RE: [ubl-dev] Property Term Possessives?

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

> Questions:
> 1) Are "Property Term Possessives" formally part of any spec 
> at this point?

No.  Nor are they intended to be. 11179 defines a property term as:  "A component of the data element name which expresses a property of an object class. (A component of the name of a data element which expresses the category to which the data element belongs).  11179 supports multi word property terms.  11179 further describes how each object class will have a full set of property terms.  The UBL "Property Term Possessives" are simply an internal UBL mechanism to create and manage a controlled vocabulary of property terms within an object class.

> Will the term appear in the formal documentation?

doubtful.  There is really no need to.  It may appear in the form of correspondence between UBL and the 11179 committee in the form of a comment.

> 2) Between using a Property Qualifer Term and a Property Term 
> Possessive,
> what difference is there in the resultant UBL name? In other 
> words, how
> does the Possessive impact the result differently from a Qualifer?

No difference whatsoever.

> 3) In this frag from UBL-Reusable*.xls, how are "Postal Zone" 
> and "City
> Name" different with regard to Property Term? That is, why 
> does the former
> have a  Property Qualifer Term and the latter a Property Term 
> Possessive?

Ken - be careful to not mix qualifiers ( a formal 11179 concept) with the UBL method for differentiating between the various component words of the unqualified property term.  

Ken - as a matter of record - are you officially now with GSA are or you still with Silosmashers providing consulting services to GSA.  It is rather confusing when you use a GSA signature to determine which hat you are speaking from.

Mark