Talk:LAWLAW

jens 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing how extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comment is below

   It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so far I think, any
   great details out of what you call 'regs' in your mail. An extract would
   suffice, I think. However, an extract would not be completely 'legal',
   for example if a casualty were to result at least partly from a used
   'extract', then I am sure somebody will show that due diligence was not
   exercised by the Master.
   On a personal preference level, I am of the opinion that a) less is
   usually more and b) although it would be useful to have greatly detailed
   tools available in the hands of /professionally trained and ECDIS
   competent /mariners, the reality is that many will not be. Therefore
   keeping it simple has advantages.

What do you think? Is is worth following a bit different approach and add a further LAW section where legal stuff can be stored in length?

raphael 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC): Keeping it simple sounds good. We may have different opinions about what 'simple' and 'at length' mean...

I would like to hear a little more about what LAW might contain, especially since many (most?) laws are available today in one digital format or another.

jens 10:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I was thinking on verbatim text of laws. I know BSH is publishing such publication and refers at many places to that, same with FR and UK, presumable US too.
However, the idea is to provide a brief overview of the most important topics in the regulations information object and to provide a link to the verbatim version.
Initially I thought to use CATRXNand add verbatim and brief but was not sure whether it is a good idea. It seems to not fit into the collection of values now. RXNCOD is also not available for that kind of information. Remains the idea to discuss and decide at first if and where to place.