characteristic type 147
characterization 157
classification 156
closed logical formulation 55
closed logical formulation formalizes statement 56
closed logical formulation means proposition 56
closed projection 86
closed projection defines noun concept 86
closed projection defines verb concept 87
closed projection formalizes definition 86
closed projection means question 89
closed semantic formulation 54
closed semantic formulation formulates meaning 54
comment 167
communication content is composed of representation 167
communication content 167
community has subcommunity 141
community has URI 141
community 140
concept has definition 33
concept has designation 33
concept has extension 46
concept has facet 158
concept has implied characteristic 147

220 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

concept has instance 46
concept has necessary characteristic 147
concept incorporates characteristic 27
concept is closed in conceptual schema 127
concept of thing as composite 152
concept of thing as continuant 153
concept of thing as developed 153
concept of thing as occurrent 153
concept of thing as primitive 153
concept of thing as unitary 152
concept of thing existing dependently 153
concept of thing existing independently 153
concept type 22
concept 21
concept1 has more general concept2 148
concept1 is coextensive with concept2 26
conceptual schema 126
conceptual schema includes concept 126
conceptual schema includes fact 126
conjunction 66
consequent 67
consequent 119
Context of Thing 157
contextualized concept 158
contingency 119
contingency statement 183

D
definite description 150
Definition Origin 150
definition serves as designation 151
definition 33
definitional business rule 175
definitional rule 175
delimiting characteristic 147
deontic modality 119
derivable concept 151
description portrays meaning 166
description 166
descriptive example illustrates meaning 166
descriptive example 166
designation context 161
designation has signifier 33
designation is implicitly understood 151
designation is in namespace 39
designation 32
disjunction 66
document content 167
domain grammar 120
domain 119

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 221

E
element of governance 173
element of governance is directly enforceable 173
element of guidance 173
element of guidance authorizes state of affairs 185
element of guidance is practicable 173
element of guidance obligates state of affairs 185
element of guidance prohibits state of affairs 186
elementary verb concept 120
Elements of Concept System Structure 154
enforcement level 176
equivalence 66
essential characteristic 146
exactly-n quantification 72
exactly-n quantification has cardinality 72
exactly-one quantification 72
example term 211
example1 follows example2 214
exclusive disjunction 67
existential quantification 71
expression is unambiguous to speech community 164
expression represents meaning 32
expression 30
extension 45
extensional definition 150

F
facet 158
fact 29
fact model 127
fact model includes fact 127
fact model is based on conceptual schema 127
fact type 120
fact type has fact in fact model 127
fact type is elementary in conceptual schema 127
fact type is internally closed in conceptual schema 127
first-order instance 120
first-order type 120
Formal Logic and Mathematics Vocabulary 17, 117
formal model 121
formal representation 166
fundamental concept 158

G
general concept 21
general concept objectifies verb concept 159
general verb concept 23

222 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

guidance statement 179

I
icon 162
implication 67, 121
implication has antecedent 67
implication has consequent 67
implied characteristic 147
impossibility 121
impossibility statement 182
inconsequent 68
individual noun concept 25
individual verb concept 24
informal representation 165
information source 168
instance 45
instantiation formulation 61
instantiation formulation binds to bindable target 62
instantiation formulation considers concept 62
integer 49, 121
intensional definition 149
intensional definition uses delimiting characteristic 150
is-facet-of proposition 157
ISO 1087-1 (English) 18
ISO 6093 Number Namespace 18
ISO 639-2 (Alpha-3 Code) 18
ISO 639-2 (English) 18
is-property-of verb concept 156
is-role-of proposition 157

K
Kind of Guidance Statement 179

L
language 40
logical formulation 55
logical formulation constrains projection 85
logical formulation kind 55
Logical Formulation of Semantics Vocabulary 17, 53, 196
logical formulation restricts variable 57
logical negation 67
logical operand 65
logical operand 1 66
logical operand 2 66
logical operation 65
logical operation has logical operand 66
logical variable 121

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 223

M
maximum cardinality 71
Meaning and Representation Vocabulary 17, 20, 196
meaning corresponds to thing 46
meaning 21
member 121
message content 167
minimum cardinality 71
modal formulation 62
modal formulation embeds logical formulation 63
modal logic 121
more general concept 148

N
name 162
namespace 39
namespace has URI 39
namespace1 incorporates namespace2 39
nand formulation 68
necessary characteristic 147
necessity 122
necessity formulation 63
necessity statement 182
non-necessity 122
non-necessity statement 183
nonnegative integer 49
non-obligation 122
non-obligation statement 183
nonverbal designation 162
nor formulation 68
note comments on meaning 166
note 166
noun concept 21
noun concept nominalization 77
noun form 36
number 49
numeric range quantification 73
numeric range quantification has maximum cardinality 73
numeric range quantification has minimum cardinality 73

O
objectification 74
objectification binds to bindable target 75
objectification considers logical formulation 75
objectified verb concept 159
obligation 122

224 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

obligation formulation 63
obligation statement 181
operative business rule has enforcement level 176
operative business rule statement 180
operative business rule 175
optionality 122
optionality statement 183
owned definition 150
owning authority 193

P
partitioning 149
partitive verb concept 156
part-whole verb concept 156
permissibility formulation 64
permission 122
permission statement 183
placeholder uses designation 38
placeholder 37
population 123
positive integer 49
possibility 123
possibility formulation 64
possibility statement 183
possible world 123
predicate 123
preferred designation 163
prohibited designation 163
prohibition 123
prohibition statement 181
projecting formulation 76
projecting formulation binds to bindable target 76
projecting formulation has projection 76
projection 83
projection has auxiliary variable 85
projection is on variable 85
projection position 85
property 155
property association 155
proposition 29
proposition corresponds to state of affairs 44
proposition is based on verb concept 174
proposition is false 29
proposition is necessarily true 30
proposition is obligated to be false 30
proposition is obligated to be true 30
proposition is permitted to be true 30
proposition is possibly true 30
proposition is true 29
proposition nominalization 80
proposition nominalization binds to bindable target 81
proposition nominalization considers logical formulation 81
proposition 124
propositional operator 124

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 225

Q
quantification 69
quantification introduces variable 70
quantification scopes over logical formulation 70
quantifier 124
quantity 49
quantity1 equals quantity2 49
quantity1 is less than quantity2 49
question nominalization 81
question 30

R
Real-world Numerical Correspondence 146
reference 167
reference points to information source 168
reference scheme 41
reference scheme extensionally uses verb concept role 42
reference scheme is for concept 42
reference scheme simply uses verb concept role 42
reference scheme uses characteristic 42
reference supports meaning 167
remark 167
representation 32
Representation Formality 165
representation has expression 32
representation is in designation context 161
representation is in subject field 160
representation represents meaning 32
representation uses vocabulary 168
res is sensory manifestation of signifier 163
res 163
restricted higher-order instance 124
restricted higher-order type 125
restricted permission statement 181
restricted possibility statement 182
role 22
role binding 61
role binding binds to bindable target 61
role ranges over general concept 27
rule statement 179
rule 174
rulebook 168
rulebook has URI 169

226 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

S
SBVR Vocabulary 17
scope formulation 71
segmentation 148
semantic community has speech community 141
semantic community shares understanding of concept 143
semantic community 141
semantic formulation 54
sentential form 36
set 48, 125
set has cardinality 48
set projection 86
signifier 33
situation 158
situational role 158
speech community adopts adopted definition citing reference 151
speech community determines speech community representation set 168
speech community owns owned definition 150
speech community owns vocabulary 143
speech community regulates its usage of signifier 164
speech community representation set 168
speech community representation set includes representation 168
speech community uses language 141
speech community uses vocabulary 143
speech community 141
starting character position 37
state of affairs 43, 45, 125
state of affairs involves thing in role 45
state of affairs is actual 45
statement denotes state of affairs 44
statement expresses proposition 34
statement of advice of permission 180
statement of advice of possibility 181
statement 34
structural business rule 175
structural rule statement 180
structural rule 175
subcommunity 141
subject concept 40
subject field 160
subset 125

T
term 161
term denotes thing 163
terminological dictionary 144
terminological dictionary expresses body of shared meanings 145
terminological dictionary has URI 144
terminological dictionary includes representation 144
terminological dictionary presents vocabulary 145
text 30
thing 48
thing has name 163

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 227

thing is in set 48
thing1 is thing2 48
type of individual 126
type 125

U
UML 2 Infrastructure 18
unary verb concept 155
unbound variable 126
Unicode Glossary 18
Uniform Resource Identifiers Vocabulary 18
unitary noun concept 24
unitary verb concept 23
universal quantification 71
Universe of Discourse 126
URI 31

V
variable 56
variable has projection position 85
variable is free within semantic formulation 58
variable is unitary 57
variable maps to verb concept role 88
variable ranges over concept 57
verb concept 23
verb concept has role 28
verb concept has verb concept wording 36
verb concept nominalization 78
verb concept objectification 159
verb concept role 22
verb concept role designation 162
verb concept role has role binding 61
verb concept wording 35
verb concept wording demonstrates designation 36
verb concept wording has placeholder 36
verb concept wording incorporates verb symbol 162
verb concept wording is in namespace 39
verb symbol 162
viewpoint 159
vocabulary 143
Vocabulary for Describing Business Rules 18, 171, 196
Vocabulary for Describing Business Vocabularies 17, 139, 196
vocabulary is designed for speech community 143
vocabulary is expressed in language 143
vocabulary namespace 39
vocabulary namespace is for language 40
vocabulary namespace is specific to designation context 161
vocabulary namespace is specific to subject field 160

228 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Vocabulary Registration Vocabulary 17
vocabulary is used to express body of shared meanings 144
vocabulary namespace is derived from vocabulary 144
vocabulary1 incorporates vocabulary2 144

W
wff 126
whether-or-not formulation 68
whether-or-not formulation has consequent 68
whether-or-not formulation has inconsequent 68
world 126

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 229

230 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
15 Supporting Documents

15.1 General
Several XML documents are derived from this document, particularly for the following vocabularies specified in Clauses 7
through 13. Each of these has a namespace URI specified in Clause 7.
SBVR Vocabulary

The content of each of the documents listed in this clause is normative.

