Talk:WKHRDY - Revision history

Jens at 05:52, 29 November 2011

2011-11-29T05:52:09Z

Rmm: /* Repeating attribute WKHRDY */

2011-11-28T22:08:32Z

Repeating attribute WKHRDY

New page

SNPWG 8 agreed

[[User:Jens|jens]] 19:48, 14 February 2009 (CET)

added a comment to clarify the multi working time option

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC): Propose changing cardinality of sub-attributes [[TIMSTW]] and [[TIMENW]] to 1..* to handle this.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC): Also, addition of the following constraint to the specification for [[WKHRDY]]:

Other

Pair-wise correspondence between timstw and timenw is required. For each timstw/timenw pair, timstw must precede timenw.

And the following definition of "pair-wise" correspondence, in, say, the product specification:

Pair-wise correspondence

Let a1…am be the sequence of values of attribute A of an instance of object class O and b1...bn the sequence of values of attribute B of the same instance, each in the same order that the values occur in the data set. (Null values are permitted.) Attributes A and B have pair-wise correspondence when: (i) m = n; (ii) the encoding guide or product specification defines a relationship, or assigns special significance, for pairs (ai, bj) if and only if i = j. Informally, the attributes are pair-wise correspondent if and only each value is associated with its opposite number for the other attribute. For example, each value of attribute “day-of-the-week” may be associated with a value of attribute “office-hours”, signifying that the office in question is open during those hours on that day of the week.

This may seem complicated, but the S-57 encoding guide tries to achieve a similar goal with NATQUA/NATSUR in clause 7.1 of Appendix B.1. If list types (e.g., "1,2,4") are not allowed, the proposed solution or an alternative is needed.

== Repeating attribute WKHRDY ==

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 02:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC): The current Comment suggest repeating attribute WKHRDY to represent multiple working periods in a day. This might cause confusion if one needs to encode multiple workdays separately. For example: Monday-Friday 8-12 and 1-5; Saturday 8-12.

The suggested solution is to change the TIMSTW and TIMENW thus: multiplicity = 1..*, sequential = true. The Remark/Comment would become:

Sub-attributes TIMSTW and TIMENW must be repeated and be in mutual correspondence if there are a number of working time periods in a day. For example

Work time 0800-1200, 1400-2000 must be encoded as:

TIMSTW=0800<br>
TIMSTW=1400
<br>and<br>
TIMENW=1200<br>
TIMENW=2000

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 09:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made TIMSTW and TIMENW sequential = True i.a.w Raphael's advice above.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC): Sequential = True goes hand-in-hand with multiplicity = 1..* (ref. my April 2 note above). Are we agreed on both?

[[User:Jens|jens]] 04:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I have amended the page entries according to Raphael's advise
[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I do not see how TIMREF can have Sequential = *. If the other two sub-attributes are Sequential = True then TIMREF must also be Sequential = True. So I have made the change and this is reflectied forward into my comments on Tom's XML FC.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC): I think [[TIMREF]] would have sequential = n/a because its multiplicity is 1 and we need just one TIMREF value in each [[WKHRDY]].

Jens: /* Repeating attribute WKHRDY */

2010-08-13T04:54:55Z

Repeating attribute WKHRDY

Rmm at 21:34, 12 August 2010

2010-08-12T21:34:14Z

New page

Rmm: /* Repeating attribute WKHRDY */ new section

2010-04-02T02:42:27Z

Repeating attribute WKHRDY: new section

Rmm at 20:24, 1 September 2009

2009-09-01T20:24:36Z

Rmm at 20:12, 1 September 2009

2009-09-01T20:12:41Z

New page

Jens at 18:48, 14 February 2009

2009-02-14T18:48:54Z

Jens: New page: SNPWG 8 agreed

2008-07-13T12:17:40Z

New page: SNPWG 8 agreed

New page

SNPWG 8 agreed

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 13 August 2010
Line 44:		Line 44:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC): Sequential = True goes hand-in-hand with multiplicity = 1..* (ref. my April 2 note above). Are we agreed on both?		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC): Sequential = True goes hand-in-hand with multiplicity = 1..* (ref. my April 2 note above). Are we agreed on both?
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 04:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I have amended the page entries according to Raphael's advise

