Talk:MBRSHP

DavidAcland 10:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I have thought about making this boolean but feel that it needs to be an enumeration because MBRSHP=1 and MBRSHP = 2 are not true opposites.

jens 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I agree from the German point of view. They are not opposites.

raphael 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC): Yes, the original intention was to model statements like these:
Vesssels of more than 30000 gross tonnes or 150.0 m LOA must ... (regulation).
Vessels of less than 300 gross tonnes are exempt from the regulations.

raphael 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC): Concerning the name "membership", this term might need to be used elsewhere in a different context, so perhaps "Relevance" or "Relevancy" would be a better name.

Alternatively, we could rename the Membership attribute to "Applicability" and rename the class currently called Applicability (APPLIC) to "Vessel Description" or "Class of vessels" or just "Vessels". If CATREL is deleted from that class and made an attribute of a different association class, then the class currently named APPLIC just describes a subset of vessels with certain characteristics.

jens 16:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks Raphael. That issue (the term membership) was picked up at SNPWG13 as well. I will give it a thought the next days. By the way, it was a shame that you was not be able to be there. We missed you as a good friend.
We have decided different other issues to be solved. David or I will come back later on that.

DavidAcland 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) We seem to have settled on APPLIC for the Informatin feature and MBRSHP for the Inclusion type attribute. I am therefore proposing we now agree.

raphael (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2017 (CET): Registry currently has the definition 'indicates whether a vessel is included or excluded from the regulation/restriction/recommendation/nautical information' which seems OK.