[Bug]: Introduce more consistency in the packages related to the ALERT-C location referencing system

[LBlaive]

What happened?

Comment reported during the Formal Vote ballot in 2018 by FR (no FR044, FR045, FR047, FR051, FR053, FR057). The way the different packages related to the ALERT-C location referencing system are organised is not very logic and could be improved to have a more systematic and rational modelling:

• the "AlertCArea", "AlertCLinear" and "AlertCPoint" classes contain the same three attributes: "alertCLocationCountryCode", "alertCLocationTableNumber" and "alertCLocationTableVersion". It could be worth considering to create a specific class where the other aforementioned classed could be derived (or associated). Note: the name of the three attributes could be shortened by removing "alertC".
• The "AlertCArea" package starts with the "AlertCArea" class where for point locations or linear locations, the "AlertCPoint" and "AlertCLinear" only appear respectively in the "PointLocation" class diagram and the "LinearLocation" class diagram. To introduce a more consistent approach it could be worth creating packages named "AlertCPoint" and "AlertCLinear". Note: the "AlertCLinearByCode" package in this case could be merged with the "AlertCLinear" package.

Version

3

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[iancornwell1]

• I support the proposed refactoring to remove duplication, and also the shortening which will be clear from the class context (which might be "AlertCLocationTable").
• I agree that we should move the 5 next-level AlertC specializations from their PointLocation and LinearLocation to diagrams under the AlertC package.