Talk:CATREL - Revision history

Jens at 06:01, 23 January 2017

2017-01-23T06:01:33Z

Rmm at 03:19, 18 January 2017

2017-01-18T03:19:58Z

Jens at 11:50, 22 November 2011

2011-11-22T11:50:34Z

Jens at 11:49, 22 November 2011

2011-11-22T11:49:21Z

Rmm at 05:07, 3 March 2011

2011-03-03T05:07:57Z

Rmm at 05:06, 3 March 2011

2011-03-03T05:06:22Z

Jens at 12:30, 2 March 2011

2011-03-02T12:30:22Z

Rmm at 08:04, 2 March 2011

2011-03-02T08:04:12Z

Rmm at 08:03, 2 March 2011

2011-03-02T08:03:12Z

Jens at 18:47, 1 March 2011

2011-03-01T18:47:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:01, 23 January 2017
Line 129:		Line 129:
	# Expresses the level of insistence for or against an action or activity.		# Expresses the level of insistence for or against an action or activity.
	# Expresses constraints or requirements on vessel actions or activities in relation to a geographic feature, facility, or service.		# Expresses constraints or requirements on vessel actions or activities in relation to a geographic feature, facility, or service.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk:Jens\|talk]]) 07:01, 23 January 2017 (CET) I prefer the second alternative.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:19, 18 January 2017
Line 125:		Line 125:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 04:19, 18 January 2017 (CET): Since the definition has been questioned, here are some alternative definitions:
		+	# Expresses the level of insistence for or against an action or activity.
		+	# Expresses constraints or requirements on vessel actions or activities in relation to a geographic feature, facility, or service.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:50, 22 November 2011
Line 125:		Line 125:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)
−
−
−	~~[[User:Jens\|jens]] 11:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 'have seen further values at the UML <br>~~
−	~~included<br>~~
−	~~excepted<br>~~
−
−	~~Shall we add them or are they only proposals?~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 22 November 2011
Line 125:		Line 125:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)
		+
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 11:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 'have seen further values at the UML <br>
		+	included<br>
		+	excepted<br>
		+
		+	Shall we add them or are they only proposals?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 3 March 2011
Line 124:		Line 124:
	<br>My remaining questions are how to involve 0..n of the quartet in the model? How are they linked to superclass(AbstractRXNClass) or are they part of superclass(AbstractRXNClass) now?		<br>My remaining questions are how to involve 0..n of the quartet in the model? How are they linked to superclass(AbstractRXNClass) or are they part of superclass(AbstractRXNClass) now?

−	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass to 0..*.)	+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass association to 0..*.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:06, 3 March 2011
Line 123:		Line 123:
	<br>PILBOP<---association class X with attribute CATREL--->APPLIC<---AppliesTo--->superclass(AbstractRXNClass)		<br>PILBOP<---association class X with attribute CATREL--->APPLIC<---AppliesTo--->superclass(AbstractRXNClass)
	<br>My remaining questions are how to involve 0..n of the quartet in the model? How are they linked to superclass(AbstractRXNClass) or are they part of superclass(AbstractRXNClass) now?		<br>My remaining questions are how to involve 0..n of the quartet in the model? How are they linked to superclass(AbstractRXNClass) or are they part of superclass(AbstractRXNClass) now?
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC): The quartet are subclasses (that is, UML specializations) of AbstractRXNClass, so they inherit the associations, attributes, and multiplicities of AbstractRXNClass unless explicitly overridden, which is not the case here. (For 0..n, change 1..* at the AbstractRXNClass end of the APPLIC---AbstractRXNClass to 0..*.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 2 March 2011
Line 119:		Line 119:

	Combining [[CATRXN]] / [[CATAUT]] is a different issue, which would affect this diagram only by changing an attribute or two of the Quartet or their new superclass AbstractRXNClass.		Combining [[CATRXN]] / [[CATAUT]] is a different issue, which would affect this diagram only by changing an attribute or two of the Quartet or their new superclass AbstractRXNClass.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks Raphael. I hope I got it.
		+	<br>PILBOP<---association class X with attribute CATREL--->APPLIC<---AppliesTo--->superclass(AbstractRXNClass)
		+	<br>My remaining questions are how to involve 0..n of the quartet in the model? How are they linked to superclass(AbstractRXNClass) or are they part of superclass(AbstractRXNClass) now?