15.2 SBVR XMI Metamodel

The MOF-based metamodel package shown in 13.3.1 is serialized, with all merging of packages performed, as an XML
document. The URL of each document is constructed by adding ”-XMI-Metamodel” in front of the “.xml” in the
corresponding namespace URI. The document’s URL is listed here:
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20130601/SBVR-XMI-Metamodel.xml

15.3 SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema

An XML Schema is created based on the XMI 2.1 specification from each of the MOF-based metamodel packages listed in
15.2. SBVR tools generate and process SBVR Content Model exchange documents that validate according to the SBVR XML
Schema files described here. The URL of each document is constructed by putting “.xsd” in place of “.xml” in the
corresponding namespace URI. The schema’s URL is listed here:
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20130601/SBVR-XML-Schema.xsd

15.4 SBVR Content Model for SBVR

For each of clauses 7 through 12, all vocabulary entries and rules are described in terms of the SBVR XMI Metamodel (see
sub clause 15.2) and are serialized as XML documents based on the SBVR XMI Metamodel XML Schema (see sub clause
15.3). This document is an XML serialization of SBVR in terms of itself. The document’s URL is listed here:
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20130601/SBVR-Content-Model-for-SBVR.xml

In each of the XML documents, an xmi:id used for a designation in a vocabulary namespace is constructed from the signifier
of the designation by upcasing each character that follows a blank and then removing the blanks. Similarly, an xmi:id for a
verb concept wording is constructed from the expression of the verb concept wording by removing subscripts, upcasing each
character that follows a blank and then removing the blanks. This allows any of these designations and verb concept wordings
described by one of the documents to be referenced using a URI which appends a “#” and an xmi:id to the document’s URL.
For example, a URI for ‘noun concept’ is
http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20130601/SBVR-Content-Model-for-SBVR.xml#nounConcept

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 231

232 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
Part III - Annexes
This part contains the annexes, including:

A- SBVR Structured English

B- SBVR Structured English Patterns

C- Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to Represent SBVR-style Vocabularies

D- Additional References

NOTE: The SBVR Annexes in the table below are now published as stand-alone documents at the URIs shown solely for
convenience and ease of use. The fact that they are published as separate SBVR specification documents makes no change
to their status as part of the SBVR specification, or the way in which they can be updated under OMG Policies and
Procedures.

URIs:

Annex Document number URI

E - Overview of the Approach formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
F - The Business Rules Approach formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
G - EU-Rent Example formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
®
H - The RuleSpeak Business Rule Notation formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
I - Concept Diagram Graphic Notation formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
J - The ORM Notation for Verbalizing Facts and formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
Business Rules
K - Mappings and Relationships to Other Initiatives formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
L - ORM Examples Related to the Logical formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
Foundations for SBVR
M - A Conceptual Overview of SBVR and the formal/2013-xx-xx http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/13-xx-xx
NIAM2007 Procedure to Specify a Conceptual
Schema

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 233

234 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2
 Annex A - SBVR Structured English
(informative)

A.1 General
The most common means of expressing definitions and business rules is through statements, not diagrams. While diagrams
are helpful for seeing how concepts are related, they are impractical as a primary means of defining vocabularies and
expressing business rules.

This specification defines an English vocabulary for describing vocabularies and stating rules. There are many different ways
that this vocabulary and other English vocabularies described using SBVR can be combined with common English words and
structures to express definitions and statements. However expressed, the semantics of definitions and rules can be formally
represented in terms of the SBVR vocabulary and, particularly, in terms of logical formulations (the SBVR conceptualization
of formal logic).

This annex describes one such way of using English that maps mechanically to SBVR concepts. It is not meant to offer all of
the variety of common English, but rather, it uses a small number of English structures and common words to provide a simple
and straightforward mapping.

All formal definitions and rules in this document that are part of ‘SBVR in terms of itself’ are stated using the SBVR
Structured English. These statements can then be interpreted automatically in order to create MOF and/or XMI
representations.

The description of the SBVR Structured English is divided into sub clauses.

• Expressions in SBVR Structured English

• Describing a Vocabulary
• Vocabulary Entries
• Specifying a Rule Set
• Guidance Entries

A.2 Expressions in SBVR Structured English

This document contains numerous statements and definitions that represent corresponding logical formulations. These
statements are recognized by being fully expressed using the fonts listed below. Note that these fonts are also used for
individual designations in the context of ordinary, unformalized statements in order to note that defined concepts are being
used.

There are four font styles with formal meaning:

term The ‘term’ font is used for a designation for a noun concept (other than an individual noun concept), one that
is part of a vocabulary being used or defined (e.g., modal formulation, verb concept). This style is applied
to the designation where it is defined and wherever it is used.

Terms are usually defined using lower case letters unless they include a proper noun. Terms are defined in
singular form. Plural forms are implicitly available for use.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 235

 Name The ‘name’ font is used for a designation of an individual noun concept — a name. Names tend to be proper
nouns (e.g., California). This style is applied to a name where it is defined and wherever it is used. Note that
names of numerical values in formal statements are also shown in this style (e.g., 25). See the definition of
‘name’ for more details.

Names appear using appropriate capitalization, which is usually the first letter of each word, but not
necessarily.

verb The ‘verb’ font is used for designations for verb concepts — usually a verb, preposition, or combination
thereof. Such a designation is defined in the context of a verb concept wording. This font is used both in the
context of showing a verb concept wording (e.g.,
‘reference scheme is for concept’)
and in the context of using it in a statement (e.g.,
“Each reference scheme is for at least one concept.”)
See the definition of ‘verb concept wording’ in Part II for more details.

Verb concept wordings shown as vocabulary entries use singular, active forms of verbs with the exception
that present participles are sometimes used for characteristics. Infinitive, subjunctive, passive, and plural
forms of verbs are implicitly usable in statements and definitions. For a binary verb concept, the implicit
passive form of a verb uses the past participle of the verb preceded by the word “is” and followed by the
preposition “by.” For example, the implicit passive form of ‘expression represents meaning’ is
‘meaning is represented by expression’. The same pattern holds for verb concepts with more than two
roles where a verb is used between the first two placeholders. For example, the implicit passive form of
‘thing fills role in actuality’ is ‘role is filled by thing in actuality’. Note that there is no inverse implication
of an active form from a passive form.

keyword The ‘keyword’ font is used for linguistic symbols used to construct statements – the words that can be
combined with other designations to form statements and definitions (e.g., ‘each’ and ‘it is obligatory
that’). Key words and phrases are listed below.

Quotation marks are also in the ‘keyword’ font. The text within quotes is in ordinary font if the meaning of
the quotation is uninterpreted text. The text within quotes is in styled text if the meaning of the quotation is
formally represented. Single quotation marks are used to quote a designation or verb concept wording that
is being mentioned. If a designation is mentioned (where the designation is itself the subject of a statement)
it appears within single quote marks (e.g., ‘actuality’ and ‘California’ used to talk about those designations).
Single quotes are also used around a verb concept wording that is being mentioned (e.g., ’reference
scheme is for concept’ used to talk about that verb concept wording). Double quotation marks are used in
other cases, such as to quote a statement.

Single quotation marks are also used to mention a concept – to refer to the concept itself rather than to the
things it denotes. In this case, a quoted designation or verb concept wording is preceded by the word
‘concept’ or by a term for a kind of concept. For example, the statement,
“The concept ‘quantification’ is a category of the concept ‘logical formulation’”
refers to the named concepts, not to quantifications and logical formulations. A role can be named with
respect to a verb concept in this same way (e.g.,
“the role ‘meaning’ of the verb concept ‘expression represents meaning’”).

Periods also appear in the ‘keyword’ font. A period is used to terminate a statement, but not a definition.
Other punctuation symbols (e.g., parentheses, comma) also apply the ‘keyword’ font when part of a formal
expression.

236 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

A.2.1 Key words and phrases for logical formulations
Key words and phrases are shown below for expressing each kind of logical formulation. The letters ‘n’ and ‘m’ represent use
of a literal whole number. The letters ‘p’ and ‘q’ represent expressions of propositions.

A.2.1.1 Quantification

each universal quantification

some existential quantification

at least one existential quantification

at least n at-least-n quantification

at most one at-most-one quantification

at most n at-most-n quantification

exactly one exactly-one quantification

exactly n exactly-n quantification

at least n and at most m numeric range quantification

more than one at-least-n quantification with n = 2

A.2.1.2 Logical Operations

it is not the case that p logical negation

p and q conjunction

p or q disjunction

p or q but not both exclusive disjunction

if p then q implication

q if p implication

p if and only if q equivalence (see exception explained under Modal Operations below)

not both p and q nand formulation

neither p nor q nor formulation

p whether or not q whether-or-not formulation

Where a subject is repeated when using ‘and’ or ‘or’ the repeated subject can be elided. For example, the statement, “An
implication has an antecedent and the implication is embedded in a modal formulation,” can be abbreviated to this: “An
implication has an antecedent and is embedded in a modal formulation.” Similarly, a repeated subject and verb can be elided.
For example, the statement, “An implication has an antecedent and the implication has a consequent,” can be abbreviated to
this: “An implication has an antecedent and a consequent.”

The keyword ‘not’ is used within an expression after the verb “is” as a way of introducing a logical negation. Also, the
keywords “does not” are used before other verbs (modified to be infinitive) to introduce a logical negation.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 237

A.2.1.3 Modal Operations

it is obligatory that p obligation formulation

it is prohibited that p obligation formulation embedding a logical negation

it is necessary that p necessity formulation

it is impossible that p necessity formulation embedding a logical negation

it is possible that p possibility formulation

it is permitted that p permissibility formulation

The following key words are used within expressions having a verb to form verb complexes that add a modal operation.

… must … obligation formulation

… must not … obligation formulation embedding a logical negation

… always … necessity formulation

… never … necessity formulation embedding a logical negation

… may … permissibility formulation

The key word phrase “only if” is used in combination with some of the key words and phrases shown above to invert a
modality.

… may … only if p is equivalent to … must not … if not p

it is permitted that q only if p is equivalent to it is obligatory that not q if not p

it is possible that q only if p is equivalent to it is necessary that not q if not p

For example, the following two statements have the same meaning.

A car may be rented only if the car is available.

A car must not be rented if the car is not available.

The key word “only” can also be used before a preposition in combination with “may” to invert a modality. The noun phrase
after the preposition is then understood as a negated restriction as shown in these two equivalent statements:

A car may be rented only to a licensed driver.

A car must not be rented to a person that is not a licensed driver.

Because of the use of “only” in stating modal operations, the pattern “p if and only if q” for equivalence is not used if p
involves a modal operation.

