Manganese Steel Plate

manganese steel plate has been set up only to test compound terms, so it has very few features or relationships other than USE+ and UF+.  All the preferred terms have concept identifiers (tagged CID), but since the compound terms represent concepts that are not really “in” the thesaurus, they do not have concept identifiers. All the terms do have term identifiers (TID).

A classified display is irrelevant for this example, and a hierarchical display seems trivial, but has been included after the alphabetical display, for completeness.

For this example, testing includes:
- Checking that all features can be represented adequately in the Full model and the corresponding XML schema, and can be expressed in the standard Full XML format.
- Checking that data expressed in the Full XML format can be interpreted correctly to re-create the alphabetical display.
- Considering the implications for the Core format and its users.
Which portions of the data can be expressed in the Core XML format?
If data are expressed in the Core XML format, are any errors generated in the alphabetical display?
Does this lead us to add anything to the Core format, or to the notes on how to use it?