Talk:AUTORI - Revision history

Rmm at 03:59, 13 November 2018

2018-11-13T03:59:10Z

New page

Drafted and agreed by SNPWG8

14.11.07 Jens added various inf obj.

SNPWG 9 Still open for final agreement

27.07. 08 Jens I think nonworking day is a superfluous attribute here. It is a sub-attribute of '''[[srvhrs]]'''; see there. Shall we delete from here?

29.07.08 David. I agree. Deleting '''[[nwkday]]''' from '''[[autori]]'''.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date

12.08.08 Ricardo.

I didn’t quite understand why we need PEREND and PERSTA since we have DATEND and DATSTA. Is there a case of seasonal authority? I was wondering if we could just use the second pair – which seems, to me, to be the best option –, or just the first one.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:37, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

The items fit following constructions:

DATSTA/DATEND will be used when an authority will come into force/ will be closed to a specified date. Data producer will be able to insert a date and the ENC will appear/disappear the information at appropriated time.

PERSTA/PEREND will be used when an authority will be in operation only for a specified period of time; e.g. the authority of a port affected to be closed during ice season might be operate only in summer period. All other times they drink wine, watch TV, read books etc. (just kidding)

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 10:48, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

Jens thanks for the tip.

I see we have both [[condet]] and [[telcom]]. [[telcom]] now denigrated and moved to deleted page; [[calnam]] [[CALSGN]] [[COMCHA]] are now placed in [[condet]]. Deleting [[telcom]] from [[autori]].

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:53, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

I agree. Looks fine to me now.

Looks good to me - Tom Loeper 12 March 09.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC) based on discussions at [[MPAARE]] the object type was changed from feature to information

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

[[NTCTIM]] looks redundant to me. Authorities do not really have a "Notice". Reports or Requests to them do and we have that covered as an attribute of [[SHPREP]]. Propose delete from [[AUTORI]].

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status for [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.
 Should [[APPLIC]] be added here as well? If [[SHPREP]] is not being used we have no possibility to model [[APPLIC]]. What do you think?

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I think the logic could get dirty and complicated.

2. It does not really respond to the main problem which is that AUTORI is a person or organisation not a service. So in your example, where we have a case of a report not being covered like "96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority", it would be neater to address the problem in the design of NTCTIM; and I think we have it covered.

NTCTIM

NTCHRS = Null

NTCTXT = "Vessel must provides 96 hrs pre-notice to Harbour Authority"

OPERAT = Null

If you are happy with that, fine.

However I suspect you realise all this so I imagine you are thinking about a different situation.

If so, and we do need [[APPLIC]], we would also need to adjust the definition.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I have checked the def for [[SHPREP]] and that is up to now limited to reports to be given to marine service and that is correct IMO. Marine service is a value of [[CATAUT]] (actually number 15)

 Your example would look like that
 AUTORI/ CATAUT(port)/ NTCTIM[NTCHRS(96),OPERAT(1)]
 I think is offers more calculable options.

In the case a marine service is engaged [[NTCTIM]] will be not selectable.

Are we agree to keep [[NTCTIM]] alive here?

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Actually it makes no difference. What we are discussing is for the product specification. Our examples in the FCD are only that, "examples". The product spec will show the particular binding for the product. That also applies to the relationship between [[SHPREP]] and [[MRNSRV]]. As it happens "What links here?" gives us three examples [[MRNSRV]], [[PLTSRV]] as well as [[AUTORI]]; but other products could also use the [[SHPREP]] feature. I still cannot firm up in my mind what [[NTCTIM]] means when it is on [[AUTORI]]. If you are thinking of "Notice to enter the area", I think it should be on the area; if it is "Notice to call on a channel" I think it should be on that marine service.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC) o.k. I understand your objections. It is correct, we only give indications of what should be part of the ProdSpec, we don't cover all possible options.
 For [[NTCTIM]] I think it is worth checking ALRS in that regard. Quite often Notice has to be given long before entering an area. However, the compromise I propose is to delete [[NTCTIM]] from the attribute list and place under remark the optional use if notice time is necessary without having [[SHPREP]] involved. e.g.
 "If a notice at a given time (that includes numeric or alphanumeric values) is required without [[SHPREP]] involvement, [[NTCTIM]] has to be added to the list of attributes."
 That would satisfy the ProdSpec developer as well and avoid similar thoughts and discussions. I hope they refer to the discussion pages as well when writing the ProdSpec.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK but it should be under "Comments" because if on "Remarks" it becomes part of the definition of [[AUTORI]] and that is not correct. Strictly speaking what we are talking about is "Advice to Authors of Feature Catalogues"; i.e. like an Encoding Guide but several steps up the chain.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|talk]]) 04:59, 13 November 2018 (CET): Definition revised based on an S-127 comment. Revised definition is:
 A person or organization that has the legally delegated or invested authority, capacity, or power to perform a designated function or exert administrative control.

Jens at 17:21, 9 August 2010

2010-08-09T17:21:12Z

New page

Drafted and agreed by SNPWG8

14.11.07 Jens added various inf obj.

SNPWG 9 Still open for final agreement

27.07. 08 Jens I think nonworking day is a superfluous attribute here. It is a sub-attribute of '''[[srvhrs]]'''; see there. Shall we delete from here?