A.2.2 Other Keywords

the 1. used with a designation to make a pronominal reference to a previous use of the same designation.
This is formally a binding to a variable of a quantification.

2. introduction of a name of an individual thing or of a definite description

238 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 a, an universal or existential quantification, depending on context based on English rules

another (used with a term that has been previously used in the same statement) existential quantification plus a
condition that the referent thing is not the same thing as the referent of the previous use of the term

a given universal quantification pushed outside of a logical formulation where ‘a given’ is used such that it
represents one thing at a time – this is used to avoid ambiguity where the ‘a’ by itself could otherwise be
interpreted as an existential quantification. Within a definition, ‘a given’ introduces an auxiliary variable
into the closed projection that formalizes the definition.

that 1. when preceding a designation for a noun concept, this is a binding to a variable (as with ‘the’).

2. when after a designation for a noun concept and before a designation for a verb concept, this is used to
introduce a restriction on things denoted by the previous designation based on facts about them.

3. when followed by a propositional statement, this is used to introduce a nominalization of the proposition
or an objectification, depending on whether the expected result is a proposition or a state of affairs.
See A.2.5.

who the same as the second use of ‘that’ but used for a person

is of The common preposition “of” is used as a shorthand for “that is of.” For any sentential form that takes the
general form of ‘<placeholder 1> has <placeholder 2>’ there is an implicit reversed form of
‘<placeholder 2> is of <placeholder 1>’ that has the same meaning.

what used to introduce a variable in a projection as well as indicate that a projection is being formulated to be
considered by a question or answer nominalization. See A.2.5 below.

A.2.3 Examples
The example above includes three key words or phrases, two designations for noun concepts and one for a verb concept (from
a verb concept wording), as illustrated below.

It is obligatory that each rental car is owned by exactly one branch.

Below are two statements of a single rule:

1. A rental must have at most three additional drivers.

2. It is obligatory that each rental has at most three additional drivers.

Using the font styles of SBVR Structured English, these rule statements are:

1. A rental must have at most three additional drivers.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 239

 2. It is obligatory that each rental has at most three additional drivers.

A semantic formulation of the rule can be seen in the introduction to Clause 9.

The characteristic ‘driver is of age’ has the following definition: “the age of the driver is at least the EU-Rent Minimum
Driving Age.” Below is the definition using the SBVR Structured English styles.
Definition: the age of the driver is at least the EU-Rent Minimum Driving Age

A semantic formulation of the definition can be seen in the introduction to Clause 9.

A.2.4 Qualifying Signifiers by Vocabulary and/or Subject Field

Some signifiers are used to mean different things in different vocabularies or in different contexts. In SBVR structured English
a signifier can be followed by parentheses enclosing the name of a vocabulary and/or a subject field. If both are present, they
are separated by a comma. Qualifications are shown in the example rules below.
Necessity: Each customer (car rental responsibility) is a corporate renter or is an individual
customer.

The signifier “customer” is used in two ways in the EU-Rent English Vocabulary. So the first rule above uses “customer” for its
meaning in the subject field ‘car rental responsibility’.

If the same rule is stated in a place where the EU-Rent English Vocabulary is not understood to be in use, the rule would be
stated as follows in order to fully qualify its terms:
Necessity: Each customer (EU-Rent English Vocabulary, car rental responsibility) is a corporate renter
(EU-Rent English Vocabulary) or is an individual customer (EU-Rent English Vocabulary).

A.2.5 Objectification and Nominalization

The keyword ‘that’ can introduce a propositional expression for either of two kinds of logical formulations: objectification
and proposition nominalization. The following examples use the verb concepts ‘car is assigned to rental, ‘car assignment
involves car’, ‘car assignment is to rental’, ‘rental has pick-up date’, and ‘rental is guaranteed by credit card’.

The first example is a structural rule statement whose logical formulation includes an objectification. It states that a car
assignment is an actuality denoted by the proposition that a given car is assigned to a given rental. Note that only the third use
of ‘that’ in the example below introduces an objectification. The others introduce restrictions
Necessity: A car assignment that involves a car and that is to a rental is an actuality that the
car is assigned to the rental.

An objectification uses a propositional expression to identify a state of affairs or event. States and events can then be related to
times and durations or be involved in any number of verb concepts that concern states or events. Consider the following
examples of verb concepts.

state of affairs occurs before point in time

state of affairs1 occurs before state of affairs2 occurs

The following rule uses the first verb concept above:

240 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

A car assignment that is to a rental must occur before the pick-up date of the rental.
SBVR Structured English supports formulating an objectification using a convenient mechanism that is based on the word
“occurs” being in the designation of a verb concept after a placeholder. An implicit form of the verb concept leaves out the
word “occurs” after the placeholder and takes a propositional expression rather than a noun expression in the position of the
placeholder. In other words, the rule above can be stated like this:

A car must be assigned to a rental before the pick-up date of the rental.
These implicit forms enable objectifying directly within a statement without separately defining a verb concept objectification
for each verb concept whose instances might be objectified. For example, using the second verb concept listed above the
following rule can be formed even though no general concept is defined to objectify the verb concept ‘rental is guaranteed
by credit card’.

A rental must be guaranteed by a credit card before a car is assigned to the rental.
The next example is a proposition nominalization. It uses the additional verb concepts ‘report specifies fact’ and ‘rental has
rental report’. The keyword ‘that’ nominalizes a fact to be specified.

If a car is assigned to a rental then the rental report of the rental must specify that the car is assigned to
the rental.
The next example is an answer nominalization. The keyword ‘what’ is used to put variables in a projection.

The rental report of each rental must specify what car is assigned to the rental.
An expression of a statement can include the keyword ‘what’ multiple times, putting more variables in the projection (for
example, “what car is assigned to what rental”). A question nominalization is formed in the same way as an answer
nominalization, but nominalizes the question itself rather than an answer to it.

A.2.6 Intensional Roles

Some verb concepts about time and change have what can be called intensional roles. Each intensional role ranges over a
concept type. In English, most verbs are about their expressed subjects and objects, but in some cases, a verb involves the
meaning of the expression of the subject or object. The verb takes its argument by name rather than by value. Verb concepts for
such verbs are often about time and change.

The SBVR Structured English uses a special syntactic clue to identify placeholders for intensional roles in verb concept
wordings. A placeholder that ends with an asterisk is taken to indicate that a noun concept nominalization is used in the
formulations of uses of the verb concept wording so that rather than binding to what is directly denoted by an expression, the
role binds to the concept of what is expressed. The asterisk is part of the placeholder. An example of a logical formulation
based on the first verb concept below is in the description of noun concept nominalization in Clause 9. Note that the
examples below are not part of the normative SBVR vocabularies.

unitary noun concept* changes

Definition: one thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary noun concept
Example: “The scheduled pick-up time of an advance rental can change”.
Example: For every rental, the pick-up location of the rental cannot change.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 241

unitary noun concept* changes to thing
Definition: the thing replaces another thing as being the instance of the unitary noun concept
Example: “The return branch of a rental changes to the Heathrow Airport branch”.

unitary quantity concept

Definition: unitary noun concept that incorporates the characteristic of being a quantity

unitary quantity concept* increases by quantity

Definition: a quantity equal to an initial quantity plus the quantity replaces the initial quantity as being the
instance of the unitary quantity concept
Example: “EU-Rent’s headcount increases by 300”.
Suppose EU-Rent’s headcount has been 500. In the formulation of the statement, the
‘unitary quantity concept*’ role binds to a general concept defined as EU-Rent’s headcount.
It does not bind to 500, which has been the instance of that general concept. The ‘quantity’
role binds to the quantity 300. The conclusion is that the quantity 800 replaces 500 as EU-
Rent’s headcount. In contrast, suppose the statement were formulated using a different verb
concept, ‘quantity1 increases by quantity2,’ which does not use an intensional role. The
‘quantity1’ role would bind to 500 leading to the conclusion that 500 increases by 300, which
is nonsense because 500 will always be 500.

A.3 Describing a Vocabulary

A vocabulary is described in a document sub clause having glossary-like entries for concepts having representations in the
vocabulary. Those entries are explained in the next sub clause. The introduction to a vocabulary description includes the
vocabulary’s name and can further include any of the several kinds of details shown in the skeleton below.

<Vocabulary Name>
Description:
Source:
Speech Community:
Language:
Included Vocabulary:
Note:

A.3.1 The Vocabulary Name

The vocabulary name appears in the ‘Name’ Font.

A.3.2 Description
The ‘Description’ caption is used to introduce the scope and purpose of the vocabulary.

242 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

A.3.3 Source
The ‘Source’ caption is used if the vocabulary being described is based on a formally-defined work. For example, if the
vocabulary being described is based on a glossary or other document developed independently of the formalisms of SBVR,
then that glossary or other document is shown as the source.

A.3.4 Speech Community

The ‘Speech Community’ caption is used to name the speech community that controls and is responsible for the vocabulary.

A.3.5 Language
The ‘Language’ caption is used to name the language that is the basis of the vocabulary. Language names are from ISO 639-2
(English). By default, English is assumed. Note that the SBVR Structured English is based only on English, so descriptions,
definitions, and other details are in English but representations being defined can be in another language.

EU-Rent Vocabulaire Française

Language: French

A.3.6 Included Vocabulary

The ‘Included Vocabulary’ caption is used to indicate that another vocabulary is fully incorporated into the vocabulary being
described. All designations and verb concept wordings of an included vocabulary are part of the vocabulary being described.

A.3.7 Note
The ‘Note’ caption labels explanatory notes that do not go under the other captions.

A.4 Vocabulary Entries

Each entry is for a single concept, called the entry concept. It starts with a primary representation which is either a designation
or a verb concept wording for the concept.

Any of several kinds of captioned details can be listed under the primary representation. A skeleton of a vocabulary entry is
shown below followed by an explanation of the use of each caption.

<primary representation>
Definition:
Source:
Dictionary Basis:
General Concept:
Concept Type:
Necessity:
Possibility:
Reference Scheme:
Note:
Example:

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 243

 Synonym:
Synonymous Form:
See:
Subject Field:
Namespace URI:

A.4.1 Designation or Verb Concept Wording

A primary representation of an entry can be a term, a name, or a verb concept wording. It is shown in its appropriate font style.
The primary representation for a general concept is a term that is a designation of the general concept. The primary
representation for an individual noun concept is a name that is a designation of the individual noun concept.

