[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Issue #4: 11179 Data Element Terms
I've lost an aspect of this discussion. Why are we debating the order of two property term qualifiers. I've gone back to look at the discussion thread and I'm missing the concept of why the registry mapping needs to be concerned with the order. Is it to facilitate automated registry construction of a ABIE from an ACC? Is it a matter of establishing a rule that if the registry (instead of an CC developer) is making the decision that the registry should attach additional property qualifiers to the front of any existing property qualifiers? I make the distinction, because in my view the overall issue of guiding developers on what term goes where is a job for the CCTS to do, not the registry spec. Still, I see nothing wrong in including a best practice type recommendation for automating what according to the CCTS appears to be an arbitrary decision for a developer. In other word if relevant standards don't think its important what qualifier proceeds another, then anything we do for the sake of making automation easier could be included as a recommendation. However, I don't think it is possible to guarantee the semantic order by any rule for registry automation. Thinking more abstract than the current example, I think it is reasonable to assume that there will be situations where even a developer would have a hard time rationalizing one qualifier as being more relevant to the property term than another qualifier. According to the CCTS you could have infinite property qualifiers for a single property term. Regards, Paul M. P.S. - I think a light bulb just went off for me on why the "BIE Property" is it's own storable entity in Figure 7-3. Looking at the attributes of the entity in the figure it should probably have been named "BIE Property Qualifier". By storing the property qualifiers the registry could construct ABIEs in an automated fashion by reusing standardized property term qualifiers. And the rule that makes the resultant ABIE unique regardless of the qualifier order makes it easier on the developer to be certain that they are not duplicating another ABIE where the registry happened to place the property qualifiers in a different order. Does anyone else see that, or am I off base? -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:32 PM To: Monica Martin Cc: CCRev Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Issue #4: 11179 Data Element Terms <Quote1> is this based on where the qualifier goes or how we interpret the qualifier? </Quote1> I would say it is based on where the qualifier goes. So in our case, we are really talking about a format for a telephone number in the U.S. I don't believe the CCTS spec speaks to this, so we'll need to brainstorm. My preference would be to place the qualifier closest to where it applies - i.e. before "Telephone" rather than before "Home" in this case. Thoughts? Joe Monica Martin wrote: > > >Chiusano: <Quote> > >The two expressions do have different semantics, but that does not make > >them unique. > ></Quote> > > > >Excellent - thanks for the reference Monica. I would assert that a > >qualifier should be placed closest to the term that it is meant to > >qualify. That is, if I were to choose between: > > > >US | Employee | US | Home | Telephone | Number > > > >or: > > > >US | Employee | Home | US | Telephone | Number > > > >I would choose the second one because I really mean a US telephone > >number, more than I mean a US home. > > > mm1: I am really stumped here (which happens often) is this based on > where the qualifier goes or how we interpret the qualifier? > I think logically it falls with the former. Do we apply some priority > here to how they are qualified?