Browse by Tags

Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

Dear Terry, In your previous contribution you mention a few aspects that deserve further discussion one of which is atomicity of fact types. All three approaches SBVR, ORM and CogNIAM have atomic fact types in the classical definition. Practice has shown that there is more that can be offered to a mature...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Fri, Apr 25 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

Dear John, Thanks for your clear description of semantic and speech communities in SBVR and the relationship to UoD. I would propose we extend it a bit by the following: SBVR distinguishes three levels: a. Ground facts b. Domain specific conceptual schema c. Generic conceptual schema In SBVR the union...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Wed, Apr 23 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

Terry, Thanks very much for your lucid description of ORM, CogNIAM and SBVR. I agree with you that a common core model is a very worthwile effort for the fact orientation community. I like in particular your words "useful subsets of them". I know quite a few fact orientation users who welcome...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Tue, Apr 22 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

Hi Roel, No - I don't think that as things stand, CogNIAM, SBVR and ORM2 (or ORM1) can be "translated into each other" ORM1 is a subset of ORM2 so that isn't much of a problem. However, to the best of my knowledge, There are many differences between SBVR and ORM that need to be resolved...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Ken Evans on Sun, Apr 20 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

My recommendation to the fact orientation community is to adopt many of the SBVR functionalities that are not available in CogNIAM or ORM. In CogNIAM we have last year added several SBVR functionalities. One of the sets of useful functionalities is around communities, both semantic and speech, bodies...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Sun, Apr 20 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

It is possible when a certain set of rules or business practice is followed to transform automatically between SBVR, CogNIAM and ORM. Hence a certain form of Structured English, CogNIAM and ORM can be considered as SBVR compliant languages. Hence we can speak of three speech communities belonging to...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Sun, Apr 20 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

I was asked: how can you say SBVR is a fact based approach? Well, first let me stress that SBVR adds very valuable functionalities to fact orientation proper. The fact based approach of SBVR is clear from Clause 10 and other parts of the spec. Look e.g in Clause 8, 8.5 There is only one fact type expressing...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Sun, Apr 20 2008
Re: CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

For people interested in ORM, CogNIAM and SBVR, it is good to know that the SBVR Foundation holds a three day tutorial-conference June 9-11, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Go to the website www.sbvrfoundation.eu and you see that Terry gives a full day tutorial on logic as the base for SBVR. This is a unique...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Sat, Apr 19 2008
CogNIAM and ORM as business practices of SBVR

On December 11, 2007 OMG declared SBVR a standard. A well selected subset of SBVR corresponds to CogNIAM (the latest version of NIAM with Cognition enhanced, hence concept definitions and fact type forms are first class citizens) or ORM. For persons interested in introductory descriptions of SBVR and...

Posted to SBVR (Forum) by Sjir Nijssen on Thu, Apr 17 2008

Page 2 of 2 (19 items) < Previous 1 2