Talk:Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules

Discussion

In the article, an example is given of a derivation rule (this example also appears in the SBVR standard itself): "Each FemaleAustralian is a Person who was born in Country ‘Australia’ and has Gender ‘Female’". This example is not strictly correct since the term Australian is not restricted to those born in Australia but includes also those born outside Australia but who have subsequently been granted Australian citizenship. GrahamWitt (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But there is no right or wrong in this matter. A business rule defines what is under a jurisdiction of a business. The rule in question is therefore a statement, Let's define a FemaleAustralian as ....

I disagree with this comment. SBVR claims to use natural language. That should imply that you may not redefine natural language concept definitions by competing definitions. This is not a good illustration of "context", because even if a company would redefine what a FemaleAustralian is, then in that company there will always be people who will have the other definition in their minds, with misunderstanding as a consequence. So the above reasoning is a good example of creating confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriesVanRenssen (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an good illustration of how important is the context when it comes to business rules. In the context of the rule in question, naturalized citizens are not considered. Maybe this is ethnic research ? So you are talking about a different business/jurisdiction/context, in which the term 'Australian' has a different meaning, and therefore, there is no contradiction.

On the other hand, a different speech community will use a different expression to refer to this term (in either of the meanings). For example, a francophone will say: "le austalienne'. SBVR also provides a great framework for introducing a 'term', defining its meaning and linking it to its different expressions.

-- Equilibrioception (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't "non-deotontic", as in "a model is an interpretation where each non-deontic formula evaluates to true", be equivalent to "alethic", or are there other possible types? RJHerrick (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to say that in English? Neither "deotontic" nor "alethic" are in my primary dictionary. "Alethic" is in the OAD, but the definition is a tad opaque. DEddy (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Non-deontic is not equivalent to alethic in this context. A formula can also be non-modal. For instance the formula "it rains" (non-modal) can evaluate to true, the formula "it is possible that it rains" (alethic) can evaluate to true but the formula "it is permitted it rains" (deontic) does not evaluate to true or false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.190.17 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)