The primary representation for a verb concept is a verb concept wording. The expression of a placeholder is generally the
underlined signifier of a designation used by the placeholder to indicate that expressions substituted for the placeholder are
understood to denote instances of the designated concept. A designation used by a placeholder for a verb concept role is a
designation of a general concept that the verb concept role ranges over. That general concept can be a situational role.
Sometimes the designation of the general concept has the same signifier as a designation of the verb concept role. In the
unusual verb concept wording where multiple placeholders use the same designation, the expression of a placeholder can
include a subscript to make the expressions of placeholders distinct within the verb concept wording. Subscripts also help to
correlate placeholders across synonymous forms as shown in the example below.

concept1 specializes concept2

Definition: the concept1 incorporates each characteristic incorporated into the concept2 plus at least one
differentiator
Synonymous Form: concept2 generalizes concept1
Synonymous Form: concept1 has more general concept2
Synonymous Form: concept2 has category1

The verb concept wordings in the example above represent one verb concept that has two verb concept roles. From the
primary entry it is seen that each of the verb concept roles ranges over the concept ‘concept’. From the second synonymous
form, it is seen that the second verb concept role more specifically ranges over the general concept ‘more general concept’
(which is a situational role). From the third synonymous form, it is seen that the first verb concept role more specifically
ranges over the general concept ‘category’ (which is also a situational role).

Note: The primary representation for a verb concept is a verb concept wording rather than a designation because designations
of verb concepts typically have nonunique signifiers (e.g., “has”).

The primary representation, whether a designation or verb concept wording, is in the vocabulary namespace for the
vocabulary. Also, if a verb concept wording is of the pattern “<placeholder 1> has <placeholder 2>”, the expression of
<placeholder 2>, less any subscript, is taken as the signifier of a designation of the second verb concept role. That designation
is in an attributive namespace for the subject concept represented by the designation used for <placeholder 1>. Having a
designation for the second verb concept role in an attributive namespace means that the designation is recognized as
representing the role when it is used in the context of being attributed to instances of the subject concept. From the example
above two designations of verb concept roles are found in an attributive namespace having the subject concept ‘concept’.
These designations have the signifiers “more general concept” and “category.” Although these designations have the same
signifiers as designations of the general concepts ‘more general concept’ and ‘category’, they are different designations.
They are within the attributive namespace and represent different concepts (the verb concept roles, not the general concepts).
See examples in Clause 8 under ‘attributive namespace’. Also, if a verb concept wording is for a unary characteristic, a

244 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

designation is in an attributive namespace for the concept represented by the designation used for the verb concept wording’s
placeholder.

It is recommended that quantifiers (including articles) and logical operators not be embedded within designations and verb
concept wordings.

A.4.2 Definition
A definition is shown as an expression that can be logically substituted for the primary representation. It is not a sentence, so it
does not end in a period.

A definition can be fully formal, partly formal or informal. It is fully formal if all of it is styled as described above. A partially-
formal definition starts with a styled designation for a more general concept but other details depend on external concepts.

Styles of definition are explained separately for different types of concepts.

A.4.2.1 Definition of a General Concept

A common pattern of definition begins with a designation for a more general concept followed by the keyword ‘that’ (used in
the second sense defined for ‘that’ in the Other Keywords sub clause above) and then an expression of necessary and sufficient
characteristics that distinguish a thing of the defined concept from other things of the more general concept. Another less used
pattern also leads with a designation for a more general concept but then uses the word ‘of’ with another expression as
explained in the Other Keywords sub clause above.

Two kinds of information are formally expressed by a fully formal definition.

1. A fact that the concept being defined is a category of a particular more general concept

2. A closed projection that defines the concept.

Only the first kind of information is formally expressed by a partially formal definition. A partially formal definition leads
with a styled designation that is for a more general concept. That designation is generally followed by the keyword ‘that’ and
then an informal expression of necessary and sufficient characteristics.

The following example shows a partially formal definition. It formally expresses the fact that the concept ‘icon’ is a category
of the concept ‘nonverbal designation’, but it uses words that are external to the formally available vocabulary.

icon
Definition: nonverbal designation that is a pictorial representation

The next example is fully formal. Its formal interpretation includes that the concept ‘representation’ specializes the concept
‘actuality‘ and includes a closed projection conveying semantics of the definition.

representation
Definition: actuality that a given expression represents a given meaning

The next example is not formal at all. It defines the most general concept used by SBVR.

thing
Definition: anything perceivable or conceivable

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 245

A definition of a general concept can generally be read as a statement using the following pattern (where “a” represents either
“a” or “an”):

A <designation> is a <definition>.

For example: An icon is a nonverbal designation that is a pictorial representation.

Another style of formal definition is extensional. It uses disjunction to combine a number of concepts. For example, a
contextualized concept is anything that is a role or a facet.

contextualized concept
Definition: role or facet

A semantic formulation of the extensional definition above is the same as for the logically equivalent definition, “thing that is
a role or that is a facet.”

A.4.2.2 Definition of an Individual Noun Concept

A definition of an individual noun concept must be a definite description of one single thing. It can start with a definite article
(e.g., “the”). It can generally be read as a statement using the following pattern. The leading “The” is optionally used
depending on the designation.

[The] <designation> is <definition>.

It is often the case that an individual noun concept has no definition because it is widely understood. In such a case the
‘General Concept’ caption can be used to state the type of the named thing. Here is an example.

Switzerland
General Concept: country

A.4.2.3 Definition of a Verb Concept

A definition given for a verb concept is an expression that can be substituted for a simple statement expressed using a verb
concept wording of the verb concept.

The definition must refer to the placeholders in the verb concept wording. This is done in order to relate the definition to the
things that play a role in instances of the verb concept. Whether or not the definition is formal, each reference to a placeholder
appears in the ‘term’ font and is preceded by the definite article, “the”.

Here is an informal example followed by a fully-formal one.

statement expresses proposition

Definition: the proposition is what is meant by the statement

sequence is of general concept

Definition: each thing that is included in the sequence is an instance of the general concept

The second definition above is formal such that it translates to a closed projection.

A definition of a verb concept can generally be read using the pattern below, which is shown for a binary verb concept but
works for verb concepts of any arity (“a” represents either “a” or “an”).

246 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 A fact that a given <placeholder 1> <verb concept designation> a given <placeholder 2> is a fact that <definition>.

For example: A fact that a given statement expresses a given proposition is a fact that the proposition is what is meant by the
statement.

Similarly, the equivalence understood from a definition of a verb concept can generally be read using the following pattern:
A <placeholder 1> <verb concept designation> a <placeholder 2> if and only if <definition>.

For example: A statement expresses a proposition if and only if the proposition is what is meant by the statement.

A.4.3 Source
The ‘Source’ caption is used to indicate a source vocabulary or document for a concept.

The source’s designation for the concept is given in square brackets and quoted after the name of the source. It might or might
not match the entry’s primary representation. If the source has a name for the concept itself, the name is given in square
brackets unquoted. The designation from the source is quoted if it is a term for the concept.

thing
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.1.1) [‘object’]

individual noun concept

Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual noun concept’]

The keywords “based on” indicate the definition of the concept is largely derived from the given source but had some
modification, as in the following example.

language
Definition: system of arbitrary signals (such as voice sounds or written symbols) and rules for combining
them as used by a nation, people or other distinct community
Source: based on AH

A.4.4 Dictionary Basis

This caption labels a definition from a common dictionary that supports the use of the primary representation. The entry
source reference (written in the ‘Source’ style described above) is supplied at the end of the quoted definition. A dictionary
basis should not be interpreted as an adopted definition.

A.4.5 General Concept

The ‘General Concept’ caption can be used to indicate a concept that generalizes the entry concept. This is not needed if there
is a definition that starts with the general concept, but it is helpful in cases where a definition is not provided, such as is often
the case for individual noun concepts (named things) or concepts taken from a source. Here are two examples.

Switzerland
General Concept: country

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 247

individual noun concept
Source: ISO 1087-1 (English) (3.2.2) [‘individual noun concept’]
General Concept: concept

A.4.6 Concept Type

The ‘Concept Type’ caption is used to specify a type of the entry concept. This is typically not used if the concept has no
particular type other than what is obvious from the primary representation.

• A name is implicitly for an individual noun concept.

• Any term is implicitly for a general concept.

• A verb concept wording is implicitly for a verb concept.

• For a verb concept wording, one placeholder implies a characteristic and two placeholders imply a binary verb
concept. For example, ‘variable has type’ is implicitly for a binary verb concept.

• Where a definition formally gives a more general concept, the concept being defined specializes that more general
concept.

If more than one concept type is mentioned, then they are separated by commas. Order is insignificant.

The concept type ‘role’ is commonly used where the primary entry is a term. The example below shows that the concept
‘logical operand’ is a role that is played by a logical formulation. Since the entry concept of a term is implicitly a general
concept, the additional indication that it is a role implies that it is, by definition, a situational role.

logical operand
Concept Type: role
Definition: logical formulation upon which a given logical operation operates

Any general concept that specializes the concept ‘concept’ can be given as a concept type. The concept ‘obligation
formulation’ is a logical formulation kind, which is defined below.

logical formulation kind

Definition: concept that specializes the concept ‘logical formulation’ and that classifies a logical
formulation based on the presence or absence of a main logical operation or quantification

obligation formulation
Concept Type: logical formulation kind

A.4.7 Necessity and Possibility

A ‘Necessity’ or ‘Possibility’ is usually supplemental to a definition. A ‘Necessity’ caption is used to state something that is
necessarily true. A ‘Possibility’ caption explains that something is a possibility that is not prevented by definition. See the
vocabulary entries in Clauses 8 to 12 for ‘structural business rule statement’ and ‘unrestricted business rule possibility
statement’ (respectively) for more details.

The key phrase “it is necessary that” can be omitted from a statement of a structural rule captioned “Necessity” because it is
implied by the caption. Here are examples -- two necessity claims and one possibility claim.

248 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

representation
Necessity: Each representation has exactly one expression.
Necessity: Each representation represents exactly one meaning.

vocabulary namespace maps to package

Possibility: A vocabulary namespace maps to more than one package.

Definitions express characteristics that are necessary and sufficient to distinguish things denoted by a concept. Sometimes
there are necessities beyond what is sufficient. The ‘Necessity’ caption is used to state such necessities.

A.4.8 Reference Scheme

The ‘Reference Scheme’ caption is used to state how things denoted by the term can be distinguished from each other based on
one or more facts about the things. A reference scheme is expressed by referring to at least one role of a binary verb concept
and indicating whether a reference involves a single instance of the role or whether it involves the extension of related
instances.