29.07.08 David. I agree. Deleting '''[[nwkday]]''' from '''[[autori]]'''.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date

12.08.08 Ricardo.

I didn’t quite understand why we need PEREND and PERSTA since we have DATEND and DATSTA. Is there a case of seasonal authority? I was wondering if we could just use the second pair – which seems, to me, to be the best option –, or just the first one.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:37, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

The items fit following constructions:

DATSTA/DATEND will be used when an authority will come into force/ will be closed to a specified date. Data producer will be able to insert a date and the ENC will appear/disappear the information at appropriated time.

PERSTA/PEREND will be used when an authority will be in operation only for a specified period of time; e.g. the authority of a port affected to be closed during ice season might be operate only in summer period. All other times they drink wine, watch TV, read books etc. (just kidding)

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 10:48, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

Jens thanks for the tip.

I see we have both [[condet]] and [[telcom]]. [[telcom]] now denigrated and moved to deleted page; [[calnam]] [[CALSGN]] [[COMCHA]] are now placed in [[condet]]. Deleting [[telcom]] from [[autori]].

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:53, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

I agree. Looks fine to me now.

Looks good to me - Tom Loeper 12 March 09.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC) based on discussions at [[MPAARE]] the object type was changed from feature to information

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

[[NTCTIM]] looks redundant to me. Authorities do not really have a "Notice". Reports or Requests to them do and we have that covered as an attribute of [[SHPREP]]. Propose delete from [[AUTORI]].

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status for [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.
 Should [[APPLIC]] be added here as well? If [[SHPREP]] is not being used we have no possibility to model [[APPLIC]]. What do you think?

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I think the logic could get dirty and complicated.

2. It does not really respond to the main problem which is that AUTORI is a person or organisation not a service. So in your example, where we have a case of a report not being covered like "96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority", it would be neater to address the problem in the design of NTCTIM; and I think we have it covered.

NTCTIM

NTCHRS = Null

NTCTXT = "Vessel must provides 96 hrs pre-notice to Harbour Authority"

OPERAT = Null

If you are happy with that, fine.

However I suspect you realise all this so I imagine you are thinking about a different situation.

If so, and we do need [[APPLIC]], we would also need to adjust the definition.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I have checked the def for [[SHPREP]] and that is up to now limited to reports to be given to marine service and that is correct IMO. Marine service is a value of [[CATAUT]] (actually number 15)

 Your example would look like that
 AUTORI/ CATAUT(port)/ NTCTIM[NTCHRS(96),OPERAT(1)]
 I think is offers more calculable options.

In the case a marine service is engaged [[NTCTIM]] will be not selectable.

Are we agree to keep [[NTCTIM]] alive here?

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Actually it makes no difference. What we are discussing is for the product specification. Our examples in the FCD are only that, "examples". The product spec will show the particular binding for the product. That also applies to the relationship between [[SHPREP]] and [[MRNSRV]]. As it happens "What links here?" gives us three examples [[MRNSRV]], [[PLTSRV]] as well as [[AUTORI]]; but other products could also use the [[SHPREP]] feature. I still cannot firm up in my mind what [[NTCTIM]] means when it is on [[AUTORI]]. If you are thinking of "Notice to enter the area", I think it should be on the area; if it is "Notice to call on a channel" I think it should be on that marine service.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC) o.k. I understand your objections. It is correct, we only give indications of what should be part of the ProdSpec, we don't cover all possible options.
 For [[NTCTIM]] I think it is worth checking ALRS in that regard. Quit often notices have to be given long before entering an area. However, the compromise I propose is to delete [[NTCTIM]] from the attribute list and place under remark the optional use if notice time is necessary without having [[SHPREP]] involved. e.g.
 "If a notice at a given time (that includes numeric or alphanumeric values) is required without [[SHPREP]] involvement, [[NTCTIM]] has to be added to the list of attributes."
 That would satisfy the ProdSpec developer as well and avoid similar thoughts and discussions. I hope they refer to the discussion pages as well when writing the ProdSpec.

Jens at 12:55, 9 August 2010

2010-08-09T12:55:50Z

New page

Jens at 09:50, 8 August 2010

2010-08-08T09:50:50Z

Jens at 09:47, 8 August 2010

2010-08-08T09:47:26Z

Jens at 09:47, 8 August 2010

2010-08-08T09:47:11Z

Jens at 12:15, 7 August 2010

2010-08-07T12:15:25Z

New page

Jens at 11:29, 24 July 2010

2010-07-24T11:29:55Z

New page

Tom.loeper at 15:01, 12 March 2009

2009-03-12T15:01:55Z

Jens at 08:53, 13 August 2008

2008-08-13T08:53:50Z

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:50, 8 August 2010
Line 48:		Line 48:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
	[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status for [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.		[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status for [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.
		+	<br> Should [[APPLIC]] be added here as well? If [[SHPREP]] is not being used we have no possibility to model [[APPLIC]]. What do you think?

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:47, 8 August 2010
Line 47:		Line 47:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
−	[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status ~~fro~~ [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.	+	[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status for [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:47, 8 August 2010
Line 47:		Line 47:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
−	[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[~~AUTORI~~]] here.	+	[[NTCTIM]] in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under [[SHPREP]], e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain [[NTCTIM]] here. [[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status fro [[NTCTIM]] here. It should be only used if [[SHPREP]] is not being used.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 12 March 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:

	I agree. Looks fine to me now.		I agree. Looks fine to me now.
		+
		+	Looks good to me - Tom Loeper 12 March 09.