Talk:CATTRA - Revision history

Rmm at 22:42, 3 February 2017

2017-02-03T22:42:35Z

Rmm at 02:32, 2 February 2017

2017-02-02T02:32:30Z

Jens at 12:07, 27 January 2012

2012-01-27T12:07:39Z

New page

Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 6

09.Aug. 2006 Jens amended ID 5 according to a proposal given by Mal

DA 17 Aug 2006 amended list and amended definitions

Northern 9.Nov. 2006 Amend definition for item 11

WEG 22 May 07 Believe 13 belongs to a different category.

SNPWG8 May be a list – needs work

Jens 13.12. A list will not work with different [[NTCTIM]] entries; see my discussion paper as well

DA 14 Apr 08 Item 13 amended to remove inconsistency
Improve def 13, align with 3. Done

By DA. 23 Sep 08. Enumerations 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 are pretty much only for disposal. 3 and 4 are for supply. That does not leave many which are good for both supply and disposal. I wonder if this is a problem and if we may be better to have single purpose '''catsup''' and a '''catdis''' instead?

[[User:Jens|jens]] 17:52, 12 October 2008 (CEST)

for continuing the discussion I added sup/dis behind each item. If we come to a common view, I do not have problems with splitting up.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 22:31, 27 October 2008 (CET)

Reorderd and major redraft of definitions to make these work for both supply and waste. I also think that No 8 Shore based pump, is out of place. The category of transport is the pipleline No 3.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 15:27, 15 November 2008 (CET)
As you usually say: "Well done". I removed no 8 and amended the enumeration of previous 9-...
How to proceed with the proposal to change back to L type. As we discussed in Brest, the L type per definition means one or more entries. If [[ntctim]] will work only for one entry then the entry can be separated from the others. Provides more flexibility for data model and less work for data coder.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 18:28, 24 November 2008 (CET)

OK here goes. What about making this a complex attribute? We retain the current enumerations 1 - 14 but in additon we add ntctim to each? So we would have a structure like:

Cattra

sub-attribute 1 road vehicle optional
sub-attribute 20 ntctim optional

sub-attribute 2 boat optional
sub-attribute 20 ntctim optional

sub-attribute 3 etc optional

If we are not allowed to use an attribute (ntctim) as a repeating sub-atttribute, we could instead have multiple attributes like:

notice time for road vehicles

notice time for boats

notice time for etc

AM 25 Nov.

Just spoken to Tom Mellor. He said that the complex attribute construction is OK, which is great news because I think we have come across the same problem in other areas. I will watch out for them. I have redrafted. I thought about adding [[CATSUP]] and [[catwas]] into the complex attribute as well but as we have two of them, I do not think that that will work. So now for each waste or supply we have to have one of these structures.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:35, 26 November 2008 (CET)

Well, why not, if it works. 'thinking we should make the work for the data coder as much simply as we can.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"International standard container" should be replaced by "Container". "International standard container" will immidiately cause the question which standard: 10', 20', 40', 45', HQ, Flatrack, Platform, Open Top?

Jens at 09:35, 26 November 2008

2008-11-26T09:35:04Z

New page

Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 6

09.Aug. 2006 Jens amended ID 5 according to a proposal given by Mal

DA 17 Aug 2006 amended list and amended definitions

Northern 9.Nov. 2006 Amend definition for item 11

WEG 22 May 07 Believe 13 belongs to a different category.

SNPWG8 May be a list – needs work

Jens 13.12. A list will not work with different [[ntctim]] entries; see my discussion paper as well

DA 14 Apr 08 Item 13 amended to remove inconsistency
Improve def 13, align with 3. Done

By DA. 23 Sep 08. Enumerations 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 are pretty much only for disposal. 3 and 4 are for supply. That does not leave many which are good for both supply and disposal. I wonder if this is a problem and if we may be better to have single purpose '''catsup''' and a '''catdis''' instead?

