Talk:CHALIM - Revision history

Jens at 04:51, 7 July 2010

2010-07-07T04:51:43Z

Rmm: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T23:13:36Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Rmm: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T23:11:47Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Rmm: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T22:46:35Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Jens: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T08:16:27Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Jens: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T07:54:31Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Jens: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T07:45:37Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Jens: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T07:37:02Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Jens: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T07:26:00Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

Jens: /* Simplified version of Characteristics ... */

2010-07-06T06:42:52Z

Simplified version of Characteristics ...

@@ Line 201: / Line 201: @@
 I also updated the attribute list with CATRGY, LIMTYP and LOGCON, which were proposed earlier.
-Definition:
+[[User:Jens|jens]] 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
-Describes the relationship between vessel characteristics and: (i) the applicability of an associated information object or feature to the vessel; or, (ii) the use of a facility, place, or service by the vessel; or, (iii) passage of the vessel through an area.
+Generated a new page [[APPLIC]]; the discussion related to the new idea introduced during SNPWG12 will be continued there.

@@ Line 330: / Line 330: @@
 [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC): Only short answers today; let's create a new page for APPLIC and discuss it there
-(no need to make new pages for the _HI, _LO or VSLCAR attributes yet, we can discuss them on the Talk:APPLIC page).
+(no need to make new pages for its new attributes yet, we can discuss them on the Talk:APPLIC page).
 The new complex attribute is theoretically OK. I want to think about the practical issues some more: how easy/difficult it might be for encoders to understand; integer vs. float limits; specifying data validation tests.

@@ Line 332: / Line 332: @@
 (no need to make new pages for the _HI, _LO or VSLCAR attributes yet, we can discuss them on the Talk:APPLIC page).
-VSLCAR is theoretically OK. I want to think about the practical issues some more, especially about how easy/difficult it might be for encoders to understand, about integer vs. float limits, and specifying data validation tests.
+The new complex attribute is theoretically OK. I want to think about the practical issues some more: how easy/difficult it might be for encoders to understand; integer vs. float limits; specifying data validation tests.
 ComparisonOperator (COMPOP) is better than LOGCOM (which is likely to be confused with LOGCO'''N''').
-LOGCON=2 (or): Yes, that is how it would work. (If you are thinking about the effect on _LO and _HI conditions; a HI/LO pair would always be treated as defining a range of values, not as separate conditions).
+LOGCON=2 (or): Yes, that is how it would work (and a HI/LO pair would define a range, not separate conditions).

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 6 July 2010
Line 328:		Line 328:

	What do you think?		What do you think?
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC): Only short answers today; let's create a new page for APPLIC and discuss it there
		+	(no need to make new pages for the _HI, _LO or VSLCAR attributes yet, we can discuss them on the Talk:APPLIC page).
		+
		+	VSLCAR is theoretically OK. I want to think about the practical issues some more, especially about how easy/difficult it might be for encoders to understand, about integer vs. float limits, and specifying data validation tests.
		+
		+	ComparisonOperator (COMPOP) is better than LOGCOM (which is likely to be confused with LOGCO'''N''').
		+
		+	LOGCON=2 (or): Yes, that is how it would work. (If you are thinking about the effect on _LO and _HI conditions; a HI/LO pair would always be treated as defining a range of values, not as separate conditions).
		+	<br>LOA_LO=50.0, CATVSL=3, OPERAT=4 (or): tankers, or any vessel with LOA 50.0 m or more ...

@@ Line 319: / Line 319: @@
 . VSLCAR=draught; value=10.5; LOGCOM=(>=)     the regulation applies for vsl of 10.5 m draught and above <br>
 . VSLCAR=DWT; Value=2000; LOGCOM=(=)          the regulation applies for vsl of exact 2000 DWT<br>
-. VSLCAR=lenght; value=150; LOGCOM=(<)       the regulation applies for vsl of less than 150 m length<br>
+. VSLCAR=length; value=150; LOGCOM=(<)       the regulation applies for vsl of less than 150 m length<br>
 Using your first example <br>

