File talk:Reg with different completeness.jpg - Revision history

Jens at 10:18, 10 June 2010

2010-06-10T10:18:16Z

Jens at 10:17, 10 June 2010

2010-06-10T10:17:45Z

Jens at 10:15, 10 June 2010

2010-06-10T10:15:22Z

Jens at 10:13, 10 June 2010

2010-06-10T10:13:40Z

Rmm: New page: ~~~~: Two questions about the diagram: 1. Is the duplication of GeospatialObject class in the diagram intentional? 2. The multiplicity of RUBRIC should be 0..* so we can encode none or m...

2010-06-09T20:43:45Z

New page: ~~~~: Two questions about the diagram: 1. Is the duplication of GeospatialObject class in the diagram intentional? 2. The multiplicity of RUBRIC should be 0..* so we can encode none or m...

New page

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC): Two questions about the diagram:

1. Is the duplication of GeospatialObject class in the diagram intentional?

2. The multiplicity of RUBRIC should be 0..* so we can encode none or multiple levels of headings for one item. For example, coding
<br>RUBRIC=General Information
<br>RUBRIC=Hazards

for REGLTS/NATINF object(s) mapped from section 4.6 of "Jussland Waterways and Ports" makes it easier for software to search (it can look for keywords in RUBRIC) and also format the results for presentation (it can use font size, boldface/italic, kerning, etc., as appropriate for the display).

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 . yes, that sound reasonable.
-You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the [[image:different_level_of_completeness.uml]]. You can correct it and  upload the correct version.
+You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the UML file here: [[image:different_level_of_completeness.uml]]. You can correct it and  upload the correct version.
 Sorry Raphael, I am not in the office today; so the time is limited.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, 10 June 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:
	2. yes, that sound reasonable.		2. yes, that sound reasonable.

−	You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the [[image:different_level_of_completeness.uml ~~\| file here~~]]. You can correct it and upload the correct version.	+	You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the [[image:different_level_of_completeness.uml]]. You can correct it and upload the correct version.
		+
		+	Sorry Raphael, I am not in the office today; so the time is limited.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 10 June 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:
	2. yes, that sound reasonable.		2. yes, that sound reasonable.

−	You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the [image:different_level_of_completeness.uml \| file here]. You can correct it and upload the correct version.	+	You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the [[image:different_level_of_completeness.uml \| file here]]. You can correct it and upload the correct version.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 10 June 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:

	for REGLTS/NATINF object(s) mapped from section 4.6 of "Jussland Waterways and Ports" makes it easier for software to search (it can look for keywords in RUBRIC) and also format the results for presentation (it can use font size, boldface/italic, kerning, etc., as appropriate for the display).		for REGLTS/NATINF object(s) mapped from section 4.6 of "Jussland Waterways and Ports" makes it easier for software to search (it can look for keywords in RUBRIC) and also format the results for presentation (it can use font size, boldface/italic, kerning, etc., as appropriate for the display).
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 10:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
		+	Thank you Raphael for checking the file.
		+	1. yes, I thought S100 allows one information object to be used for several feature objects.
		+	2. yes, that sound reasonable.
		+
		+	You know, my UML skill is limited. I placed the [image:different_level_of_completeness.uml \| file here]. You can correct it and upload the correct version.