Difference between revisions of "Talk:GMDSSA"
(New page: Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 8 Jens 13.11.2007 can be GMDSS areas also temporarily established or in force? If not, PEREND, PERSAT can be removed from Set A. 11 Feb 08 Good thou...) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
DA 11 Feb 08 WEG 13 Feb 08 Agreed | DA 11 Feb 08 WEG 13 Feb 08 Agreed | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | [[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 16:55, 13 August 2008 (CEST) | |
| + | |||
| + | Just a camel case thing. Is this the correct way to handle acronyms like GMDSS in the camel case line? Two other ways come to mind 1) "gMDSS" and 2) spell out the whole thing "globalMaritimeDistress ... etc". | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 13:18, 14 August 2008 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thinking this should be answered by Berry's team. They should know the options we have. I assume some fix rules are defined. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 15:23, 14 August 2008 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Good advice. Spoken to Barry and not all good news but we now have some rules. He says S-100 says: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. Spell out all acronyms fully. (but I am not sure it says this bit) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. First letter of camel case for features - upper case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. First letter of camel case for attributes - lower case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2 and 3 follow a convention I have seen somewhere before; possibly for UML. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Discussed with Mal and then tried to follow these rules. Rule 1 was too silly and made camel cases too long, less human understandable and so I reject it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | My new rule 1 is to use the acronym but convert to lower case in general and follow rules 2 and 3. So catrco becomes categoryOfDgpsMessagesGlonass. This was the silliest when fully spelt out. This is unique and fully human understandable and so follows the S-100 guidline. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jens, Can you find somewhere in your Product Specification for this rule? Is that the right place? I have amended the wiki in line with this. Better check the items you have already agreed. I also added dgps to IntegrityMonitoring to fit the pattern of the other attributes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 13:21, 19 August 2008 (CEST) | ||
| + | done, set proposal accordingly | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC): Alain writes in email that GMDSSA should be reviewed, because the geometries of areas A1-A4 are not easy to define. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Indeed, that is a challenge. I'll ask Alain and ask for a suggestion. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:58, 25 February 2014
Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 8
Jens 13.11.2007 can be GMDSS areas also temporarily established or in force? If not, PEREND, PERSAT can be removed from Set A.
11 Feb 08 Good thought; deleted.
DA 11 Feb 08 WEG 13 Feb 08 Agreed
DavidAcland 16:55, 13 August 2008 (CEST)
Just a camel case thing. Is this the correct way to handle acronyms like GMDSS in the camel case line? Two other ways come to mind 1) "gMDSS" and 2) spell out the whole thing "globalMaritimeDistress ... etc".
jens 13:18, 14 August 2008 (CEST)
Thinking this should be answered by Berry's team. They should know the options we have. I assume some fix rules are defined.
DavidAcland 15:23, 14 August 2008 (CEST)
Good advice. Spoken to Barry and not all good news but we now have some rules. He says S-100 says:
1. Spell out all acronyms fully. (but I am not sure it says this bit)
2. First letter of camel case for features - upper case.
3. First letter of camel case for attributes - lower case.
2 and 3 follow a convention I have seen somewhere before; possibly for UML.
Discussed with Mal and then tried to follow these rules. Rule 1 was too silly and made camel cases too long, less human understandable and so I reject it.
My new rule 1 is to use the acronym but convert to lower case in general and follow rules 2 and 3. So catrco becomes categoryOfDgpsMessagesGlonass. This was the silliest when fully spelt out. This is unique and fully human understandable and so follows the S-100 guidline.
Jens, Can you find somewhere in your Product Specification for this rule? Is that the right place? I have amended the wiki in line with this. Better check the items you have already agreed. I also added dgps to IntegrityMonitoring to fit the pattern of the other attributes.
jens 13:21, 19 August 2008 (CEST) done, set proposal accordingly
raphael 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC): Alain writes in email that GMDSSA should be reviewed, because the geometries of areas A1-A4 are not easy to define.
jens 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Indeed, that is a challenge. I'll ask Alain and ask for a suggestion.