[[User:Jens|jens]] 17:52, 12 October 2008 (CEST)

for continuing the discussion I added sup/dis behind each item. If we come to a common view, I do not have problems with splitting up.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 22:31, 27 October 2008 (CET)

Reorderd and major redraft of definitions to make these work for both supply and waste. I also think that No 8 Shore based pump, is out of place. The category of transport is the pipleline No 3.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 15:27, 15 November 2008 (CET)
As you usually say: "Well done". I removed no 8 and amended the enumeration of previous 9-...
How to proceed with the proposal to change back to L type. As we discussed in Brest, the L type per definition means one or more entries. If [[ntctim]] will work only for one entry then the entry can be separated from the others. Provides more flexibility for data model and less work for data coder.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 18:28, 24 November 2008 (CET)

OK here goes. What about making this a complex attribute? We retain the current enumerations 1 - 14 but in additon we add ntctim to each? So we would have a structure like:

Cattra

sub-attribute 1 road vehicle optional
sub-attribute 20 ntctim optional

sub-attribute 2 boat optional
sub-attribute 20 ntctim optional

sub-attribute 3 etc optional

If we are not allowed to use an attribute (ntctim) as a repeating sub-atttribute, we could instead have multiple attributes like:

notice time for road vehicles

notice time for boats

notice time for etc

AM 25 Nov.

Just spoken to Tom Mellor. He said that the complex attribute construction is OK, which is great news because I think we have come across the same problem in other areas. I will watch out for them. I have redrafted. I thought about adding [[catsup]] and [[catwas]] into the complex attribute as well but as we have two of them, I do not think that that will work. So now for each waste or supply we have to have one of these structures.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:35, 26 November 2008 (CET)

Well, why not, if it works. 'thinking we should make the work for the data coder as much simply as we can.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date

Jens at 14:31, 15 November 2008

2008-11-15T14:31:10Z

Jens at 14:27, 15 November 2008

2008-11-15T14:27:09Z

New page

Jens at 15:52, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T15:52:03Z

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 3 February 2017
Line 62:		Line 62:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"International standard container" should be replaced by "Container". "International standard container" will immidiately cause the question which standard: 10', 20', 40', 45', HQ, Flatrack, Platform, Open Top?		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"International standard container" should be replaced by "Container". "International standard container" will immidiately cause the question which standard: 10', 20', 40', 45', HQ, Flatrack, Platform, Open Top?

−	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:32, 2 February 2017 (CET): Better definition needed. ~~Not currently defined on main page~~, ~~and~~ the registry ~~currently has the~~ definition ~~as just 'Categories that belong to traffic control services~~.'	+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:32, 2 February 2017 (CET): Better definition needed.
		+	(This one can wait, it is not in S-122 or the GI registry.)
		+
		+	Proposed definition: Classification of transport facilities.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:32, 2 February 2017
Line 61:		Line 61:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"International standard container" should be replaced by "Container". "International standard container" will immidiately cause the question which standard: 10', 20', 40', 45', HQ, Flatrack, Platform, Open Top?		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"International standard container" should be replaced by "Container". "International standard container" will immidiately cause the question which standard: 10', 20', 40', 45', HQ, Flatrack, Platform, Open Top?
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:32, 2 February 2017 (CET): Better definition needed. Not currently defined on main page, and the registry currently has the definition as just 'Categories that belong to traffic control services.'

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 15 November 2008
Line 28:		Line 28:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 15:27, 15 November 2008 (CET)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 15:27, 15 November 2008 (CET)
	As you usually say: "Well done". I removed no 8 and amended the enumeration of previous 9-...		As you usually say: "Well done". I removed no 8 and amended the enumeration of previous 9-...
		+	How to proceed with the proposal to change back to L type. As we discussed in Brest, the L type per definition means one or more entries. If [[ntctim]] will work only for one entry than the entry can be separated from the others. Provides more flexibility for data model and less work for data coder.