An article (‘a’, ‘an’, or ‘the’) indicates a simple use of a role in which a single instance is used in a reference. The definite
article ‘the’ is only appropriate where there can be at most one instance of the role. The words ‘the set of’ indicate that the
extension is used. The word ‘and’ is used to connect the expressions of use of multiple roles by a reference scheme.

The following examples of reference schemes are taken from the SBVR Vocabularies. The first one below uses a single value
of the ‘closed logical formulation’ role of the verb concept ‘closed logical formulation means proposition’ meaning that
a proposition can be identified by any closed logical formulation whose meaning is the proposition. The second uses two verb
concept roles. It uses a definite article because each role binding has exactly one bindable target and is for exactly one
verb concept role.

proposition
Reference Scheme: a closed logical formulation that means the proposition

role binding
Reference Scheme: the bindable target that is referenced by the role binding and the verb concept role that
has the role binding

The reference scheme for the concept of reference scheme itself uses three roles extensionally.

reference scheme
Reference Scheme: the set of verb concept roles that are simply used by the reference scheme and the set
of verb concept roles that are extensionally used by the reference scheme and the set
of characteristics that are used by the reference scheme

A.4.9 Note
A ‘Note’ caption is used to label explanatory notes that do not fit within the other captions.

A.4.10 Example
The ‘Example’ caption labels examples involving the entry concept.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 249

A.4.11 Synonym
A synonym is another designation that can be substituted for the primary representation. It is a designation for the same
concept. If the primary representation is a verb concept wording, then the ‘Synonymous Form’ caption is used rather than the
‘Synonym’ caption.

The examples below show two synonyms for one concept having one definition. The preferred designation is given as the
primary representation.

implication
Definition: logical formulation that applies the logical “(MATERIALLY) IMPLIES” operation (Œ) to an
antecedent and a consequent
Synonym: material implication

The meaning of two designations being synonyms is that they represent the same concept. Each synonym is in the vocabulary
namespace of the vocabulary.

A.4.12 Synonymous Form

A synonymous form is a verb concept wording for the same verb concept. The order of placeholders for verb concept roles can
be different.

A synonymous form can appear elsewhere as its own entry. However, this is not typically done if the synonymous form is
simply a passive form of the primary representation. The following example shows a synonymous form that reverses the order
of verb concept roles. Because the synonymous form is simply a passive form of the primary representation, it does not appear
as a separate entry.

statement expresses proposition

Definition: the proposition is what is meant by the statement
Synonymous Form: proposition is expressed by statement

A synonymous form does not necessarily use the same designations for all placeholders as are used in the primary designation.
One placeholder can use a different designation. The ones using the same designation as placeholders of the primary form
represent the corresponding verb concept roles, and the one placeholder that does not match represents the remaining verb
concept role. The example below shows two entries, both for the same concept. One is expressed in terms of a role (instance)
and the other is not.

concept corresponds to thing

Definition: the thing is in the extension of the concept
Synonymous Form: concept has instance

concept has instance

Synonymous Form: concept corresponds to thing

If the same term is used for multiple placeholders, then subscripts can be used to distinguish them.

thing1 is thing2
Synonymous Form: thing1 equals thing2

250 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

The meaning of two verb concept wordings being synonymous is that the two represent the same verb concept. Each
synonymous form is in the vocabulary namespace of the vocabulary. Designations are in attributive namespaces as explained
for primary entries in A.4.1.

A.4.13 See
Where the primary representation is not a preferred representation for the entry concept, the “See:” caption introduces the
preferred representation. No definition is given in this case.

A.4.14 Subject Field

Where a signifier is not unique in a vocabulary, there is a need for qualification by a subject field. The subject field of a
designation is given using the “Subject Field” caption, as shown in the example below.

customer
Subject Field: Car Rental Responsibility
See: renter

customer
Subject Field: Vehicle Sales
Definition: person who purchases a rental car from EU-Rent at the end of its rental life

A.4.15 Namespace URI

If the primary entry is for a namespace, the ‘Namespace URI’ caption is used to indicate a URI of the namespace. If the
primary entry is for a vocabulary, the ‘Namespace URI’ caption is used to indicate a URI of a vocabulary namespace for the
vocabulary. Here is an example:

Meaning and Representation Vocabulary

General Concept: vocabulary
Namespace URI: http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/20070901/MeaningAndRepresentation

A.5 Specifying a Rule Set

SBVR Structured English uses the term ‘rule set’ to refer to any set of elements of guidance. A rule set is specified in a
document sub clause having several individual entries for guidance. Those entries are explained in the next sub clause. The
introduction to a rule set includes the rule set’s name and can further include any of the several kinds of details shown in the
skeleton below.

<Rule set name>

Description:
Vocabulary:
Note:
Source:

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 251

A.5.1 The Rule Set Name
The rule set name appears in the ‘name’ font.

A.5.2 Description
The ‘Description’ caption is used to describe the scope and purpose of the rules.

A.5.3 Vocabulary
The ‘Vocabulary’ caption is used to identify what vocabulary (defined in terms of SBVR) is used by statements in the rule set.

A.5.4 Source
The ‘Source’ caption is used if the rule set is based on a separately-defined work. It labels a reference to such a work, such as
a legal statute.

A.5.5 Note
The ‘Note’ caption is used to label explanatory notes that do not fit within the other captions.

A.6 Guidance Entries

Each entry in a rule set is an element of guidance -- expressed as one of the following:

• An operative business rule statement

• A structural business rule statement
• A statement of advice of permission
• A statement of advice of possibility

Business rules include only those rules under business jurisdiction. Entries can also be made for structural rules that are not
under business jurisdiction. Each entry includes the statement itself and optionally includes other information labeled by the
captions shown below.
<Guidance Statement>
Name:
Guidance Type:
Description:
Source:
Synonymous Statement:
Note:
Example:
Enforcement Level:

Use of each of the above captions is explained below.

252 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

A.6.1 Guidance Statement
A guidance statement can be expressed formally or informally. A statement that is formal uses only formally styled text — all
necessary vocabulary is available (by definition or adoption) such that no external concepts are required. Such a statement can
be formulated as a logical formulation.

A.6.2 Name
The ‘Name’ caption is used to specify a name for the element of guidance. The name is then part of the formal vocabulary.

A.6.3 Guidance Type

The ‘Guidance Type’ caption is used to indicate the kind of element of guidance (i.e., one of the following):

• operative business rule

• structural business rule
• advice of permission
• advice of possibility
• advice of optionality
• advice of contingency

A.6.4 Description
The ‘Description’ caption is used to capture the expression of the element of guidance informally (as supplied by a business
user).

A.6.5 Source
The ‘Source’ caption is used if the guidance is from a separate source. It labels a reference to that source.

A.6.6 Synonymous Statement

The ‘Synonymous Statement’ caption is used to state additional, equivalent statements of the guidance. For example, a given
rule can be expressed in a ‘prohibitive’ form and also in an ‘obligatory’ form. As for the primary statement of the guidance,
these additional statements can be formal or informal.

A.6.7 Note
The ‘Note’ caption is used to label explanatory notes that do not fit within the other captions.

A.6.8 Example
The ‘Example’ caption labels examples of application of the element of guidance.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 253

A.6.9 Enforcement Level
The ‘Enforcement Level’ caption labels the enforcement level that applies to an operative business rule (only).

254 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Annex B - SBVR Structured English Patterns
(informative)

B.1 General
This annex contains material compiled to aid the interpretation of ‘SBVR in SBVR Structured English’ vocabulary entries, as
documented in Annex A and applied in the text and diagram forms of Part II and Annex G. This ‘language patterns’ material
falls into two main categories:

• reading SBVR Vocabulary designations

• reading verb concepts embedded in the definition text of SBVR Vocabulary designations.

A third sub clause contains the brief discussion of a useful pattern that, while not often applied in the text of Part II, is
illustrated in Annex G (and, in particular, in the “10 Introductory Examples” given there and in the RuleSpeak and ORM
Annexes). This discussion introduces the use of a ‘short form’ verb concept that can be used to simplify the formulation and
representation of vocabularies and sets of elements of guidance.

When there is an associated way to depict the construct in a graphic notation, a cross-reference is provided, when applicable,
to the ‘Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to Represent SBVR-based Vocabularies’ (Annex C) -- referred to here as
the ‘UML style’ -- and to the ‘Concept Diagram Graphic Notation (Annex I)’ -- referred to here as the ‘CDG style’.

B.2 Reading SBVR Vocabulary Designations

This sub clause presents the interpretation given to three kinds of designations:

• Terms
• Names
• Verb symbols

B.2.1 Primary Term for a General Concept

When I see a vocabulary entry as shown in Figure B.1, I know to vocalize it as:

‘community’ is a term for a general concept. And it is the ‘primary’ term used for the
concept.

Figure B.1 - Recognizing an entry that is the primary term for a general concept

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.2 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.2 in Annex I).

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 255

Commentary:

This is a typical designation kind of entry presented as a ‘term’ -- the primary term for a general concept. For this kind of
entry, draw a labeled box.

It is possible to have additional terms for a given general concept (i.e., terms that are synonyms). Even when documented in
the text form (using the ‘Synonym’ caption), the non-primary terms of a concept are not typically reflected on the graphic.
When it is considered useful to make explicit entries for the non-primary terms in a presentation of the vocabulary, the non-
primary terms can appear using the ‘See’ caption to refer back to the concept’s primary term.

B.2.2 Primary Name for an Individual Noun Concept

When I see a vocabulary entry as shown in Figure B.2, I know to vocalize it as:

‘Real-world numerical correspondence’ is a term that is a name for an individual noun

concept. And it is the primary name used for the concept.

Figure B.2 - Recognizing an entry that is the primary name for an individual noun concept

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.3 (UML style). There is no specified way to depict this in the CDG graphic notation.

Commentary:

This is a typical designation kind of entry presented as a ‘name’ -- the primary name for an individual noun concept. For this
kind of entry, draw a labeled box, with the ‘name’ underlined.

It is possible to have additional names for a given individual noun concept (i.e., names that are synonyms). Even when
documented in the text form (using the ‘Synonym’ caption), the non-primary terms of a concept are not typically reflected on
the graphic. When it is considered useful to make explicit entries for the non-primary names in a presentation of the
vocabulary, the non-primary names can appear using the ‘See’ caption to refer back to the concept’s primary name.

