Talk:MPAARE

jens 14:00, 10 January 2009 (CET)

The problem I have is, why do we need an extra information object when the attributes catmpa and catiuc given there can easily be placed here? The only difference are DRVAL1/2 and both are doubtful.

Is it thinkable to add catmpa and catiuc here and to replace mpadet by rcmdts; reglts; resdes; as information objects?

See discussions at Talk:Mpapen and mpadet.

--Cwinn72 13:34, 27 January 2009 (CET)

I have been confused as to why MPAARE is listed here. The reason that the area and supplemental attributes were split is to accommodate mariners and the ENC. The original plan was to submit the MPAARE feature to the hydro FCD. This would ensure that the limits of these areas would be included in S-101 ENCs. The supplemental information, i.e. IUCN category, etc, would be proposed to an alternative register for use in other product specifications. At the time of our proposal, the nautical pubs looked like the most likely register. This is the reason for the separate information objects.

I'll defer to Craig who is the in-house expert on MPA's. Tom Loeper 12 March 09.

jens 06:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
added MRNSRV according to use case provided at SNPWG 12 and the discussion to use the wiki information as a start for ProdSpec/EncodingGuides

Track of email conversations in that regard
Jens
I did some comparison work with the WDPA and SNPWG data structure; see wiki. The most is clear to me. I would like to ask you to check whether I am wrong and try to answer on the AUTORI problem. If we come to a conclusion before end this week, we can make a tick on that working item too.

Holly
I agree that AUTORI is the SNPWG equivalent of MANG_AUTH. I do not understand why MRNSRV is associated with MPAARE in the wiki though. I know it was used in the US mapping of MPA areas but only because there was a ship reporting service through the MPA.

Jens
Thanks for confirming AUTORI. Yeah, MRNSRV surprises me as well. It is actually not an Information Object and I think it makes no sense to make one of it. The idea was that MRNSRV will act on behalf of the MPAARE authority. And that is IMO correct and could be stated in the MRNSRV/SVAPRC. I don't think the MPAARE authority will do the MRNSRV job by them self. I rather think the area of responsibility for a MRNSRV is different from MPAARE (in Germany I know that for sure). Therefore making MRNSRV an information object is not correct. We must correct that line on the wiki if it is commonly agreed.

I discussed the current AUTORI construction with David. At the moment we have got only one feature (CALARE) requiring an association with AUTORI. The idea we have had years ago was to share the geometry. We discussed whether it would make more sense to make AUTORI an information object. That offers the direct association to a geographic feature and is easier to handle.

I have sent the idea to Raphael yesterday evening as well. I think we should make the decision in consents.

raphael 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC): Making AUTORI an information object sounds fine to me.

jens 11:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I deleted MRNSRV from the information object list and added AUTORI instead.