Talk:CATAUT

DavidAcland 11:14, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

I think we should add "...at international boundaries" at the end of 2.

Any thoughts?

jens 11:39, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

Why not? It is not wrong and specified what we like to say. What is going on with enclaves like Hong Kong; although they are a part of China do they have different custom regs? I am not familiar enough with this area of the world. If my query gets a positive answer we should remain the entry unchanged. Otherwise I would follow David's proposal.

DavidAcland 17:05, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

OK. I think we see it the same way ... but it is not the regulation so much as where the control happens. Without the clarification, it sounds a bit like the role of the police, i.e. all over the country. I will add the clarification and agree.

DavidAcland 14:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I have been aware for some time of the similarity of ideas in CATAUT and CATRXN. Both are likely to be attributes of the Quartet. The names of these two attributes are as follows:

CATAUT Category of authority
CATRXN Category of regulation / restriction / recommendation / nautical information

I have reordered CATAUT to group similar ideas together and added the identical or similar enumerations of CATRXN below each. CATAUT has a few values which do not have equivalents in CATRXN. CATRNX only has two values without something similar in CATAUT: "safety" and "communication".

CATAUT 14 : finance

CATAUT 1 : customs
CATRXN 6 : customs

CATAUT 5 : immigration

CATAUT 2 : border control

CATAUT 6 : health
CATRXN 9 : health

CATAUT 7 : coast guard
CATRXN 8 : safety (In some countries. In others, coastguard also has security and enforcement roles)

CATAUT 15 : maritime
CATRXN 1 : navigation

CATAUT 8 : agricultural
CATAUT 13 : fishery
CATRXN 10 : natural resources or exploitations

CATAUT 12 : environmental
CATRXN 3 : environmental protection
CATRXN 4 : wildlife protection

CATAUT 9 : military

CATAUT 3 : police

CATAUT 11 : maritime police
CATRXN 5 : security

CATAUT 4 : port
CATRXN 7 : cargo operation

CATAUT 10 : private company

CATRXN 2 : communication

However looking down the list of CATAUT, it does seem to me that most of those Authorities almost certainly have regulations which do have an impact on vessels. I think that the case to combine CATAUT and CATRXN is fairly strong. The new name would be something like "Category of authority / regulation / restriction / recommendation / nautical information". The question is: Can we make a sensible enough list that would satisfy the multiple uses?

jens 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Do you know the song text "...all we can do is sit and wait"? That's what I thought years ago when the need for CATRXN was formulated and my "no" was rejected. They can't live in two different categories which should be used together. Thanks for providing the evidence that I was right.
It is to discuss whether CATREL and CATAUT can be used to model information sufficient. We can say that e.g. the CATAUT (agricultural) is providing information stored at REGLTS to say that something is CATREL (prohibited). Interesting will be the construction if something stored at RCMDTS is CATREL (recommended).

DavidAcland 14:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC) OK; I will see what I can do.
I can see a few of those: Anchorage CATREL (recommended) (until berth is available) or (until 2 hours before HW); or perhaps (Remain at waiting berth until lock is available). This makes me think we may need an ACTION like "Moor temporarily", "Tie up" or "Wait". However I feel sure we will also need to use TXTDSC for the detail.

jens 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)That's for sure. The content/details will be stored in TXTDSC. I'm still the opinion that we need such top level features/attributes to e.g. make search possible, to be able to provide customized information and to not spoil the mariner with useless text. That is the only purpose of the quartet and everything in their society.

raphael 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC): To me this discussion looks like a reason for reviving some variation of the original categories (CATRXN Original).

raphael 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC): Can a perfect substitution of CATAUT for CATRXN be made? Perhaps not, for example "Coast Guard" has different functions and different powers in different countries. Encoders should not be asked to decide which values the new CATAUT should have by thinking about the precise powers and roles of the authority in their countries.

Second, CATRXN was intended as a means of allowing classification of Quartet objects according to some scheme which would be useful to software and portrayal. The Taxonomy which we have under development would be a good scheme, after it is distilled into a manageable hierachy with a reasonable number of upper levels, these might be different from the categorizations of authorities.

DavidAcland 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I compared the CATAUT and CATRXN Original but there was much less commonality. It seems that the gap is too big to bridge. I think we agree that we need a list of top level subjects. I had not seen the connection to Taxonomy but agree that that might be fruitful. Let's wait and see how that progresses and leave CATAUT and CATRXN separate for the moment.

raphael (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2017 (CET): Registry definition: The type of person, government agency or organisation, corporation, or private or publicly owned company entrusted or invested with powers of managing or controlling access or activity in an area.

Can we shorten this?: "The type of person, government agency or organisation granted powers of managing or controlling access and/or activity in an area."

raphael (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2018 (CEST): Feedback from NIPWG in March 2017(!) resulted in: "The type of person, government agency or organisation granted powers of managing or controlling access to and/or activity in an area." This is the definition used in the feature catalogues. The CATAUT page and the IHO GI registry should be amended accordingly.

raphael (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2018 (CEST): An S-127 comment suggests adding new listed values: 'land administration' and 'energy'.

• If these types of authorities are (i) not covered by the existing listed values, and (ii) commonly produce information or regulations relevant to maritime information in multiple countries, then we can either add them or find common terms applicable to multiple countries.
• An alternative is to make CATAUT a codelist. I hesitate to recommend that given the possible variations in government organizational structure and responsibilities ending up with information that end-users find obscure (especially if they are from other countries).
• Another alternative is to add a catchall “other governmental authority” value to the enumeration.

(Posted for information and to obtain feedback - at present there are no plans to modify CATAUT.)

jens (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2018 (CEST) I'm against the code list option. That opens a field for endless lists which reflects national interests. The “other governmental authority” idea is not an option as the current list reflects all facets of authorities. We should try to keep the list as it is at the moment.