B.2.3 Primary Reading (‘Sentential Form’) for a Verb Concept

B.2.3.1 Primary Reading (‘Sentential Form’) for a Verb Concept -- Binary Verb Concept

When I see a vocabulary entry as shown in Figure B.3, I know to vocalize it as:

There is a verb concept relating these two concepts and it uses the designation ‘shares
understanding of’ when the concept terms are in this order. Optionally, alternative readings
can be provided using the ‘Synonymous Form’ caption (as illustrated at the bottom of Figure
B.3).

256 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Figure B.3- Recognizing an entry that is the primary reading for a binary verb concept

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.4.1 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.4.1 in Annex I). There is a special case
of depicting a binary verb concept that uses ‘has’ in the UML style. For how to depict this in graphics, see C.4.2 (UML style).
There is no special way to depict this in the CDG graphic notation.

Commentary:

This is a typical sentential form kind of entry for a verb concept -- in this case, a binary verb concept. For this kind of entry,
draw a labeled line between the boxes for the designations of the participating concepts. The reading is clockwise (when the
tool does not provide a graphic symbol for indicating the directionality of the reading).

It is possible to have additional readings for a given verb concept (i.e., readings that are ‘synonymous forms’ of the verb
concept). Additional readings are optional in both the graphic and text forms. When defined in the text form, the
‘Synonymous Form’ caption is used. Even when provided in the text, more than one reading is not typically reflected on the
graphic. However, having inverse readings on an association would be an extension to UML. (This can be handled legally by
defining a ‘UML profile’, which allows additional information and custom graphics in a model.)

An alternative graphic style is to apply the n-ary graphic style (described below) for all verb concepts, including binary.

B.2.3.2 Primary Reading (‘Sentential Form’) for a Verb Concept -- N-ary Verb Concept

When I see a vocabulary entry as shown in Figure B.4, I know to vocalize it as:

There is a ternary verb concept relating these three concepts, using ‘is replaced by ... in’
when the verb concept uses these terms for the concepts in this sequence.

Figure B.4 - Recognizing an entry that is the primary reading for an n-ary verb concept

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.4.3 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.4.2 in Annex I).

Commentary:

This is a sentential form kind of entry for a verb concept -- in this case, an n-ary verb concept. For this kind of entry, there are
two diagrams forms. The first diagram is the box-in-box style as defined in Annex I, sub clause I.4.2. The second diagram
(UML-style) uses a box, given a stereotype that names the category of verb concept, and a label that reflects the primary
reading for the verb concept. The concept terms are placed in [ ].

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 257

 Note-1: The label in the UML form does not use the UML association ‘name’; the UML association ‘name’ is
reserved for use as a ‘real’ name.
Note-2: While suggestions have been given for depicting multiple readings on a diagram, showing additional
readings for n-ary verb concepts is not currently part of the scope of this documentation.

B.2.3.3 Primary Reading (‘Sentential Form’) for a Verb Concept -- Characteristic

When I see a vocabulary entry as shown in Figure B.5, I know to vocalize it as:

There is a characteristic for this concept, with a designation of ‘is damaged’.

Figure B.5 - Recognizing an entry that is the primary reading for a characteristic

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.4.4 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.4.3 in Annex I).

Commentary:

This is a sentential form kind of entry for a verb concept -- in this case, a characteristic. For this kind of entry, the two graphic
notations use different forms. The first diagram above shows the box-in-box style as defined in Annex I (sub clause I.4.3 in
Annex I). For the UML-style, three alternatives are offered:

1. List the designation inside the box (‘attribute’ style).

2. Draw in the same style as for an n-ary verb concept (above).

3. Draw using the association ‘diamond’.

NOTE: The notation for characteristic would be an extension to UML, handled legally by defining a ‘UML profile’.

B.2.3.4 Two Vocabulary Entries (Sentential Form and Term) for a Concept

When I see a pair of vocabulary entries as shown in , I know to vocalize this case as:

These two entries are for coextensive concepts. I understand that, even though these are
two entries in the vocabulary, they have the same instances.

Figure B.6- Recognizing a pair of entries (sentential form and term) for a concept

\rented car is recovered from non-EU-Rent site to branch

car recovery
Definition: actuality that a given rented car is recovered from a given non-EU-Rent site to a given
branch

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.9 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.4.4 in Annex I).

258 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

B.3 Reading Embedded Connections
There are also connections that are specified when the SBVR Structured English language is used to compose the definition of
a vocabulary entry. The material in this sub clause documents the most common patterns used in writing vocabulary entry
definitions using the elements of style defined in Annex C.

The following seven patterns have been documented.

• categorization
• is-role-of proposition
• is-facet-of proposition
• partitive verb concept
• classification (‘predefined extension’)
• categorization type
• categorization scheme

B.3.1 Categorization
When I see this:

semantic community
Definition: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things
that they have to deal with

I know this is shorthand for:

semantic community
Concept Type: category
Definition: community whose unifying characteristic is a shared understanding (perception) of the things
that they have to deal with

I know to vocalize it as:

The concept ‘semantic community’ is a ‘category’ of the more general concept ‘community’.
Furthermore, I know that what distinguishes this particular kind of community from the
general case is that it is ... <distinctions brought out in the rest of the definition>

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.6 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.3.1 in Annex I).

B.3.2 Is-role-of Proposition

When I see this:

renter
Concept Type: role
Definition: driver who ...

I know to vocalize it as:

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 259

 The concept ‘renter’ is a role that can be played by a driver, specifically one who ...
<distinctions brought out in the rest of the definition>

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.5 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.5 in Annex I). The CDG style does not
distinguish the various ways to depict roles as in the UML style (see treatment in C.5.1, C.5.2, and C.5.3).

B.3.3 Is-facet-of Proposition

When I see this:

driver
Concept Type: facet
Definition: person who ...

I know to vocalize it as:

The concept ‘driver’ is a facet (or aspect) of person, specifically just those characteristics of ‘person’
relevant to ... <distinctions brought out in the rest of the definition>

How to depict this in graphics, (UML style) is illustrated in the EU-Rent Annex (see Annex G), in the “Customers”
Vocabulary sub clause.

B.3.4 Partitive Verb Concept

When I see this:

body of shared meanings1 contains body of shared meanings2

Concept Type: partitive verb concept
Definition: the body of shared meanings includes everything in another body of shared meanings

body of shared meanings includes body of shared concepts

Concept Type: partitive verb concept

I know to vocalize it as:

A body of shared meanings contains other bodies of shared meanings.

A body of shared meanings includes bodies of shared concepts.

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.8 (UML style). There is no specified way to depict this in the CDG graphic notation.

vocabulary1 incorporates vocabulary2

Concept Type: partitive verb concept
Definition: the vocabulary1 includes each symbol that is included in the vocabulary2
Note: When more than one vocabulary is included, a hierarchy of inclusion can provide priority for
selection of definitions.
vocabulary2 is incorporated into vocabulary1

260 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

vocabulary includes symbol
Concept Type: partitive verb concept
symbol is included in vocabulary
I know to vocalize it as:

A vocabulary incorporates (another) vocabulary.

A vocabulary includes symbols.

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.8 (UML style). There is no specified way to depict this in the CDG graphic notation.

B.3.5 Classification (‘Predefined Extension’)

When I see this:

Canada
General Concept: country

I know to vocalize it as:

Canada is an instance of the concept ‘country’

(or, ‘Canada’ is a designation of an individual country)

For how to depict this in graphics, see the discussion of ‘Primary Name for an Individual Noun Concept’ above.

Typically, this kind of entry is simply ‘indicated’ (or perhaps ‘adopted’), with no definition. However, when a definition is
written, its styling can specify the general concept, in which case, the ‘General Concept’ caption can be omitted. For example,
the entry below defines ‘Car Rental Industry’ to be an instance of ‘semantic community’.

Car Rental Industry

Definition: the semantic community that is the group of people who work in the business of renting cars

Commentary:

When you find this pattern, draw it in the UML style using UML’s arrow style for ‘instantiation’. The notation has been
adapted from standard UML notation to make it more ‘business friendly’. For example, in UML, in instance (‘object’) would
be labeled as, Canada: country. Predefined extension instances are not typically depicted in the box-in-box style.

B.3.6 Categorization Type

When I see this:

branch type
Definition: concept that specializes the concept ‘branch’ and that classifies a branch based on its
hours of operation and car storage capacity

city branch
Concept Type: branch type
Definition: branch that operates in a city

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 261

I know to vocalize it as:

The concept ‘branch type’ has instances that are certain categories of the concept ‘branch.’

The concept ‘city branch’ is a category of the concept ‘branch.’

The concept ‘city branch’ is a ‘branch type.’

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.7.2 (UML style). There is no specified way to depict this in the CDG graphic
notation.

Commentary:

When you find this pattern -- a ‘Definition’ caption that begins,

concept that specializes the concept ‘other-concept’ and that classifies an other-concept based on...
-- it is a compact, textual way to say multiple things, as follows:

1. that the mentioned other-concept has categories for which the other-concept is the more general concept, and
2. that the entry being defined is itself a category of concept, one whose instances are the categories of the mentioned
more general concept.

Furthermore, the vocabulary entries for the certain category include a ‘Concept Type:’ caption that mentions the categorization
type. For example, the vocabulary entry for ‘city branch’ mentions ‘branch type’ as its Concept Type.

B.3.7 Categorization Scheme

When I see this:

Branches by Type
Description: segmentation that is for branch and subdivides branch based on branch type
Necessity: Branches by Type contains the categories ‘airport branch’ and ‘city branch’ and ‘agency’.

agency
Definition: branch that does not have a EU-Rent location and has minimal car storage and has
on-demand operation
Necessity: agency is included in Branches by Type.

airport branch
Definition: branch that has a EU-Rent location and has large car storage and has 24-7 operation
Necessity: airport branch is included in Branches by Type.

city branch
Definition: branch that has a EU-Rent location and has moderate car storage and has long
business hours
Necessity: city branch is included in Branches by Type.

I know to vocalize it as:

262 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 ‘Branches by Type’ is the name of a categorization scheme (or, in this case, a ‘segmenta-
tion’, which is a restricted case of categorization scheme). This scheme is for the general
concept ‘branch’, presenting the instances of branch as divided into the categories that
make up the scheme, according to the stated criteria. Each category’s entry indicates being
part of the scheme.

For how to depict this in graphics, see C.7.1 (UML style) and CDG style (sub clause I.3.2 in Annex I).

