Re: Relevance of the OMG's SBVR (Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules) standard

SBVR briefly mentions 2788, but only  in passing  (appendix K) ; SBVR also
explicitly restricts itself to dealing with models of business objects,
rather than data about those things. This requires an extra level of
indirection to capture e.g. the BT relationship.

If you're going to be at the UDC conference, I would talk about this with
Pat Hayes, who is delivering the keynote.

Simon

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Stella Dextre Clarke
<stella@lukehouse.org>wrote:

>  Hello All,
> Does anyone in the SKOS community have experience of using the OMG's SBVR
> ("Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules") standard (see
> http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/PDF/)?
>
> I ask because I lead a working group which is developing ISO 25964, the
> international standard for Thesauri and Interoperability with other
> Vocabularies. When an early draft of Part 2 (which deals with mapping
> between thesauri and other types of vocabulary) was circulated within the
> ISO system, someone commented that we ought to consider mapping to SBVR.
> (The vocabularies we already consider include classification schemes,
> taxonomies, schemes for records management, name authority lists,
> terminologies and ontologies. But not SBVR.)
> It is not clear whether SBVR is relevant. I'm not aware that it has any
> applications in information retrieval. But SBVR is new to all of us in the
> Working Group, and I wonder if you could advise or point us to any relevant
> applications. Why would a thesaurus want to be mapped to SBVR? Or to an SBVR
> vocabulary?
>
> Thanks for any pointers!
> Stella Dextre Clarke
>
> --
> *****************************************************
> Stella Dextre Clarke
> Information Consultant
> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8RR, UK
> Tel: 01235-833-298
> Fax: 01235-863-298stella@lukehouse.org
> *****************************************************
>
>