Difference between revisions of "Talk:CATREL"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[User:Jens|jens]] 10:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) copied from Raphael's email sent 4 Oct 2010 <br>About decisions on CATREL: Since we prefer to use roles, CATREL should be deleted as an Attribute and turned into a Role; I can look up the S-100 way of describing Roles and propose a page template for Roles. I am holding back because the final model and wording might depend on TSMAD's reply to our email about roles and named associations. | [[User:Jens|jens]] 10:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) copied from Raphael's email sent 4 Oct 2010 <br>About decisions on CATREL: Since we prefer to use roles, CATREL should be deleted as an Attribute and turned into a Role; I can look up the S-100 way of describing Roles and propose a page template for Roles. I am holding back because the final model and wording might depend on TSMAD's reply to our email about roles and named associations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 09:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC) We now know that, if the S-100 changes proposed by SNPWG and developed at TSMAD21 in Vancouver Island are adopted, our MPA application schema, including CATREL, will not have to change. In order to avoid the "limbo" mentined by Eivind, I suggest that we continue on the assumption that the S-100 change will be adopted. We will have to report to HSSC that we have made this assumption. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am therefore continuing the review of the FCD, on the basis that [[CATREL]] replaces [[LIMTYP]]. | ||
| + | I have further amended the Proposed alternative Remarks, which I think is now simpler and clearer. | ||
| + | Can we agree on this and the CATREL definition? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC): | ||
| + | Should "not recommended" (value 2) be taken literally, or interpreted as "discouraged"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do we need the remarks at all? I think it is clear without any remarks. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The MPA model does not need to change, but the changes proposed by the TSMAD21 group also allow a model like the diagrams in the proposal we submitted and we can use CATREL there too, so references to a specific object (like APPLIC) should be removed. | ||
Revision as of 02:08, 10 February 2011
jens 06:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we need excluded as well?
raphael 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC): If we have "excepted" I think not. Confusion may be my fault, I have probably used "excluded" and "excepted" interchangeably.
jens 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) oops, my fault. I haven't checked the definitions and my translation was tending to German too much :)
Thanks Raphael.
DavidAcland 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC): Can we please now come to some decisions? I recommend the Alternative Definition and the Proposed Alternative Remarks, which is not surprising because I think I drafted them. Any other views?
jens 10:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) copied from Raphael's email sent 4 Oct 2010
About decisions on CATREL: Since we prefer to use roles, CATREL should be deleted as an Attribute and turned into a Role; I can look up the S-100 way of describing Roles and propose a page template for Roles. I am holding back because the final model and wording might depend on TSMAD's reply to our email about roles and named associations.
DavidAcland 09:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC) We now know that, if the S-100 changes proposed by SNPWG and developed at TSMAD21 in Vancouver Island are adopted, our MPA application schema, including CATREL, will not have to change. In order to avoid the "limbo" mentined by Eivind, I suggest that we continue on the assumption that the S-100 change will be adopted. We will have to report to HSSC that we have made this assumption.
I am therefore continuing the review of the FCD, on the basis that CATREL replaces LIMTYP. I have further amended the Proposed alternative Remarks, which I think is now simpler and clearer. Can we agree on this and the CATREL definition?
raphael 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC): Should "not recommended" (value 2) be taken literally, or interpreted as "discouraged"?
Do we need the remarks at all? I think it is clear without any remarks.
The MPA model does not need to change, but the changes proposed by the TSMAD21 group also allow a model like the diagrams in the proposal we submitted and we can use CATREL there too, so references to a specific object (like APPLIC) should be removed.