User Tools

Site Tools


sbvr-topics

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

sbvr-topics [2018/12/30 01:37] (current)
jsmith created
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== SBVR Research Topics ======
  
 +  * SBVR inspired a lot of European academic research that was mostly based on supporting and using its formal notational style for various applications. ​ At the same time, the dozen or so ‘implementations’ utilized the basic ISO 1087-1 model and SBVR linguistic and logic terminology as a (pseudo-) formal semantics for their own languages. ​ (I have my own, published in 2011.) ​ There are also dozens of academic ‘controlled English’ languages that produce some kind of formal representation,​ and have no explicit relationship to SBVR.  In short, this domain is no longer very interesting. ​ (And the big guns in commercial AI are trying to interpret true natural language on an ever broader scale.) //Edward Barkmeyer//
 + 
 +  * The formulation of a clear meta-model for unambiguous ‘controlled natural language’ concepts is apparently missing from the literature. ​ SBVR’s use of its own language to define its concept system maps (using a section in the standard to guide the mapping) to a bizarre metamodel, which is only partly depicted in the specification (owing to the indirect approach and other factors). ​ But SBVR makes no effort to model the grammar of its ‘Structured English’. ​ So there is probably room for research in producing usable formal UML/MOF models of the vocabulary concept system and of the ‘Structured English’ grammar concepts. ​ There is, of course, a possibly very close relationship to formal linguistic analysis models used for natural language interpretation,​ but those are burdened by the eccentricities of natural language. //Edward Barkmeyer//
 + 
 +  *  There is no formal mapping from the ‘structured English’ grammar to the (not clearly well-founded) formal logic language defined in the SBVR specification,​ or to any other formal logic language, such as CLIF or OWL.  There is a table of concept/​term equivalences (developed primarily by Elisa Kendall, I think) for the basic SBVR concept system to CLIF and OWL (both of which are necessarily partial). ​ Other controlled English language publications have formal mappings to some formal semantic model, which may or may not have a well-defined formal logic interpretation. ​ (It is not clear to me that any purported ‘SBVR implementation’ actually has and uses such a mapping, except for simple subsets. ​ Some, for example, map concept systems to UML class diagrams.) ​ I had hoped that the academic research spawned by SBVR would have gone in this direction. //Edward Barkmeyer//
sbvr-topics.txt · Last modified: 2018/12/30 01:37 by jsmith