Talk:Notice time - Revision history

Jens at 13:19, 15 January 2010

2010-01-15T13:19:44Z

Rmm at 08:08, 15 January 2010

2010-01-15T08:08:45Z

Jens at 17:33, 30 October 2009

2009-10-30T17:33:01Z

Rmm at 17:06, 30 October 2009

2009-10-30T17:06:09Z

Jens at 07:40, 30 October 2009

2009-10-30T07:40:32Z

Rmm at 05:12, 30 October 2009

2009-10-30T05:12:17Z

Jens at 06:39, 29 October 2009

2009-10-29T06:39:27Z

Rmm at 18:58, 28 October 2009

2009-10-28T18:58:57Z

Jens at 06:21, 28 October 2009

2009-10-28T06:21:53Z

Rmm: OPERAT and notice time

2009-10-27T22:54:02Z

OPERAT and notice time

New page

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC): Here I have a question about the meaning of [[OPERAT]] in the context of notice time. "Whichever is more" and "whichever is less" are OK where they apply. But [[NTCTXT]] is also intended to qualify [[NTCHRS]], e.g., by adding a phrase like "before reaching reporting point". "3 hours before reaching reporting point" would be encoded as NTCHRS = 3 hours and NTCTXT="before reaching reporting point". Possible ways to resolve this are by mandating a meaning for OPERAT=null or the absence of OPERAT, or adding another allowed value for [[OPERAT]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 15 January 2010
Line 59:		Line 59:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC): We need to replace the contents of the current [[NTCTIM]] page with the results of this discussion (or make a new name and acronym). Shall I update the old [[NTCTIM]] page, or would you prefer to do it yourself, or do something else with this?		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC): We need to replace the contents of the current [[NTCTIM]] page with the results of this discussion (or make a new name and acronym). Shall I update the old [[NTCTIM]] page, or would you prefer to do it yourself, or do something else with this?
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I will wait for David's confirmation before doing that. I will do it by myself. Thanks for your offer.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:08, 15 January 2010
Line 57:		Line 57:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) done. Raphael, thanks for this fruitful discussion.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) done. Raphael, thanks for this fruitful discussion.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC): We need to replace the contents of the current [[NTCTIM]] page with the results of this discussion (or make a new name and acronym). Shall I update the old [[NTCTIM]] page, or would you prefer to do it yourself, or do something else with this?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 30 October 2009
Line 55:		Line 55:

	"Remark: Product specifications which allow multiplicity > 1 for this attribute should state whether the order of values has any significance and explain the significance."		"Remark: Product specifications which allow multiplicity > 1 for this attribute should state whether the order of values has any significance and explain the significance."
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC) done. Raphael, thanks for this fruitful discussion.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 30 October 2009
Line 51:		Line 51:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 07:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC) OK. Understand your ideas and advices. I changed the table content accordingly. The multiplicity was set > 1 because of the necessity of declaring several hrs for one single handling (e.g. report) is possible. An example is provided on the page. I placed remark that the ProdSpec should define whether the multiplicity > 1 for the attribute bindings is requested. I assume that is the right place.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 07:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC) OK. Understand your ideas and advices. I changed the table content accordingly. The multiplicity was set > 1 because of the necessity of declaring several hrs for one single handling (e.g. report) is possible. An example is provided on the page. I placed remark that the ProdSpec should define whether the multiplicity > 1 for the attribute bindings is requested. I assume that is the right place.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC): OK. I suggest changing the last sentence to make it clearer to some future reader who will not have seen this discussion.
		+
		+	"Remark: Product specifications which allow multiplicity > 1 for this attribute should state whether the order of values has any significance and explain the significance."

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:40, 30 October 2009
Line 49:		Line 49:

	I think there is less chance of ambiguity with Case 1...		I think there is less chance of ambiguity with Case 1...
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 07:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC) OK. Understand your ideas and advices. I changed the table content accordingly. The multiplicity was set > 1 because of the necessity of declaring several hrs for one single handling (e.g. report) is possible. An example is provided on the page. I placed remark that the ProdSpec should define whether the multiplicity > 1 for the attribute bindings is requested. I assume that is the right place.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:12, 30 October 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I hope the S100 text cause the same results in our both minds :). <br> OK I understood and turn back to sequential 1. I also set multiplicity to 0..* because of thinking that several notice times to one administration/service etc. are applicable. The order of information should be set in that case.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I hope the S100 text cause the same results in our both minds :). <br> OK I understood and turn back to sequential 1. I also set multiplicity to 0..* because of thinking that several notice times to one administration/service etc. are applicable. The order of information should be set in that case.
		+
		+	--[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC): S100 also allows multiplicity > 1 for the attribute bindings themselves (Appendix 5A, figure in A-1 and table A.17). So an alternative might be to assign the objectX-NTCTIM binding multiplicity 0..* or 1..* and sequential=true, and keep the multiplicity of sub-attributes NTCHRS, NTCTXT, OPERAT as 1 or 0..1 (and therefore sequential=n/a for each sub-attribute) unless there is some other reason for multiplicity > 1 there. That is, we could code, for example:
		+
		+	Case 1:
		+	<br>PLTSRV
		+	<br>NTCTIM (1st instance of complex attribute)
		+	<br>  NTCHRS=12
		+	<br>  NTCTXT="before arrival at reporting point"
		+	<br>  OPERAT=null
		+	<br>NTCTIM (2nd instance of complex attribute)
		+	<br>  NTCHRS=6
		+	<br>  NTCTXT="update"
		+	<br>  OPERAT=null
		+
		+	instead of
		+
		+	Case 2:
		+	<br>PLTSRV
		+	<br>NTCTIM (complex attribute)
		+	<br>  NTCHRS=12
		+	<br>  NTCHRS=6
		+	<br>  NTCTXT="before arrival at reporting point"
		+	<br>  NTCTXT="update"
		+	<br>  OPERAT=null
		+	<br>  OPERAT=null
		+
		+	or
		+
		+	Case 3
		+	<br>PLTSRV
		+	<br>NTCTIM (complex attribute)
		+	<br>  NTCHRS=12
		+	<br>  NTCTXT="before arrival at reporting point"<br>  OPERAT=null
		+	<br>  NTCHRS=6
		+	<br>  NTCTXT="update"
		+	<br>  OPERAT=null
		+
		+	I think there is less chance of ambiguity with Case 1...

