Verbalization for Business Rules and Two Flavors of Verbalization for Fact Examples

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.