Talk:CATNTC - Revision history

Rmm at 16:50, 24 April 2014

2014-04-24T16:50:11Z

Jens at 06:10, 15 April 2014

2014-04-15T06:10:18Z

New page

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 17:48, 20 January 2009 (CET)
I have reordered this item; removed "seabed"; and replaced several definitions with those found in The Mariner's Handbook and adapted one or two from elsewhere.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 10:07, 20 March 2009 (CET) Suggest adding "precipitation" as a category. Another possible addition is the catchall type "severe weather" though I am less sure about this one. Would making it type L instead of E be a net improvement? It simplifies some encoding tasks but might make processing tasks more difficult.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 14:27, 20 March 2009 (CET)

Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such a catchall attribute. Using E type helps to separate the information. L type might cause in the worst case that one could try to create a list of attributes and put all information in one text file. That is what you said, the processing would became a nightmare.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 14:41, 20 March 2009 (CET)

can one of the Englishmen check the definition provided for precipitation?, Thanks Jens

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 17:35, 20 March 2009 (CET)

Checked.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC) suggest to add air temperature and humidity

Jens at 13:43, 20 March 2009

2009-03-20T13:43:07Z

Jens at 13:41, 20 March 2009

2009-03-20T13:41:39Z

Jens at 13:35, 20 March 2009

2009-03-20T13:35:39Z

Jens at 13:27, 20 March 2009

2009-03-20T13:27:21Z

Rmm at 09:07, 20 March 2009

2009-03-20T09:07:20Z

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 24 April 2014
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC) suggest to add air temperature and humidity		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC) suggest to add air temperature and humidity
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC): OK. Merriam-Webster's definitions could probably be improved, but I have not found definitions in the accessible documents on WMO's site.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 20 March 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such a catchall attribute. Using E type helps to separate the information. L type might cause in the worst case that one could try to crate a list of attributes and put all information in one text file. That is what you said, the processing would became a nightmare.		Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such a catchall attribute. Using E type helps to separate the information. L type might cause in the worst case that one could try to crate a list of attributes and put all information in one text file. That is what you said, the processing would became a nightmare.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:41, 20 March 2009 (CET)
		+
		+	can one of the Englishmen check the definition provided for precipitation?, Thanks Jens

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 20 March 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:27, 20 March 2009 (CET)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:27, 20 March 2009 (CET)

−	Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such catchall attribute. ~~Having~~	+	Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such a catchall attribute. Using E type helps to separate the information. L type might cause in the worst case that one could try to crate a list of attributes and put all information in one text file. That is what you said, the processing would became a nightmare.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 20 March 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 10:07, 20 March 2009 (CET) Suggest adding "precipitation" as a category. Another possible addition is the catchall type "severe weather" though I am less sure about this one. Would making it type L instead of E be a net improvement? It simplifies some encoding tasks but might make processing tasks more difficult.		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 10:07, 20 March 2009 (CET) Suggest adding "precipitation" as a category. Another possible addition is the catchall type "severe weather" though I am less sure about this one. Would making it type L instead of E be a net improvement? It simplifies some encoding tasks but might make processing tasks more difficult.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:27, 20 March 2009 (CET)
		+
		+	Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such catchall attribute. Having

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 [[User:Jens|jens]] 14:27, 20 March 2009 (CET)
-Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such a catchall attribute. Using E type helps to separate the information. L type might cause in the worst case that one could try to crate a list of attributes and put all information in one text file. That is what you said, the processing would became a nightmare.
+Good point. "precipitation" can be added. I think it is presented on one or another place. The "severe weather" should be kept pending. I am not willing to reject it now but I am also not convinced that we really need such a catchall attribute. Using E type helps to separate the information. L type might cause in the worst case that one could try to create a list of attributes and put all information in one text file. That is what you said, the processing would became a nightmare.
 [[User:Jens|jens]] 14:41, 20 March 2009 (CET)
 can one of the Englishmen check the definition provided for precipitation?, Thanks Jens