Commentary:

When you find this pattern -- under a ‘name’ designation with a ‘Definition’ caption that begins,
the categorization scheme that is for the concept ‘mentioned-other-concept’ and subdivides mentioned-other-
concept based on...
or
the segmentation that is for the concept ‘mentioned-other-concept’ and subdivides
mentioned-other-concept based on...
-- it is a compact, textual way to say multiple things, as follows:

1. that the entry being defined is a categorization scheme (or a categorization scheme that is a segmentation), and

2. that the mentioned concept is the concept that is the scheme is for.

Furthermore, each vocabulary entry for one of the categories in the scheme identifies itself as part of the scheme
using a ‘Necessity’ caption. (Note that a category can be part of more than one scheme.)

B.4 Defining a Verb Concept for Convenience

The development of vocabularies and sets of elements of guidance often calls for trade-offs of redundancy (in the sense of
defining a concept both directly and indirectly) against simplification of formulation and representation. Consider, for
example, the first of the ten introductory examples presented in Annex A.2.4:

It is necessary that each rental has exactly one requested car group.

This is easy to grasp. Now, consider the full form of this rule if the rule were based solely on a sparse EU-Rent vocabulary.
The rule would then be as follows:

It is necessary that each rental has exactly one car group that is specified in the car movement that
is included in the rental.

As this simple example demonstrates, the full form of a rule (or advice) can become quite verbose when several verb concepts
are involved.

The compact form of this rule makes use of the short form verb concept ‘rental has requested car group’, a redundant
concept that has been created for the purpose of simplification of formulation and representation. This verb concept specifies
its instances as being derived from (equivalent to) the concatenation of other verb concepts -- the verbose form -- as illustrated
by the following entry that specifies the concept:

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 263

rental has requested car group
Necessity: A rental has a requested car group if and only if the requested car group is the car
group that is specified in the car movement that is included in the rental.

This technique is particularly useful when the short form verb concept is used in a number of elements of guidance. For
another example, from Annex G, the verb concept ‘rented car is assigned to rental’ is a basis element for three of the ten
introductory examples.

Note, however, the choice to apply this pattern is a matter of practice. Decisions on reuse and redundancy are business
decisions made by the semantic community (here, EU-Rent) to help it manage its body of shared meanings and vocabularies.

264 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Annex C - Use of UML Notation in a Business Context to
Represent SBVR-Style Vocabularies
(informative)

C.1 General
A purpose of the UML diagrams in Clauses 8 through 12 and Annex E is to display a vocabulary graphically. This kind of
UML model is commonly called a ‘Business Object Model’ (BOM). Note that diagrams in Clauses 8 through 12 also show
SBVR’s MOF-based metamodel using an interpretation explained in Clause 13. The vocabulary interpretation described
below and the MOF interpretation explained in Clause 13 use the same diagrams, but the two interpretations should not be
confused. The two interpretations are based on different profiles.

A BOM is commonly used to convey a business vocabulary (e.g., the SBVR vocabulary) so its use should be familiar. The
diagrams do not show any special stereotypes as long as conventions are explained. This Annex provides that explanation.

C.2 General Concept (Noun Concept)

The primary term for a concept that is not a role, individual noun concept, or verb concept is shown as a class (rectangle). The
rectangle is labeled with the concept’s primary term, written just as the entry term would appear in a presentation of the
vocabulary.

If there are additional terms for the concept they can be added within the rectangle, labeled as such (e.g., “also: is-category-of
verb concept” as depicted in Figure C.1).

Figure C.1 - Two general concepts

C.3 Individual Noun Concept (Noun Concept)

The name given to an individual noun concept is shown as an instance specification (rectangle). The name is followed by a
colon and then by the term for its general concept. This text string is underlined within the rectangle.

While it is possible to have additional names for a given individual noun concept (i.e., names that are synonyms), the non-
primary names of an individual noun concept are not typically reflected on the diagram. Figure C.2 depicts two individual
noun concepts.

Figure C.2 - Two individual noun concepts

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 265

Alternatively, an individual noun concept can be depicted as an instance of its related general concept (noun concept), as in
Figure C.3.

Figure C.3- Three individual noun concepts as instances of the related general concept

C.4 Verb Concepts

Use of the UML association notation works well for representing verb concepts in an SBVR-based vocabulary diagram.
However, it is important to remember that an SBVR verb concept is not an association. A verb concept is a classifier that has
particular semantics.
Issue # 15623: revise text

C.4.1 Binary Verb Concepts

The verb concept wording of a binary verb concept, other than one using ‘has’, is shown as an association (a line between
rectangles). If there is another verb concept wording for the verb concept that is read in the opposite direction, only the active
form of the wording is needed if the other wording is the normal passive form for the same verb.

Alternatively, both wordings can be shown, one above the line and the other below. Either the ‘clockwise reading rule’ or a
solid triangle as an arrow can be used to show the direction of reading. C.4 illustrates three alternative presentations of a binary
verb concept.

266 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Figure C.4 - Three alternatives for presenting a binary verb concept

C.4.2 Binary Verb Concepts using ‘has’

For each verb concept wording using ‘has’, the second role name is shown as an association end name. The verb ‘has’ is not
shown on the diagram when giving an association end name. Each association end name in a diagram expresses a designation
of a verb concept role. An end name implies ‘has’ as shown in Figure C.5. Any verb phrase shown is assumed to be usable
without the end name.

Figure C.5- Depicting the verb concept ‘cash rental has lowest rental price’

When a binary verb concept’s wording uses ‘has’ and there is no specialized role, the second role name is still reflected on the
diagram in this consistent way (on the line adjacent to the rectangle) and ‘has’ is not displayed. This is illustrated in Figure
C.6.

Figure C.6- Depicting the verb concept ‘branch has country’

C.4.3 Verb Concepts with Arity of 3 or more

For verb concepts with more than two roles, the UML association notation is used. The primary verb concept wording is
shown, with the placeholders underlined as shown in Figure C.7.

Figure C.7- Depicting a verb concept with arity of three

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 267

C.4.4 Characteristics
UML associations only apply to binary and higher-arity. Ordinarily a characteristic is transformed into a UML Boolean
attribute, as shown in Figure C.8.

Figure C.8- Depicting the characteristic ‘advance rental is assigned’ as a Boolean attribute

However, the SBVR characteristic is more accurately modeled in UML using an alternative style, which applies the same
conventions described in sub clause H.4.3, adapted for the unary case shown in Figure C.9.

Figure C.9- Depicting the characteristic ‘advance rental is assigned’ using association notation

C.5 Roles
Note that a ‘role’ in SBVR is a concept in its own right.

C.5.1 Role depicted as an Association End Name

A term for a role is typically shown as an association end name. Multiple appearances of the same role name coming into the
same class imply a more general ‘role’ concept as well as the specific roles shown.

Note: Figure C.10 shows two verb concept wordings for the same verb concept (see also sub clause C.4.2).
speech community uses vocabulary
vocabulary has audience

Figure C.10- Depicting a role as an association end name

C.5.2 Role depicted using UML Stereotyping

Since a ‘role’ in SBVR is a concept in its own right it can also be depicted as a class (rectangle), with UML stereotyping used
to denote the general concept that it ranges over. As illustrated in C.11, the stereotype <<role>> can be reflected for the class
or the generalization line can use the stereotype <<is-role-of>>.

268 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Figure C.11- Depicting a role as a class, with stereotyping

Issue # 15623: replace text

C.5.3 Term for a Role in a Verb Concept Wording

When a term for a role is used in a verb concept wording, and that wording is not an attributive form (e.g., “a has b”), then the
term for the role needs to be shown. It is not shown as an association end because that would imply an attribute form (e.g.,
“has”). Instead, the term for the role is underlined and shown, along with the verbal part of the verb concept wording.

Figure C.12 gives an example. In the verb concept “rental incurs late return charge” (from EU-Rent), ‘late return charge’ is a
term for a role -- the general concept is ‘penalty charge’. Rather than put “incurs” on the association line connecting “rental”
to “penalty charge,” the text on the line incorporates the term for the role and reads, “incurs late return charge.”

Figure C.12- Example of a term for a role in a verb concept wording

C.6 Generalizations
Generalizations are shown in the normal UML way as shown in Figure C.13.

Figure C.13- Two examples of generalization

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 269

C.7 Categorization
C.7.1 Categories and Categorization Schemes
A set of mutually-exclusive categories can be depicted by bringing the generalization lines together, as shown on the left in
Figure C.14. Contrast that with the diagram on the right which reflects two independent specializations -- i.e., a community
can be both a semantic community and a speech community. Optionally, the name of a categorization scheme can be assigned
to the set of categories, e.g., ‘Rentals by Payment Type’.

Figure C.14- Depicting mutually-exclusive categories vs. independent specializations

C.7.2 Categories and Categorization Types (Concept Types)

Use of UML powertype notation is not typical, but it can be used to show the categories specified by a categorization type
(concept type). Note that the second diagram in C.15 illustrates a named categorization scheme (‘Branches by Type’) which is
related to the categorization type ‘branch type.’

270 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

Figure C.15- Two examples of depicting the categories specified by a categorization type

C.8 Partitive Verb Concept

UML aggregation notation is used to represent partitive verb concepts.

The diagram on the left of Figure C.16 shows the verb concept wordings for the partitive verb concepts that ‘body of shared
meanings’ is involved in.
body of shared meanings includes body of shared concepts
body of shared meanings includes body of shared guidance
The diagram on the left of Figure C.16 also illustrates the verb concept wordings for the partitive verb concepts that ‘body of
shared meanings’ is involved in.
body of shared meanings1 contains body of shared meanings2

Note that the subscripts in the verb concept wording are not reflected on the diagram.

As the diagrams of Figure C.16 illustrate, reflecting the verb phrase of a partitive verb concept on the diagram is optional.

Figure C.16- Two examples of partitive verb concept

Issue # 16491: replace text

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 271

C.9 Verb Concept Objectification
Where a general concept objectifies a verb concept, an association class is used to depict the general concept, as shown in
Figure C.17. A dashed line connects the association line for the verb concept with the box for the noun concept. A binary verb
concept is shown in a similar fashion, with the dashed line connecting to the binary association line.