@@ Line 315: / Line 315: @@
 However, the German version provides the better symbols :) <br>
 The definition of LOGCOM must provide the relation between the value given in the model and the real ship's value.
 That would result <br>
@@ Line 328: / Line 326: @@
 If the example should work for tanker between 50 and 100 m length the coding is like this<br>
 [complex attribute [VSLCAR=length; value=50.0; LOGCOM=(>)], [VSLCAR=length; value=100.0; LOGCOM=(<)]], CATVSL=3 (tanker), LOGCON=1 (and), LIMTYP=2 (required); associated to a PILBOP object: tankers with LOA > 50.0 m and < 100.0 m must use the PILBOP

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:45, 6 July 2010
Line 324:		Line 324:

	Using your first example <br>		Using your first example <br>
−	[complex attribute[VSLCAR=length; value=50.0; LOGCOM=(>)]], CATVSL=3 (tanker), LOGCON=1 (and), LIMTYP=2 (required); associated to a PILBOP object: tankers with LOA > 50.0 m must use the PILBOP	+	[complex attribute [VSLCAR=length; value=50.0; LOGCOM=(>)]], CATVSL=3 (tanker), LOGCON=1 (and), LIMTYP=2 (required); associated to a PILBOP object: tankers with LOA > 50.0 m must use the PILBOP <br>
		+
		+	If the example should work for tanker between 50 and 100 m length the coding is like this<br>
		+	[complex attribute [VSLCAR=length; value=50.0; LOGCOM=(>)], [VSLCAR=length; value=100.0; LOGCOM=(<)]], CATVSL=3 (tanker), LOGCON=1 (and), LIMTYP=2 (required); associated to a PILBOP object: tankers with LOA > 50.0 m and < 100.0 m must use the PILBOP

@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 . How works LOGCON 2? I have problems to develop and to understand an example which satisfied me. <br>
 Using your first example I would assume that if LOGCON is been set to 2 the regulation applies for either vsl over 50 m length or tankers. Is my assumption correct?<br>
-. Is it thinkable to state certain characteristics like draught, length, beam, air draught etc. as complex attributes and introduce [[LOGCOM|logicalComparison]].<br>
+. I discussed the problem with Martin this morning and some very interesting ideas are on the table now.<br>
 That would reduce the quantity of attributes used and offers much more flexibility. A further reason why I am suggesting the complex type is that in the two examples you provided only max and min parameters are settled. The term "vessels of 50 m length or more" is not settled.

@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 . How works LOGCON 2? I have problems to develop and to understand an example which satisfied me. <br>
 Using your first example I would assume that if LOGCON is been set to 2 the regulation applies for either vsl over 50 m length or tankers. Is my assumption correct?<br>
-. Is it thinkable to state certain characteristics like draught, length, beam, air draught etc. as complex attributes and extend [[LOGCON]].<br>
+. Is it thinkable to state certain characteristics like draught, length, beam, air draught etc. as complex attributes and introduce [[LOGCOM|logicalComparison]].<br>
 That would reduce the quantity of attributes used and offers much more flexibility. A further reason why I am suggesting the complex type is that in the two examples you provided only max and min parameters are settled. The term "vessels of 50 m length or more" is not settled.
 Example:
-Attribute:  ??????<br>
+Attribute:  name to be defined <br>
 Attribute type: Complex
@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 |[[????]]||value||0..*||True
 |-
-|[[LOGCON]]||logicalConnectives||0..*||True
+|[[LOGCOM]]||logicalComparison||0..*||True
 |-
 |}
@@ Line 311: / Line 311: @@
 VSLCAR (length, beam, draught, air draught, GT, NT, DWT, DPL ) is just an idea, depends on the result of the discussion we can keep or bin it.<br>
-LOGCON can be extended by various other operators; see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logische_Operatoren or the English version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective  <br>
+[[LOGCOM]] has to be to developed and should provide various comparison operators; see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logische_Operatoren or the English version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective  <br>
-However, the German version provides the better symbols :)
+However, the German version provides the better symbols :) <br>
 What do you think?