Anyone working on implementing SBVR in EA?

[David Rains (bioform)]

I am currently working on implementing the OMG Structured Business Vocabulary and Rules model and functionality within EA.

Just wondering if anyone else is pursuing this?  

David

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I am currently working on implementing the OMG Structured Business Vocabulary and Rules model and functionality within EA.

Just wondering if anyone else is pursuing this?  

David

Hi David,

I've thought about it - so I'd be interested in considering collaborating.

I've done some stuff with Terminological Modelling  and ISO 11170 data dictionaries  (extended).

If you like we can take this off-line or leave it on-line.

Paolo

[qwerty]

I even did not know this does exist. But it sounds interesting and might be of interest in the near future. Appreciate if you discuss this here.

q.

[David Rains (bioform)]

Here are links to the notation, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_of_Business_Vocabulary_and_Business_Rules

http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am currently working on a proof-of-concept using VBScript and stereotyped elements. Previously I created a prototype solution that loosely followed the SBVR 1 standard. This time I am attempting to follow the standard more closely.

My first goal is implementing Annex H stereotypes (within the constraints of EA - example using a shape script to support the underling of Individual Concepts; e.g. Switzerland : country).

I would appreciate a discussion on how we might want to move forward with this as an on-line collaborative effort.

I can be reached at david.rains@live.com (Maryland, USA)

[David Rains (bioform)]

qwerty - I tried to send you a message but got an error that you could not be found?
=======================================
I followed that link on your posting and purchased your Inside EA book!  Really looking forward to diving into it I have a working knowledge of the tables but really need to gain a deeper understanding.

Been using EA since version 5.

Look forward to talking with you.

David Rains
david.rains@live.com

[qwerty]

Hi David,
It's true. I can't be contacted via PM here on the board. The reason for this is long. I'll send you my contact data.

q.

[qwerty]

Quite some stuff to read. Here a single shot from me (not pointing in any specific direction):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_of_Business_Vocabulary_and_Business_Rules

Says: People communicate facts, that is the fact is the unit of communication.

Well. That's simply wrong. Usually I see people communication blurb, clouds, indifferent pictures. When you want to go into that you probably need a philosophical approach. And I doubt the one taken here is right. Since Wittgenstein failed with his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus after Gödel's  proof that complete axiomatic systems do not exist I thought that such approaches are damned to fail.

I might be wrong, but what I browsed in a very short time seemed as if they try to formalize language. I ask: have those guys ever discussed with a customer about the semantics of a customer requirement? Probably not.

Maybe I'm on the wrong boat or even the wrong ocean?

q.

[edit]: However, quite some interesting stuff. Especially the chapter about rule based approach. I once tried something in that direction but soon got stuck as I realized its complexity. May I ask a simple question: for what purpose are you going to use SBVR?

[edit2]: Just for curiosity I searched for related threads. I only found this one: http://www.sparxsystems.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1333728827/0#0

[areaba]

Hi David
My company has been adopting the BR approach in our work for clients and we've been on EA since 7x. Been very frustrated trying to shoehorn BR concepts using UML notation eg Class toolset for concept modelling etc. Would love to collaborate if you think we can add any value although the project you are pursuing is technical in nature.

Casper