Figure C.17- Depicting verb concept objectification

C.10 Multiplicities
Multiplicities are typically not shown. However, display of UML multiplicity is a diagram-level option. When UML
multiplicity is used on a diagram (as a whole), this element is used to depict a formally-stated alethic necessity of a particular
multiplicity. UML multiplicity is used for no other case. In a diagram that uses UML multiplicity, the default assumption for
an unannotated association end is ‘*’ (which is interpreted as ‘0 or more’ -- i.e., unconstrained).

272 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

 Annex D - Additional References
(informative)

D.1 Bibliography / Normative References

[AH] American Heritage Dictionary.

[Anto2001] Antonelli, A. Non-Monotonic Logic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001. Available from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/

[Bloe1996] Bloesch, A.C., and Terry A. Halpin. “ConQuer: a Conceptual Query Language”. In Proc. ER’96: 15th
Int. Conf. on Conceptual Modeling, 121-133: Springer LNCS, 1996. Available from
http://www.orm.net/pdf/ER96.pdf

[Bloe1997] ________. “Conceptual Queries using ConQuer-II”. In Proc. ER’97: 16th Int. Conf. on Conceptual
Modeling, 113-126: Springer LNCS, 1997. Available from http://www.orm.net/pdf/ER97-final.pdf

[BMM] Business Rules Group. The Business Motivation Model ~ Business Governance in a Volatile World. 1.2
ed., Sept. 2005. Originally published as Organizing Business Plans ~ The Standard Model for Business Rule
Motivation, Nov. 2000. Available from http://www.BusinessRulesGroup.org

[BRM] Business Rules Group. Ronald G. Ross, ed. Business Rules Manifesto ~ The Principles of Rule
Independence. 1.2 ed. The Business Rules Group, 2003. Updated Jan. 8, 2003. PDF. Available from
http://www.BusinessRulesGroup.org/brmanifesto.htm

[BRG2002] Business Rules Group. Defining Business Rules ~ What Are They Really? 4th ed., July 2002.
Originally published as GUIDE Business Rules Project Report, 1995. Available from http://
www.BusinessRulesGroup.org

[BRJ2005] Editors of BRCommunity.com. “A Brief History of the Business Rule Approach”. The Business Rules
Journal 6, no. 1 (2005). Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b216.html

[CDP] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

[CSILL] Cognitive Science Initiative: Language Lexicon. University of Houston. Available from
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/COGSCI/lang/Entries/

[Dean1997] Dean, Neville. The Essence of Discrete Mathematics, The Essence of Computing Series: Prentice-
Hall, 1997.

[Fitt2002 (or TTGG)] Fitting, Melvin. Types, Tableaus, and Gödel’s God, Trends in Logic, Studia Logica Library.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

[Girl2000 (or MLP)] Girle, Rod A. Modal Logics and Philosophy: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 273

[Halp1989 (or HALT89)] Halpin, Terry A. “A Logical Analysis of Information Systems: Static Aspects of the
Data-oriented Perspective”. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Queensland, 1989.

[Halp1998] ________. “Object-Role Modeling (ORM/NIAM)”. In Handbook on Architectures of Information

Systems. Heidelberg: Springer, 1998.

[Halp2000] ________. Object-Role Modeling: An Overview. San Francisco: Springer, 2000. Available from
http://www.orm.net/pdf/springer.pdf

[Halp2001 (or IMRD)] ________. Information Modeling and Relational Databases. San Francisco: Morgan
Kaufmann, 2001.

[Halp2003a] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 1”. The Business Rules Journal 4, no. 4 (2003).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2003/b138.html

[Halp2003b] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 2”. The Business Rules Journal 4, no. 6 (2003).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2003/b152.html

[Halp2003c] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 3”. The Business Rules Journal 4, no. 8 (2003).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2003/b163.html

[Halp2003d] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 4”. The Business Rules Journal 4, no. 10 (2003).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2003/b172.html

[Halp2004 (or HALT2004)] ________. “Information Modeling and Higher-Order Types”. In Proc. CAiSE'04
Workshops, eds. J. Grundspenkis and M. Kirkova, 1, 233-248: Riga Tech. University, 2004. Available from
http://www.orm.net/pdf/EMMSAD2004.pdf

[Halp2004b] ________. “Business Rule Verbalization”. In Lecture Notes in Informatics, eds. A. Doroshenko, Terry
A. Halpin and S. Liddle, P-48, 39-52. Salt Lake City: Proc. ISTA-2004, 2004.

[Halp2004c] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 5”. The Business Rules Journal 5, no. 2 (2004).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b179.html

[Halp2004d] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 6”. The Business Rules Journal 5, no. 4 (2004).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b183.html

[Halp2004e] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 7”. The Business Rules Journal 5, no. 7 (2004).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b198.html

[Halp2004f] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 8”. The Business Rules Journal 5, no. 9 (2004).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b205.html

[Halp2004g] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 9”. The Business Rules Journal 5, no. 12 (2004).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b215.html

[Halp2005a] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 10”. The Business Rules Journal 6, no. 4 (2005).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b229.html

274 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

[Halp2005b] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 11”. The Business Rules Journal 6, no. 6 (2005).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b238.html

[Halp2005c] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 12”. The Business Rules Journal 6, no. 10 (2005).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b252.html

[Halp2005d] ________. “Verbalizing Business Rules: Part 13”. The Business Rules Journal 6, no. 12 (2005).
Available from http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b261.html

[Halp1981 (or DL)] Halpin, Terry A., and Rod A. Girle. Deductive Logic. 2nd ed. Brisbane: Logiqpress, 1981.

[Hunt1971 (or META)] Hunter, Geoffrey. An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic:
University of California Press, 1971.

[IETF RFC 2396] Berners-Lee, Tim, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter. Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
Syntax. The Internet Society, 1998. Updated August 1998. Available from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

[ISO6093] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Information processing - Representation of

numerical values in character strings for information interchange. ISO, 1985.

[ISO704] ________. Terminology work - Principles and Methods. English ed.: ISO, 2000.

[ISO1087-1] ________. Terminology work - Vocabulary - Part 1: Theory and Application. English/French ed.:
ISO, 2000.

[ISO860] ________. Terminology work - Harmonization of Concepts and Terms. ISO, 1996.

[ISO639-2] ________. Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages-- Part 2: Alpha-3 Code. Library of
Congress, 2002. Available from http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html

[ISO/IEC CD 24707] ________. Information technology -- Common Logic (CL) -- A Framework for a Family of
Logic-Based Languages: ISO, 2005. Available from
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=39175

[Levi1983 (or LEVS)] Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics: Cambridge
University Press, 1983.

[MATH] PlanetMath.org. Available from http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia

[Mend1997 (or MEN97)] Mendelson, Elliott. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. 4th ed.: Chapman & Hall, 1997.

[MWCD] Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary.

[MWDS] Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Synonyms.

[MWU] Merriam-Webster Unabridged.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 275

[Nijs1977] Nijssen, Sjir. “On the Gross Architecture for the Next Generation Database Management Systems.” In:
Proc. IFIP’77, 1977 IFIP Working Conf. on Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, ed. B. Gilchrist, 327-
335: North Holland Publishing Company, 1977.

[Nijs1978] ________. “A Framework for Discussion.” In: ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3 and comments on 78.04/01 and
78.05/03, 1-144.

[Nijs1980] ________. “A Framework for Advanced Mass Storage Applications.” In: Proc. IFIP MEDINFO’80,
3rd World Conference on Medical Informatics: North Holland Publishing Company, 1980.

[Nijs1986] ________. “On Experience with Large-scale Teaching and Use of Fact-Based Conceptual Schemas in
Industry and University.” In: Proc. DS-1’85: IFIP WG 2.6 Working Conference on Data Semantics, eds. T.B. Steel
and R. Meersman, 189-204: North Holland Publishing Company, 1986.

[Nijs2006] Nijssen, Sjir, and R. Bijlsma. “A Conceptual Structure of Knowledge as a Basis for Instructional
Designs.” In: Proc. ICALT’06, IEEE: 6th Int. Conf. on Advanced Learning Technologies, eds. R. Kinshuk, P.
Koper, P. Kommers, D. Kirschner, G. Sampson, and W.E. Didderen, 7-9: IEEE, 2006.

[NODE] The New Oxford Dictionary of English.

[Nolt1998 (or LSO)] Nolt, John, Dennis Rohatyn, and Achille Varzi. Logic. 2nd ed., Schaum's Outlines. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1998.

[ODE] Oxford Dictionary of English.

[OSM] Organizational Structure Metamodel: OMG, 2005.

[Peik (or PEIL)] Peikoff, Leonard. “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”. In Rand1990, 88-121.

[Rand1990 (or RANA90)] Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. expanded 2nd ed. New York:
Meridian, 1990.

[Ross1997] Ross, Ronald G. The Business Rule Book -- Classifying, Defining and Modeling Rules. 2nd ed.
Houston, TX: Business Rule Solutions, Inc., 1997. Originally published as The Business Rule Book (1st Ed.), 1994.
Available from http://www.BRSolutions.com

[Ross2003] ________. Principles of the Business Rule Approach. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2003. Available
from http://www.BRSolutions.com

[Ross2005] ________. Business Rule Concepts: Getting to the Point of Knowledge. 2nd ed.: Business Rule
Solutions, LLC, 2005. Available from http://www.BRSolutions.com

[RuleSpeak] Business Rule Solutions. BRS RuleSpeak® Practitioner’s Kit. Business Rule Solutions, LLC, 2001-
2004. PDF. Available from http://BRSolutions.com/p_rulespeak.php

[SEP] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the
Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/

276 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2

[SOED] Shorter Oxford Dictionary of English.

[Sowa] . “Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics”. John Sowa Ontology Website.

Available from http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/ontometa.htm

[SubePLTS (or PLTS)] Suber, Peter. Propositional Logic Terms and Symbols. Philosophy Department, Earlham
College, 1997. Available from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms2.htm

[SubeGFOL (or GFOL)] ________. Glossary of First-Order Logic. Philosophy Department, Earlham College,
1999-2002. Available from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/glossary.htm

[UML2infr] Object Management Group (OMG). Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure. Ver. 2.0: OMG.

[Unicode4] “The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0.0”. In The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0. Boston, MA: Addison-
Wesley, 2003. Available from http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/b1.pdf

[USG] The Unicode Consortium. Glossary of Unicode Terms. 1991-205. Updated Nov. 17 2004. Available from
http://www.unicode.org/glossary/

[W3ID] Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary.

[WD] Webster’s Dictionary.

[XMI2.1] XML Metadata Interchange (XMI). Ver. 2.1: OMG.

Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2 277

278 Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules, v1.2