Talk:MPADET - Revision history

Jens at 13:51, 21 January 2009

2009-01-21T13:51:59Z

Jens at 13:49, 21 January 2009

2009-01-21T13:49:37Z

Jens at 18:31, 19 January 2009

2009-01-19T18:31:07Z

New page

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:02, 10 January 2009 (CET)

I deleted '''[[mpareg]]''' as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties applies.

We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement to describe the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.

DRVAL1/2 make no sence here as they describe the water depth of an geo object. This is an inf object. But, in any case, they are useless in this for MPA.

Some thoughts later I am not convinced that this information object is really needed. We can cover all information with the geo object. That makes to construction easier; see my discussion at '''[[mpaare]]'''.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 17:01, 14 January 2009 (CET) Trying to make this structure work before accepting deletion.

I think I can see that there may be sanctuaries or reserves that apply between certain depths or from a depth to a drying height. Therefore I have moved DRVAL1 and DRVAL2 to [[mpaare]] to solve the geographic/non-geographic problem.

My first instinct was also to put [[catmpa]] and [[catiuc]] on [[mpaare]]. However I understand that NOAA does not want to put non charty information in the ENC. I can see the point of putting amplifying detail like regulations and penalties off the chart.

[[catiuc]] looks OK to me and I have proposed at [[talk:catmpa]] to replace [[catmpa]] with CATREA with a minor extension.

Our only remaining problem would then be the association of information object to information object. I need to talk to Barry Greenslade about this.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 19:31, 19 January 2009 (CET)

I can follow your arguments at [[talk:catmpa]] and I agree. That is another way. It solves NOAA's interest on this object and keeps it alive. Can we solve the problems with the brothers by following my ideas at '''[[Talk:Restvc]]''' second section, relationship by using OBJNAM...?

Jens at 13:15, 10 January 2009

2009-01-10T13:15:10Z

Jens at 13:03, 10 January 2009

2009-01-10T13:03:14Z

Jens at 11:22, 10 January 2009

2009-01-10T11:22:57Z

Jens: New page: ~~~~ I deleted '''mpareg''' as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties aplies. Looks perfect for me as it is now.

2009-01-10T11:02:53Z

New page: ~~~~ I deleted '''mpareg''' as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties aplies. Looks perfect for me as it is now.

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 21 January 2009
Line 26:		Line 26:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:49, 21 January 2009 (CET)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:49, 21 January 2009 (CET)

−	seems we got this too.	+	Following the discussion at '''[[Talk:Restvc]]''' seems we got this too. We should wait what Craig will say.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 21 January 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:

	I can follow your arguments at [[talk:catmpa]] and I agree. That is another way. It solves NOAA's interest on this object and keeps it alive. Can we solve the problems with the brothers by following my ideas at '''[[Talk:Restvc]]''' second section, relationship by using OBJNAM...?		I can follow your arguments at [[talk:catmpa]] and I agree. That is another way. It solves NOAA's interest on this object and keeps it alive. Can we solve the problems with the brothers by following my ideas at '''[[Talk:Restvc]]''' second section, relationship by using OBJNAM...?
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:49, 21 January 2009 (CET)
		+
		+	seems we got this too.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 10 January 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement of describing the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.		We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement of describing the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.

−	~~Except the DRVAL1/2 it looks perfect for me as it is now.~~ DRVAL1/2 make no sence here as they describe the water depth of an geo object. This is an inf object.	+	DRVAL1/2 make no sence here as they describe the water depth of an geo object. This is an inf object.
		+
		+	For further improvements see my discussion at '''[[mpaare]]'''.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 I deleted '''[[mpareg]]''' as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties applies.
-We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement of describing the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.
+We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement to describe the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.
-DRVAL1/2 make no sence here as they describe the water depth of an geo object. This is an inf object.
+DRVAL1/2 make no sence here as they describe the water depth of an geo object. This is an inf object. But, in any case, they are useless in this for MPA.
-For further improvements see my discussion at '''[[mpaare]]'''.
+Some thoughts later I am not convinced that this information object is really needed. We can cover all information with the geo object. That makes to construction easier; see my discussion at '''[[mpaare]]'''.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[User:Jens|jens]] 12:02, 10 January 2009 (CET)
-I deleted '''[[mpareg]]''' as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties aplies.
+I deleted '''[[mpareg]]''' as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties applies.
-Looks perfect for me as it is now.
+We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement of describing the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.