Talk:CATTRA

Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 6

09.Aug. 2006 Jens amended ID 5 according to a proposal given by Mal

DA 17 Aug 2006 amended list and amended definitions

Northern 9.Nov. 2006 Amend definition for item 11

WEG 22 May 07 Believe 13 belongs to a different category.

SNPWG8 May be a list – needs work

Jens 13.12. A list will not work with different NTCTIM entries; see my discussion paper as well

DA 14 Apr 08 Item 13 amended to remove inconsistency Improve def 13, align with 3. Done

By DA. 23 Sep 08. Enumerations 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 are pretty much only for disposal. 3 and 4 are for supply. That does not leave many which are good for both supply and disposal. I wonder if this is a problem and if we may be better to have single purpose catsup and a catdis instead?

jens 17:52, 12 October 2008 (CEST)

for continuing the discussion I added sup/dis behind each item. If we come to a common view, I do not have problems with splitting up.

DavidAcland 22:31, 27 October 2008 (CET)

Reorderd and major redraft of definitions to make these work for both supply and waste. I also think that No 8 Shore based pump, is out of place. The category of transport is the pipleline No 3.

jens 15:27, 15 November 2008 (CET) As you usually say: "Well done". I removed no 8 and amended the enumeration of previous 9-... How to proceed with the proposal to change back to L type. As we discussed in Brest, the L type per definition means one or more entries. If ntctim will work only for one entry then the entry can be separated from the others. Provides more flexibility for data model and less work for data coder.

DavidAcland 18:28, 24 November 2008 (CET)

OK here goes. What about making this a complex attribute? We retain the current enumerations 1 - 14 but in additon we add ntctim to each? So we would have a structure like:

Cattra

    sub-attribute 1     road vehicle   optional
    sub-attribute 20    ntctim         optional

    sub-attribute 2     boat           optional
    sub-attribute 20    ntctim         optional

    sub-attribute 3     etc            optional

If we are not allowed to use an attribute (ntctim) as a repeating sub-atttribute, we could instead have multiple attributes like:

notice time for road vehicles

notice time for boats

notice time for etc

AM 25 Nov.

Just spoken to Tom Mellor. He said that the complex attribute construction is OK, which is great news because I think we have come across the same problem in other areas. I will watch out for them. I have redrafted. I thought about adding CATSUP and catwas into the complex attribute as well but as we have two of them, I do not think that that will work. So now for each waste or supply we have to have one of these structures.

jens 10:35, 26 November 2008 (CET)

Well, why not, if it works. 'thinking we should make the work for the data coder as much simply as we can.

jens 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"International standard container" should be replaced by "Container". "International standard container" will immidiately cause the question which standard: 10', 20', 40', 45', HQ, Flatrack, Platform, Open Top?

raphael (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2017 (CET): Better definition needed. (This one can wait, it is not in S-122 or the GI registry.)

Proposed definition: Classification of transport facilities.