Talk:LAWLAW - Revision history

Jens at 11:00, 15 February 2010

2010-02-15T11:00:16Z

Jens at 10:59, 15 February 2010

2010-02-15T10:59:04Z

Rmm at 19:45, 12 February 2010

2010-02-12T19:45:47Z

Jens at 18:08, 11 February 2010

2010-02-11T18:08:38Z

Jens at 11:28, 11 February 2010

2010-02-11T11:28:37Z

Jens: New page: ~~~~ I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comments is below It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so fa...

2010-02-11T11:28:20Z

New page: ~~~~ I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comments is below It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so fa...

New page

[[User:Jens|jens]] 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comments is below
It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so far I think, any
great details out of what you call 'regs' in your mail. An extract would
suffice, I think. However, an extract would not be completely 'legal',
for example if a casualty were to result at least partly from a used
'extract', then I am sure somebody will show that due diligence was not
exercised by the Master.
On a personal preference level, I am of the opinion that a) less is
usually more and b) although it would be useful to have greatly detailed
tools available in the hands of /professionally trained and ECDIS
competent /mariners, the reality is that many will not be. Therefore
keeping it simple has advantages.

What do you think? Is is worth following a bit different approach and add a further LAW section where legal stuff can be stored in length?

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 15 February 2010
Line 18:		Line 18:
	I would like to hear a little more about what LAW might contain, especially since many (most?) laws are available today in one digital format or another.		I would like to hear a little more about what LAW might contain, especially since many (most?) laws are available today in one digital format or another.

−	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 10:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I was thinking on verbatim text of laws. I know BSH is publishing such publication and refers at many places to that, same with FR and UK, presumable US too. <br> However, the idea is to provide a brief overview of the most important topics in the [[regulations]] information object and to provide a link to the verbatim version. <br> Initially I thought to use [[CATRXN]]and add verbatim and brief but was not sure whether it is a good idea. It seems to not fit into the collection of values now. [[RXNCOD]] is also not available for that kind of information. Remains the idea to discuss and decide at first if and where to place.	+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 10:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I was thinking on verbatim text of laws. I know BSH is publishing such publication and refers at many places to that, same with FR and UK, presumable US too. <br> However, the idea is to provide a brief overview of the most important topics in the [[REGLTS \|regulations]] information object and to provide a link to the verbatim version. <br> Initially I thought to use [[CATRXN]]and add verbatim and brief but was not sure whether it is a good idea. It seems to not fit into the collection of values now. [[RXNCOD]] is also not available for that kind of information. Remains the idea to discuss and decide at first if and where to place.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 15 February 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:

	I would like to hear a little more about what LAW might contain, especially since many (most?) laws are available today in one digital format or another.		I would like to hear a little more about what LAW might contain, especially since many (most?) laws are available today in one digital format or another.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 10:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I was thinking on verbatim text of laws. I know BSH is publishing such publication and refers at many places to that, same with FR and UK, presumable US too. <br> However, the idea is to provide a brief overview of the most important topics in the [[regulations]] information object and to provide a link to the verbatim version. <br> Initially I thought to use [[CATRXN]]and add verbatim and brief but was not sure whether it is a good idea. It seems to not fit into the collection of values now. [[RXNCOD]] is also not available for that kind of information. Remains the idea to discuss and decide at first if and where to place.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 12 February 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:

	What do you think? Is is worth following a bit different approach and add a further LAW section where legal stuff can be stored in length?		What do you think? Is is worth following a bit different approach and add a further LAW section where legal stuff can be stored in length?
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC): Keeping it simple sounds good. We may have different opinions about what 'simple' and 'at length' mean...
		+
		+	I would like to hear a little more about what LAW might contain, especially since many (most?) laws are available today in one digital format or another.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[User:Jens|jens]] 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comment is below
+[[User:Jens|jens]] 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing how extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comment is below
      It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so far I think, any
      great details out of what you call 'regs' in your mail. An extract would