RE: [ubl-lcsc] Agenda for the next UBL Library Content subcommitt eeto be held on Tuesday 10th December between 8 and 10 a.m California t i me

Tim, I don't see that column I asked for.  I need something that'll tell me
for each row whether that row defines an object class, a property (of an
object class), or an associationEnd.  The XML output (from Excel) loses the
shading so I can't go by the shading color in my pipeline.

Will you add such a column?  If you want, I'll add it myself to this
spreadsheet return the results to you as a starting point.

Aside: it looks like you and Mike have addressed the ambiguity in the old
spreadsheet w.r.t. multiple associations between two object classes.  E.g.
Address-DeliverTo-DeliveryRequest and Address-SendFrom-DeliveryRequest.
With the new model you use "Assoc Object Class Qualifier" as essentially an
association name that enables the reader to correlate the two ends of each
association.  This is great progress because it eliminates the ambiguity and
now we've got two-way occurrence specifications.  Yahoo!

On the downside, to paraphrase ".. We have but one name to give [an
associations roles].."  In UML an association has a name (and identity)
independent of the role names for each of the ends.  In the current UBL
model we have only "Association Object Class Qualifier".  In UML you can
model something like Address-(Address)-xyz-(DeliverTo)-DeliveryRequest,
where the parenthesized terms are role names and xyz is the association
name.  Adding multiplicities you can do something like:
Address-0..1-(Address)-xyz-(DeliverTo)-0..n-DeliveryRequest

Summary:
1. I'm glad the ambiguity is gone now -- with the correlation name appearing
on both ends of the association at least my stylesheet doesn't have to make
tenuous assumptions like assuming that association ends will appear in the
same order in both target classes.
2. It's unfortunate that we have the ability to model only one role name...
And that we can model neither the second role name, nor the association
name.
3. (new point) "Association Object Class Qualifier" is a misnomer.  In the
terminology of CCTS it should probably be Association BIE Property or
Association BIE Property Term.  But that point will be moot if you address
(2).