Talk:AUTORI

Drafted and agreed by SNPWG8

14.11.07 Jens added various inf obj.

SNPWG 9 Still open for final agreement

27.07. 08 Jens I think nonworking day is a superfluous attribute here. It is a sub-attribute of srvhrs; see there. Shall we delete from here?

29.07.08 David. I agree. Deleting nwkday from autori.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date

12.08.08 Ricardo.

I didn’t quite understand why we need PEREND and PERSTA since we have DATEND and DATSTA. Is there a case of seasonal authority? I was wondering if we could just use the second pair – which seems, to me, to be the best option –, or just the first one.

jens 10:37, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

The items fit following constructions:

DATSTA/DATEND will be used when an authority will come into force/ will be closed to a specified date. Data producer will be able to insert a date and the ENC will appear/disappear the information at appropriated time.

PERSTA/PEREND will be used when an authority will be in operation only for a specified period of time; e.g. the authority of a port affected to be closed during ice season might be operate only in summer period. All other times they drink wine, watch TV, read books etc. (just kidding)

DavidAcland 10:48, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

Jens thanks for the tip.

I see we have both condet and telcom. telcom now denigrated and moved to deleted page; calnam CALSGN COMCHA are now placed in condet. Deleting telcom from autori.

jens 10:53, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

I agree. Looks fine to me now.

Looks good to me - Tom Loeper 12 March 09.

jens 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC) based on discussions at MPAARE the object type was changed from feature to information

DavidAcland 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

NTCTIM looks redundant to me. Authorities do not really have a "Notice". Reports or Requests to them do and we have that covered as an attribute of SHPREP. Propose delete from AUTORI.

jens 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC) NTCTIM in this context should be used if reports have to be given which are not covered under SHPREP, e.g. 96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority. Until a better argument I prefer to retain NTCTIM here. jens 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The ProdSpec should specify a conditional status for NTCTIM here. It should be only used if SHPREP is not being used.
Should APPLIC be added here as well? If SHPREP is not being used we have no possibility to model APPLIC. What do you think?

DavidAcland 11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I think the logic could get dirty and complicated.

2. It does not really respond to the main problem which is that AUTORI is a person or organisation not a service. So in your example, where we have a case of a report not being covered like "96 hrs pre-notice to the harbour authority", it would be neater to address the problem in the design of NTCTIM; and I think we have it covered.

NTCTIM

NTCHRS = Null

NTCTXT = "Vessel must provides 96 hrs pre-notice to Harbour Authority"

OPERAT = Null

If you are happy with that, fine.

However I suspect you realise all this so I imagine you are thinking about a different situation.

If so, and we do need APPLIC, we would also need to adjust the definition.

jens 12:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I have checked the def for SHPREP and that is up to now limited to reports to be given to marine service and that is correct IMO. Marine service is a value of CATAUT (actually number 15)

Your example would look like that
AUTORI/ CATAUT(port)/ NTCTIM[NTCHRS(96),OPERAT(1)]
I think is offers more calculable options.

In the case a marine service is engaged NTCTIM will be not selectable.

Are we agree to keep NTCTIM alive here?