Split out population fields from property

[johcarter]

Description

The integration work for Cyber and Liability will create a framework in OED to have different variants of location and account by exposure or policy class
See #182

For humanitarian/development sector use cases, does it make sense to split out population fields from property into a separate file as an exposure class so that it is not necessary to include required property fields that are not relevant?

Or is there a need to have both property and population fields together in one file?

Reasons for change

Restructure of specification to support multiple exposure / policy classes

Scope of change

• [X ] Location File
• Accounts File
• Reinsurance Scope
• Reinsurance Info

Impact of change

It would be a breaking change to take the LocPop and Occupant* fields out of property location file.

Data type, default values, are blanks allowed, list valid values

Field Name	Data type	Default values	Blanks allowed	Valid values
LocPopNumber	nvarchar()		NO	[0,)
NumberOfOccupants	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantUnderfive	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantOver65	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantAge5to65	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantFemale	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantMale	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantOther	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantUrban	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantRural	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantPoverty	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantRefugee	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantUnemployed	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantDisability	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantEthnicMinority	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantTemporary	int	0	YES	[0,)
OccupantPeriod	tinyint	0	YES	[0,8]

[johcarter]

As discussed with Stu Fraser, population data would normally be recorded alongside property information for development sector use cases, so there is no value in splitting population fields into a separate location file.

We will keep these fields in with property.