Talk:FRQPAR - Revision history

Jens at 09:11, 11 September 2012

2012-09-11T09:11:42Z

Jens at 07:05, 3 December 2010

2010-12-03T07:05:18Z

Jens at 07:04, 3 December 2010

2010-12-03T07:04:50Z

Jens at 16:50, 11 April 2010

2010-04-11T16:50:34Z

New page

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 16:56, 2 September 2008 (CEST)

Is 6 digits enough?

Could we have to cover VHF like 156.025 mHz? In kHz to 1 decimal place this would be 1560250, and so using 7 digits.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 15:25, 19 September 2008 (CEST)

Although I am not convinced that we need VHF frequency pairs (they are COMCHA and I am not familiar enough how it works with Simplex or Duplex VHF channels; perhaps you should discuss this problem with Larry) I can life with the 7th digit. It offers more flexibility and in case we will never use it the design looks very very professional. ...and the data provider will love it too.

by the way: if the use of UHF is likely are 7 digits enough or should we add one more? (that was not a joke)

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 16:48, 1 December 2008 (CET)

Spoke to Larry. He agrees that COMCHA is sufficient for VHF and we do not need to describe it here. We only have to deal with HF and so 6 digits is sufficient..

[[User:Jens|jens]] 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) <br>The theoretic repetition of that attribute is superfluous due to the use of sequential "True". I think the current solution offers the flexibility we expected of a complex attribute.

Jens at 13:25, 19 September 2008

2008-09-19T13:25:24Z

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 11 September 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<br>He agreed with that nice and simple approach. And I think that is the simplest way. The only thing to do is to add the text file to the complex attribute (frequency pair).		<br>He agreed with that nice and simple approach. And I think that is the simplest way. The only thing to do is to add the text file to the complex attribute (frequency pair).
	<br>he alternative would be a more complicated model which is not impossible to build but it will be very time consuming and if we compare the efforts need and who or how it will be used I considered that useless and waste of time.		<br>he alternative would be a more complicated model which is not impossible to build but it will be very time consuming and if we compare the efforts need and who or how it will be used I considered that useless and waste of time.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Experience from NARW mapping; should the model make CATFRP another sub-attribute of FRQPAR?

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 [[User:Jens|jens]] 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) <br>The theoretic repetition of that attribute is superfluous due to the use of sequential "True". I think the current solution offers the flexibility we expected of a complex attribute.
-[[User:Jens|jens]] 07:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC) and Alain <br>Discussed the frequency problem with an UKHO radio officer. I explained our approach:
+[[User:Jens|jens]] and Alain 07:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)  <br>Discussed the frequency problem with an UKHO radio officer. I explained our approach:
 *frequency pairs a been built by using receiving and transmitting frequencies
 *the ECDIS system can calculate internally the channel if that frequency pair belongs to one

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 3 December 2010
Line 16:		Line 16:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) <br>The theoretic repetition of that attribute is superfluous due to the use of sequential "True". I think the current solution offers the flexibility we expected of a complex attribute.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) <br>The theoretic repetition of that attribute is superfluous due to the use of sequential "True". I think the current solution offers the flexibility we expected of a complex attribute.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 07:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC) and Alain <br>Discussed the frequency problem with an UKHO radio officer. I explained our approach:
		+	*frequency pairs a been built by using receiving and transmitting frequencies
		+	*the ECDIS system can calculate internally the channel if that frequency pair belongs to one
		+	*the footnotes can be putted into a separate file belongs to that frequency pair
		+	<br>He agreed with that nice and simple approach. And I think that is the simplest way. The only thing to do is to add the text file to the complex attribute (frequency pair).
		+	<br>he alternative would be a more complicated model which is not impossible to build but it will be very time consuming and if we compare the efforts need and who or how it will be used I considered that useless and waste of time.