Talk:MPAARE

jens 14:00, 10 January 2009 (CET)

The problem I have is, why do we need an extra information object when the attributes catmpa and catiuc given there can easily be placed here? The only difference are DRVAL1/2 and both are doubtful.

Is it thinkable to add catmpa and catiuc here and to replace mpadet by rcmdts; reglts; resdes; as information objects?

See discussions at Talk:Mpapen and mpadet.

--Cwinn72 13:34, 27 January 2009 (CET)

I have been confused as to why MPAARE is listed here. The reason that the area and supplemental attributes were split is to accommodate mariners and the ENC. The original plan was to submit the MPAARE feature to the hydro FCD. This would ensure that the limits of these areas would be included in S-101 ENCs. The supplemental information, i.e. IUCN category, etc, would be proposed to an alternative register for use in other product specifications. At the time of our proposal, the nautical pubs looked like the most likely register. This is the reason for the separate information objects.

I'll defer to Craig who is the in-house expert on MPA's. Tom Loeper 12 March 09.

jens 06:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
added MRNSRV according to use case provided at SNPWG 12 and the discussion to use the wiki information as a start for ProdSpec/EncodingGuides

Track of email conversations in that regard
Jens
I did some comparison work with the WDPA and SNPWG data structure; see wiki. The most is clear to me. I would like to ask you to check whether I am wrong and try to answer on the AUTORI problem. If we come to a conclusion before end this week, we can make a tick on that working item too.

Holly
I agree that AUTORI is the SNPWG equivalent of MANG_AUTH. I do not understand why MRNSRV is associated with MPAARE in the wiki though. I know it was used in the US mapping of MPA areas but only because there was a ship reporting service through the MPA.

Jens
Thanks for confirming AUTORI. Yeah, MRNSRV surprises me as well. It is actually not an Information Object and I think it makes no sense to make one of it. The idea was that MRNSRV will act on behalf of the MPAARE authority. And that is IMO correct and could be stated in the MRNSRV/SVAPRC. I don't think the MPAARE authority will do the MRNSRV job by them self. I rather think the area of responsibility for a MRNSRV is different from MPAARE (in Germany I know that for sure). Therefore making MRNSRV an information object is not correct. We must correct that line on the wiki if it is commonly agreed.

I discussed the current AUTORI construction with David. At the moment we have got only one feature (CALARE) requiring an association with AUTORI. The idea we have had years ago was to share the geometry. We discussed whether it would make more sense to make AUTORI an information object. That offers the direct association to a geographic feature and is easier to handle.

I have sent the idea to Raphael yesterday evening as well. I think we should make the decision in consents.

raphael 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC): Making AUTORI an information object sounds fine to me.

jens 11:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I deleted MRNSRV from the information object list and added AUTORI instead.

DavidAcland 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I further compared our MPAARE with the WPDA definiton. They have Country i.a.w. ISO 3166 but use the 3 letter alpha code. S-57 NATION uses the 2 letter alpha code so they are not equivalent.

Jens I note that you put a "No" against the WPDA Country in your MPA playarea comparison. That may have been because your were analysing against MPADET. I think it would be useful to retain the Country element as we currently have it in MPAARE. I do not think we can get the NATION definiton changed. I therefore conclude that, if we do want to keep the County idea in MPAARE, we need a new attribute which is the same thing but using the 3 letter alpha code.

For the moment I have removed NATION from MPAARE.

Mainly for Holly,

Jens and I have breifly discussed amalgamating MPAARE and MPADET. I cannot remember why they were separate initially, but I think it had to do with our understanding a couple of years back that MPAARE would be a geo object in the HYDRO registry. However if it sits in ours, and I think it does now as the whole Task has been handed to us, I think we could usefully simplify the model by combining the two objects as a Geo Object and retire MPADET as an Info Object. Any thoughts?

jens 12:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC) S57 follows ISO 3166 too, although they use the 2 letter code. I don't convinced to employ a second nation feature object. We should not necessarily follow the whole WPDA model.

holly.johnson 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I agree that MPAARE and MPADET can and should be combined. As you mentioned David, it would make sense to have two separate objects if MPAARE were in the HYDRO registry but given they are both with us, combining them as a geo object is a logical decision.

jens 11:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)merged MPAARE and MPADET to a feature object MPAARE. DRVAL1 and DRVAL2 are been deleted. They make no sense here.

DavidAcland 16:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I had rationalised their inclusion in the case of perhaps a coral sanctuary or some other protection for the sea bed. They might have an area which is protected from 20 - 50m but no protection in place for the top layer.

jens 04:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Really? And that is reflected in our publications?