<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.
Thoughts?
Joe
Monica Martin wrote:
>
> >QUESTION: Do you concur with all of the above?
> >
> >Suppose we had started with a modified version of the earlier ACC:
> >
> >Employee | Home | Telephone | Number
> >
> >where:
> >
> >Employee = Object Class
> >Home = Property Term Qualifier
> >Telephone = Property Term
> >Number = Representation Tem
> >
> >Now suppose we create an ABIE from this, making it "US"-specific - the
> >telephone number will be a "US" format. So we should have multiple
> >Property Term Qualifiers, as shown below:
> >
> >US = Object Class Qualifier
> >Employee = Object Class
> >US = Property Term Qualifier
> >Home = Property Term Qualifier
> >Telephone = Property Term
> >Number = Representation Tem
> >
> >QUESTION: What should the order be for the 2 Property Term Qualifiers?
> >
> >That is, should the ABIE name be:
> >
> >US | Employee | US | Home | Telephone | Number
> >
> >or:
> >
> >US | Employee | Home | US | Telephone | Number
> >
> >
> mm1: Here are some guiding thoughts from the CCSD primer. I think this
> begs more discussion on what the answer to the question above is.
>
> ......Multiple qualifier terms can be placed before an object class term
> or property term. Each qualifier term is separated by an underscore and
> a space character.
>
> .........A different sequence of qualifier terms does not make the
> dictionary entry name unique. For example *Stored_ Partial_ Goods.
> Details* and *Partial_ Stored_ Goods. Details* consist of the same
> qualifier terms, but in a different order. The two expressions do have
> different semantics, but that does not make them unique.
>
> I've cc: this email to Fred vanB. to see what he suggests.
> Thanks.
