Abstract
In the literature of NIAM, ORM, CogNIAM, OWL, Business Rules and SBVR [1, 5, 7, 16, 18] one increasingly encounters the modeling process of verbalization. Most fact based conceptual analysts are aware that process models need to be extended with fact schemas including concept definitions as well as concrete examples of input and output, satisfying the conceptual schema. Not adding this extension to process models regularly leads to misinterpretation and low productivity. Could there be a misunderstanding with respect to the process of verbalization as used in the various fact orientation approaches? In this paper we demonstrate that there are three quite different verbalization processes that have so far been referred to by the process name ‘verbalization’, resulting in quite different output. We will argue that all three types of verbalization are useful. To avoid further misunderstanding we propose to call these Verbalization for Business Rules and Verbalization for Fact Examples with and without using a fact type form (fact pattern), respectively, or more in the style of SBVR Structured English: (1) Verbalization with keywords, (2) Verbalization using a fact type form without keywords and (3) Verbalization without using a fact type form and without keywords. Each of these has a specific aim and each is useful in conceptual modeling.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Anderson Healy, K.: Special Report on SBVR. Business Rules Journal 9(3) (2008) ISSN: 1538-6325
Balsters, H., Carver, A., Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Modeling Dynamic Rules in ORM. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1201–1210. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Bollen, P.: Using Fact-Orientation for Instructional Design. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1231–1241. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Carver, A., Halpin, T.: Atomicity and Normalization. In: Thirteenth International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2008), Montpellier, France (2008)
Chapin, D.: SBVR: What is now Possible and Why? Business Rules Journal 9(3) (2008), http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2008/b407.html
Damien, T., Vereecken, J., Christiaens, S., de Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: T-Lex: A Role-Based Ontology Engineering Tool. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1191–1200. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Hall, J.: Business Semantics of Business Rules. Business Rules Journal 5(3) (2004), http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2004/b182.html
Halpin, T., Curland, M.: Automated Verbalization for ORM2. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1181–1190. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2008)
Hansen, J., dela Cruz, N.: Evolution of a Dynamic Multidimensional Denormalization Meta Model Using Object Role Modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1160–1169. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Nijssen, S.: On Experience with Large-scale Teaching and Use of Fact-Based Conceptual Schemas in Industry and University. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 2.6 Conference on Data Semantics, North-Holland Publishing Company, Hasselt (1986)
Nijssen, S., Bijlsma, R.: A Conceptual Structure of Knowledge as a Basis for Instructional Designs. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), pp. 7–9. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)
OMG (Object Management Group), Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), v1.0. Online as document 08-01-02 (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/PDF . SBVR 1.0 and supporting files http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
Piprani, B.: Using ORM-Based Models as a Foundation for a Data Quality Firewall in an Advanced Generation Data Warehouse. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1148–1159. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Ross, R.: Business Rule Concepts: Getting to the Point of Knowledge, 2nd edn. Business Rule Solutions LLC, Houston (2005)
Ross, R.: The Emergence of SBVR and the True Meaning of ’Semantics’: Why You Should Care (a Lot!) ~ Part 1. Business Rules Journal 9(3) (2008), http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2008/b401.html
Sowa, J.: Fads and Fallacies about Logic. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(2), 84–87 (2007), http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.htm
Vanthienen, J.: SBVR: The ABCs of Accurate Business Communication. Business Rules Journal 9(3) (2008), http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2008/403.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nijssen, M., Lemmens, I. (2008). Verbalization for Business Rules and Two Flavors of Verbalization for Fact Examples. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008 Workshops. OTM 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5333. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88875-8_100
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88875-8_100
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88874-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88875-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)