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 <br>We have got a feature (anchorage). Certain quartet information applies to that area. Some information is useful for one vessel and excludes another, and vice versa. We need to introduce association class <em>AppliesTo</em> (with attribute [[MBRSHP]]) as a named association class to set up the link between [[APPLIC]] and the quartet correctly.
 <br>
-Further we need to have a set of attributes of the Quarted object to explain:
+Further we need to have a set of attributes of the Quartet object to explain:
 *the degree of completeness of the information (to be decided and likely to develop);
 *the issuing authority [[CATAUT]];

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:03, 2 March 2011
Line 101:		Line 101:
	<br>Raphael's proposal is to combine [[CATRXN]] and [[CATAUT]] somehow to a generalised AbstractRXNClass?). David was saying [[Talk:CATAUT \|15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]] that actually similarities are difficult to identify between [[CATRXN]] and [[CATAUT]] and suggest to postpone the decission.		<br>Raphael's proposal is to combine [[CATRXN]] and [[CATAUT]] somehow to a generalised AbstractRXNClass?). David was saying [[Talk:CATAUT \|15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]] that actually similarities are difficult to identify between [[CATRXN]] and [[CATAUT]] and suggest to postpone the decission.
	<br>We are trying to figure out how to cut the Gordian knot. Am I correct?		<br>We are trying to figure out how to cut the Gordian knot. Am I correct?
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 08:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC): I'll explain by copying and editing the first part of Jens' post:
		+	<br>We have got a feature (anchorage). Certain quartet information applies to that area. Some information is useful for one vessel and excludes another, and vice versa. We need to introduce association class <em>AppliesTo</em> (with attribute [[MBRSHP]]) as a named association class to set up the link between [[APPLIC]] and the quartet correctly.
		+	<br>
		+	Further we need to have a set of attributes of the Quarted object to explain:
		+	*the degree of completeness of the information (to be decided and likely to develop);
		+	*the issuing authority [[CATAUT]];
		+	*the information to what the quartet information pertains [[CATRXN]]
		+
		+	Similarly, to explain whether use of a geographic feature or service is required, recommended, etc., we need to introduce another association class <em>X</em> (with attribute [[CATREL]]) as a named association class to set up the link between [[APPLIC]] and the object or service correctly. (E.g., PILBOP<---X--->APPLIC).
		+
		+	(Because it is moved to the association class X, CATREL is no longer an attriute of [[APPLIC]].)
		+
		+	(End of edit.)
		+
		+	UML won't allow us to have both REGLTS<---AppliesTo--->APPLIC and RCMDTS<---AppliesTo--->APPLIC in the same model. The solution is to make the association to a superclass of REGLTS and RCMDTS - hence, AbstractRXNClass.
		+
		+	Combining [[CATRXN]] / [[CATAUT]] is a different issue, which would affect this diagram only by changing an attribute or two of the Quartet or their new superclass AbstractRXNClass.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 1 March 2011
Line 89:		Line 89:
	<br>		<br>
	[[Image:MPASnip.JPG]]		[[Image:MPASnip.JPG]]
		+
		+	<br class="new">
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I hope to understand and will try to explain with my own words to ensure that I understand the new idea correctly.
		+	<br>We have got a feature (anchorage). Certain quartet information applies to that area. Some information is useful for one vessel and excludes another, vice versa. We need to introduce [[MBRSHP]] as named association class to set up the link between [[APPLIC]] and the quartet correctly.
		+	Further we need to have a set of attributes or named associations to explain
		+	*the degree of completeness of the information (to decide and likely to develop);
		+	*the issuing authority [[CATAUT]];
		+	*the information to what the quartet information pertains [[CATRXN]] and
		+	*the relationship [[CATREL]]
		+	<br>and how to store the quartet information (which is actually a file name stored at [[TXTDSC]]) computer friendly.
		+	<br>Raphael's proposal is to combine [[CATRXN]] and [[CATAUT]] somehow to a generalised AbstractRXNClass?). David was saying [[Talk:CATAUT \|15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]] that actually similarities are difficult to identify between [[CATRXN]] and [[CATAUT]] and suggest to postpone the decission.
		+	<br>We are trying to figure out how to cut the Gordian knot. Am I correct?