Talk:WETFCA - Revision history

Jens at 14:01, 12 April 2014

2014-04-12T14:01:50Z

Rmm at 07:31, 10 April 2014

2014-04-10T07:31:09Z

Jens at 18:47, 9 April 2014

2014-04-09T18:47:09Z

Rmm at 00:23, 5 April 2014

2014-04-05T00:23:00Z

New page

Jens 14.01. improved definition and obj name to fit warnings as well (ALRS (3/1) page 22ff
added NATION to carry the relationship between catfca (3) and the responsible nation

DA 11 Feb 08 and WEG 13 Feb 08 Agreed

[[User:Jens|jens]] 19:40, 1 October 2008 (CEST)

do you think we will have forecast areas valid only for a specified period of time? I couldn't see why to carry restrictions

If you agree pls remove (((PEREND; PERSTA; RESTRN;))) from the article

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 19:26, 24 November 2008 (CET)

I do not see a need for RESTRN.

However I can see PEREND and PERSTA being used for ICE forcasts and warnings. I think it is also possible that some forecasts are provided during the main leisure seasons in inshore waters for yachties. So I have tidied up with this.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:20, 26 November 2008 (CET)

The working majority of the group agreed therefore RESTRN deleted.

I still have problems with PERSTA/END. I see your point but that is probably a wrong thought. The forecast itself can broadcast within a specified period of time. I wonder that the area designator should also have a limited lifetime. I am thinking, the area name specified by a category of area he was given for is valid all over the year. The mariner may expect a kind of weather report in a specified time period. I know from discussions with the Canadians that it is extremely difficult to change forecast areas because they are "burned" in the users' mind.

What do you think?

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 17:20, 28 November 2008 (CET)

I see your point. The areas does not change so there is no need for PEREND and PERSTA, even if the service stops within it.

Looking through the discussions I think that we have lost [[catmsi]]. I changed it to [[CATMAB]] in the summer but did not appear to link it to any Object. [[catmsi]] used to belongs on RDOSTA so I have put [[CATMAB]] there as in the GEO Objects file at the bottom of the page.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC): Without attributes describing the broadcast types, schedules, etc. (like RadioServiceArea ([[RDOSVC]]) the only useful information this feature carries is area type and name. Suggest binding attributes describing the service (like RadioServiceArea attributes) or making an association to RadioServiceArea. (Perhaps also with RadioStation.)

Jens at 09:20, 26 November 2008

2008-11-26T09:20:35Z

New page

Jens at 17:41, 1 October 2008

2008-10-01T17:41:15Z

Jens at 17:40, 1 October 2008

2008-10-01T17:40:59Z

Jens: New page: Jens 14.01. improved definition and obj name to fit warnings as well (ALRS (3/1) page 22ff added NATION to carry the relationship between catfca (3) and the responsible nation DA 11 Feb ...

2008-08-08T14:09:07Z

New page: Jens 14.01. improved definition and obj name to fit warnings as well (ALRS (3/1) page 22ff added NATION to carry the relationship between catfca (3) and the responsible nation DA 11 Feb ...

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 12 April 2014
Line 36:		Line 36:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 07:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC): We can leave it as is and depend on the spatial query to find the radio service(s).		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 07:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC): We can leave it as is and depend on the spatial query to find the radio service(s).
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 14:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Sounds good. Let's do so.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, 10 April 2014
Line 34:		Line 34:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Well, the initial idea was to provide exactly the area and the respective area name and nothing more. I appreciate your idea very much. A binding to a particular service makes sense. <br/>		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Well, the initial idea was to provide exactly the area and the respective area name and nothing more. I appreciate your idea very much. A binding to a particular service makes sense. <br/>
	My first thought is saying that we should bind it with [[RDOSVC]]. But how should we manage it if we have two [[RDOSVC]] areas which provide information for the same WETFCA? If that would cause no problems I would be happy with that solution.		My first thought is saying that we should bind it with [[RDOSVC]]. But how should we manage it if we have two [[RDOSVC]] areas which provide information for the same WETFCA? If that would cause no problems I would be happy with that solution.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 07:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC): We can leave it as is and depend on the spatial query to find the radio service(s).

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 9 April 2014
Line 31:		Line 31:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC): Without attributes describing the broadcast types, schedules, etc. (like RadioServiceArea ([[RDOSVC]]) the only useful information this feature carries is area type and name. Suggest binding attributes describing the service (like RadioServiceArea attributes) or making an association to RadioServiceArea. (Perhaps also with RadioStation.)		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC): Without attributes describing the broadcast types, schedules, etc. (like RadioServiceArea ([[RDOSVC]]) the only useful information this feature carries is area type and name. Suggest binding attributes describing the service (like RadioServiceArea attributes) or making an association to RadioServiceArea. (Perhaps also with RadioStation.)
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Well, the initial idea was to provide exactly the area and the respective area name and nothing more. I appreciate your idea very much. A binding to a particular service makes sense. <br/>
		+	My first thought is saying that we should bind it with [[RDOSVC]]. But how should we manage it if we have two [[RDOSVC]] areas which provide information for the same WETFCA? If that would cause no problems I would be happy with that solution.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 1 October 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	do you think we will have forecast areas valid only for a specified period of time? I couldn't see why to carry restrictions		do you think we will have forecast areas valid only for a specified period of time? I couldn't see why to carry restrictions

−	If you agree pls ~~delete~~ (((PEREND; PERSTA; RESTRN;))) from the article	+	If you agree pls remove (((PEREND; PERSTA; RESTRN;))) from the article

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 1 October 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:

	DA 11 Feb 08 and WEG 13 Feb 08 Agreed		DA 11 Feb 08 and WEG 13 Feb 08 Agreed
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 19:40, 1 October 2008 (CEST)
		+
		+	do you think we will have forecast areas valid only for a specified period of time? I couldn't see why to carry restrictions
		+
		+	If you agree pls delete (((PEREND; PERSTA; RESTRN;))) from the article