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 [[User:Jens|jens]] 04:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I have amended the page entries according to Raphael's advise
 [[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I do not see how TIMREF can have Sequential = *.  If the other two sub-attributes are Sequential = True then TIMREF must also be Sequential = True.  So I have made the change and this is reflectied forward into my comments on Tom's XML FC.
 [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC): I think [[TIMREF]] would have sequential = n/a because its multiplicity is 1 and we need just one TIMREF value in each [[WKHRDY]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:42, 2 April 2010
Line 22:		Line 22:

	This may seem complicated, but the S-57 encoding guide tries to achieve a similar goal with NATQUA/NATSUR in clause 7.1 of Appendix B.1. If list types (e.g., "1,2,4") are not allowed, the proposed solution or an alternative is needed.		This may seem complicated, but the S-57 encoding guide tries to achieve a similar goal with NATQUA/NATSUR in clause 7.1 of Appendix B.1. If list types (e.g., "1,2,4") are not allowed, the proposed solution or an alternative is needed.
		+
		+	== Repeating attribute WKHRDY ==
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 02:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC): The current Comment suggest repeating attribute WKHRDY to represent multiple working periods in a day. This might cause confusion if one needs to encode multiple workdays separately. For example: Monday-Friday 8-12 and 1-5; Saturday 8-12.
		+
		+	The suggested solution is to change the TIMSTW and TIMENW thus: multiplicity = 1..*, sequential = true. The Remark/Comment would become:
		+
		+	Sub-attributes TIMSTW and TIMENW must be repeated and be in mutual correspondence if there are a number of working time periods in a day. For example
		+
		+	Work time 0800-1200, 1400-2000 must be encoded as:
		+
		+	TIMSTW=0800<br>
		+	TIMSTW=1400
		+	<br>and<br>
		+	TIMENW=1200<br>
		+	TIMENW=2000

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 1 September 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC): Propose changing cardinality of sub-attributes [[TIMSTW]] and [[TIMENW]] to 1..* to handle this.		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC): Propose changing cardinality of sub-attributes [[TIMSTW]] and [[TIMENW]] to 1..* to handle this.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC): Also, addition of the following constraint to the specification for [[WKHRDY]]:
		+
		+	Other
		+
		+	Pair-wise correspondence between timstw and timenw is required. For each timstw/timenw pair, timstw must precede timenw.
		+
		+
		+	And the following definition of "pair-wise" correspondence, in, say, the product specification:
		+
		+	Pair-wise correspondence
		+
		+	Let a1…am be the sequence of values of attribute A of an instance of object class O and b1...bn the sequence of values of attribute B of the same instance, each in the same order that the values occur in the data set. (Null values are permitted.) Attributes A and B have pair-wise correspondence when: (i) m = n; (ii) the encoding guide or product specification defines a relationship, or assigns special significance, for pairs (ai, bj) if and only if i = j. Informally, the attributes are pair-wise correspondent if and only each value is associated with its opposite number for the other attribute. For example, each value of attribute “day-of-the-week” may be associated with a value of attribute “office-hours”, signifying that the office in question is open during those hours on that day of the week.
		+
		+
		+	This may seem complicated, but the S-57 encoding guide tries to achieve a similar goal with NATQUA/NATSUR in clause 7.1 of Appendix B.1. If list types (e.g., "1,2,4") are not allowed, the proposed solution or an alternative is needed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 14 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	SNPWG 8 agreed		SNPWG 8 agreed
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 19:48, 14 February 2009 (CET)
		+
		+	added a comment to clarify the multi working time option