Talk:UKCVAR - Revision history

Jens at 13:13, 15 January 2010

2010-01-15T13:13:11Z

Rmm at 07:11, 15 January 2010

2010-01-15T07:11:05Z

Jens at 13:12, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T13:12:54Z

Jens at 13:12, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T13:12:42Z

Rmm at 23:31, 8 October 2009

2009-10-08T23:31:30Z

Jens at 07:12, 8 October 2009

2009-10-08T07:12:19Z

Jens at 05:53, 8 October 2009

2009-10-08T05:53:10Z

Rmm at 15:19, 7 October 2009

2009-10-07T15:19:22Z

Jens: New page: ~~~~ That might fix the problem of UKC stated sometimes. The problem remains is if authorities declare. "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught but at least 2.5 metres". That sounds seri...

2009-10-06T12:09:26Z

New page: ~~~~ That might fix the problem of UKC stated sometimes. The problem remains is if authorities declare. "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught but at least 2.5 metres". That sounds seri...

New page

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That might fix the problem of UKC stated sometimes. The problem remains is if authorities declare. "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught but at least 2.5 metres". That sounds serious to code.

However, ideas please!

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 15 January 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:

	UKC calculations are specific to the vessel. Calculation of UKC is supposed to be done by the master from data provided by the owner/operator. Should the figure on the UKCVAR main be retained? Also, will SNPWG need to obtain reproduction rights for it?		UKC calculations are specific to the vessel. Calculation of UKC is supposed to be done by the master from data provided by the owner/operator. Should the figure on the UKCVAR main be retained? Also, will SNPWG need to obtain reproduction rights for it?
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) No, We don not have ask officially to reproduce the figure. It is placed to make it a bit clearer what UKC means. If we are all at the "same level" of knowledge the figure should be deleted. <br>
		+	I amended the definition/reference and remarks according to your advices.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:11, 15 January 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understood your idea now and have developed the complex attribute using [[OPERAT]].		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understood your idea now and have developed the complex attribute using [[OPERAT]].
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC): There are different terms in use for this concept: "under keel clearance", "under keel allowance", "under keel clearance allowance", with slightly different definitions:
		+
		+	<br>U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, July 1, 2009 (33CFR 148.5):<br>
		+	Gross under keel clearance means the distance between the keel of a tanker and the ocean bottom when the tanker is moored or anchored in calm water free of wind, current, or tide conditions that would cause the tanker to move.
		+	<br>Net under keel clearance means the distance between the keel of a tanker and the ocean bottom when the tanker is underway, anchored, or moored, and subject to actual wind, waves, current, and tide motion.
		+
		+	Report for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (www.amsa.gov.au) ("Assistance with the Implementation of an Under Keel Clearance System For Torres Strait") defines UKC as "the distance between the keel of a vessel and the sea floor". The report also says that Gross UKC is the sum of allowances (in the figure currently on the UKCVAR main page).
		+
		+	Regulations for Los Angeles/Long Beach: "Under-keel clearance means the minimum clearance available between the deepest point on the vessel and the bottom in still water."
		+
		+	The IHO Hydrographic Dictionary (IHO S-32, 5th ed., 1994) has the following definitions:
		+	<br>Under keel clearance: "The distance between the lowest point of the ship's hull, normally some point on the keel, and the sea bottom."
		+	<br>Under keel allowance: "The estimated minimum underkeel clearance in a given channel accounting for the ship's squat, movement due to swell, tide height etc.
		+
		+
		+	Given all the above, I suggest using one of the two terms (underkeel clearance/underkeel allowance) from the Hydrographic Dictionary, adapted for the use of percentage of draught. For example:
		+	<br>Name: Under keel clearance, variable:
		+	<br>Definition: "The distance between the lowest point of the ship's hull (normally some point on the keel) and the sea bottom, defined as a percentage of the ships draught."
		+
		+	Remarks: I suggest changing "No remarks" to:
		+	<br>"UKC is calculated from the vessel's draft and various allowances. The figure below shows an example of the calculation of Gross UKC."
		+
		+	Example: Delete the word "metres" (percentages don't have dimensions).
		+
		+	UKC calculations are specific to the vessel. Calculation of UKC is supposed to be done by the master from data provided by the owner/operator. Should the figure on the UKCVAR main be retained? Also, will SNPWG need to obtain reproduction rights for it?

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:12, 24 October 2009
Line 26:		Line 26:


−	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understood your idea now and have developed the complex attribute using [[[OPERAT]].	+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understood your idea now and have developed the complex attribute using [[OPERAT]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:12, 24 October 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC): Function (FUNCTN) is a better word than operation but FUNCTN is an existing attribute in S-57. Anyway, the proposal is consistent with S-100 because it is not an operation in the UML sense. It would not have to be represented by an operation in UML. It is just another attribute of type Enumeration that can take one of a set of values from a CodeList {1, 2}.		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC): Function (FUNCTN) is a better word than operation but FUNCTN is an existing attribute in S-57. Anyway, the proposal is consistent with S-100 because it is not an operation in the UML sense. It would not have to be represented by an operation in UML. It is just another attribute of type Enumeration that can take one of a set of values from a CodeList {1, 2}.
		+
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understood your idea now and have developed the complex attribute using [[[OPERAT]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 8 October 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) ... and more down it is prohibited again page 74 3-5.2.9		Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) ... and more down it is prohibited again page 74 3-5.2.9
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC): Function (FUNCTN) is a better word than operation but FUNCTN is an existing attribute in S-57. Anyway, the proposal is consistent with S-100 because it is not an operation in the UML sense. It would not have to be represented by an operation in UML. It is just another attribute of type Enumeration that can take one of a set of values from a CodeList {1, 2}.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 8 October 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

−	Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;)	+	Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) ... and more down it is prohibited again page 74 3-5.2.9

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 8 October 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Just an idea. (And now that I have put it down, it (OPERAT) could be extended to define expressions to other combinations of attributes in other circumstances...)		Just an idea. (And now that I have put it down, it (OPERAT) could be extended to define expressions to other combinations of attributes in other circumstances...)
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 7 October 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	However, ideas please!		However, ideas please!
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC): In that case ("at least") use both UKCFIX and UKCVAR? That leaves, theoretically, "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught <em>or</em> 2.5 metres <em>whichever is less</em>".
		+
		+	If we want a complete solution one way is to make it a complex attribute like this:
		+
		+	Attribute: UKC...
		+	<br>Sub-attributes:
		+	<br>UKCFIX
		+	<br>UKCVAR
		+	<br>OPERAT: 1 (whichever is more) or 2 (whichever is less)
		+
		+	where OPERAT is an operation applied to the other sub-attributes.
		+
		+	Just an idea. (And now that I have put it down, it (OPERAT) could be extended to define expressions to other combinations of attributes in other circumstances...)