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 29 October 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I see the point about specifying the order of NTCHRS and NTCTXT, but perhaps the data capture (encoding) guide should tell the encoder how to phrase NTCTXT? If I were displaying NTCTHRS/NTCXT as a table either order might be acceptable. Also, it is possible that the proper order might be different in different languages.		I see the point about specifying the order of NTCHRS and NTCTXT, but perhaps the data capture (encoding) guide should tell the encoder how to phrase NTCTXT? If I were displaying NTCTHRS/NTCXT as a table either order might be acceptable. Also, it is possible that the proper order might be different in different languages.
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I hope the S100 text cause the same results in our both minds :). <br> OK I understood and turn back to sequential 1. I also set multiplicity to 0..* because of thinking that several notice times to one administration/service etc. are applicable. The order of information should be set in that case.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:58, 28 October 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Does not multiplicity 0..1 solve the problem? Having no [[OPERAT]] defined the operation is absence.<br>By the way, reading your argument it seem to me that the sequential should be set. Otherwise we run the risk to see "before reaching reporting point 3 hours" which is understandable but looks strange. I will set the sequential accordingly.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Does not multiplicity 0..1 solve the problem? Having no [[OPERAT]] defined the operation is absence.<br>By the way, reading your argument it seem to me that the sequential should be set. Otherwise we run the risk to see "before reaching reporting point 3 hours" which is understandable but looks strange. I will set the sequential accordingly.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC): OPERAT multiplicity 0.. does solve the problem, the specification should state how the absence of OPERAT must be interpreted. E.g., "The absence of OPERAT or a null value for OPERAT means NTCTXT qualifies or explains NTCTIM. In this case NTCHRS and NTCTXT must be read or displayed together."
		+
		+	The definition of "sequential" in S-100 drafts is ambiguous, but after reading the remarks in V. 0.0.4 2a-4.2.13 and examples in Appendix 2A, "sequential" is just a boolean which applies only if multiplicities > 1 are allowed; all "sequential" indicates is whether the sequence of values is significant. It is left to the product specification to say what the significance is.
		+
		+	I see the point about specifying the order of NTCHRS and NTCTXT, but perhaps the data capture (encoding) guide should tell the encoder how to phrase NTCTXT? If I were displaying NTCTHRS/NTCXT as a table either order might be acceptable. Also, it is possible that the proper order might be different in different languages.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 28 October 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC): Here I have a question about the meaning of [[OPERAT]] in the context of notice time. "Whichever is more" and "whichever is less" are OK where they apply. But [[NTCTXT]] is also intended to qualify [[NTCHRS]], e.g., by adding a phrase like "before reaching reporting point". "3 hours before reaching reporting point" would be encoded as NTCHRS = 3 hours and NTCTXT="before reaching reporting point". Possible ways to resolve this are by mandating a meaning for OPERAT=null or the absence of OPERAT, or adding another allowed value for [[OPERAT]].		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC): Here I have a question about the meaning of [[OPERAT]] in the context of notice time. "Whichever is more" and "whichever is less" are OK where they apply. But [[NTCTXT]] is also intended to qualify [[NTCHRS]], e.g., by adding a phrase like "before reaching reporting point". "3 hours before reaching reporting point" would be encoded as NTCHRS = 3 hours and NTCTXT="before reaching reporting point". Possible ways to resolve this are by mandating a meaning for OPERAT=null or the absence of OPERAT, or adding another allowed value for [[OPERAT]].
		+
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Does not multiplicity 0..1 solve the problem? Having no [[OPERAT]] defined the operation is absence.<br>By the way, reading your argument it seem to me that the sequential should be set. Otherwise we run the risk to see "before reaching reporting point 3 hours" which is understandable but looks strange. I will set the sequential accordingly.