Difference between revisions of "Talk:PILBOP"
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Correct, that was forgotten. Although we might have this attribute available twice, I added to this object to satisfy S57. The duplication of CALSGN will not cause in the new S100 structure due to loose bindings between objects and attributes as we have it now with S57. That is why our approach offers more than only a list of objects/attributes. It offers the first approach to a ProdSpec too. | Correct, that was forgotten. Although we might have this attribute available twice, I added to this object to satisfy S57. The duplication of CALSGN will not cause in the new S100 structure due to loose bindings between objects and attributes as we have it now with S57. That is why our approach offers more than only a list of objects/attributes. It offers the first approach to a ProdSpec too. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Jens|jens]] 13:52, 28 April 2009 (CEST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[chalim]] should be considered when developing the ProdSpec. At certain places the [[PILBOP]] depends on different vsl limitations | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC): Proposal for new attribute [[GMLLCN]] was moved to its own page. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC): Just a note to say that the group is invited to consider adding bindings for attributes [[NTCTIM]], [[PLTRQS]] and [[SVAPRC]] to [[PILBOP]] (in addition to [[GMLLCN]], above). These suggestions are based on our experience working on data capture for the test examples of pilotge information. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Definition of CATPIL == | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|talk]]) 07:11, 9 January 2018 (CET): CATPIL (categoryOfPilotBoardingPlace is not defined in the S-101 DCEG or the GI registry). | ||
+ | <br>Proposed definition: Classification of pilot boarding place by method used to board pilots. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == PILDST/NPLDST attributes and S-101 Pilotage District == | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|talk]]) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (CET): S-101 DCEG 0.0.2 defines the feature Pilotage District instead of the attributes PILDST and NPLDST. At this time the GI registry contains both the feature and the attribute. Propose harmonizing with S-101 and removing PILDST and NPLDST from PILBOP. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Jens|jens]] ([[User talk:Jens|talk]]) 10:54, 9 January 2018 (CET) That is an harmonisation and I agree. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Definitions of PILBOP == | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|talk]]) 07:24, 23 May 2018 (CEST): Conflicting definitions as of 22 May 2018: | ||
+ | * GI registry: The meeting place to which the pilot comes out. | ||
+ | * S-101 DCEG 1.0.0 Beta 1: A location offshore where a pilot may board a vessel in preparation to piloting it through local waters. (Defence Geospatial Information Working Group; Feature Data Dictionary Register, 2010). | ||
+ | <br> Eivind remarks that the [[PLTMOV]] value ''disembarkation'' is contradictory to the definition of PilotBoardingPlace. NIPWG should review and resolve. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[User:Jens|jens]] ([[User talk:Jens|talk]]) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (CEST) I will contact Al to seek harmonisation between our data model and S-101 Beta. I strongly believe that our model offers more options for encoders and that this model reflects the rela world bettern than the current S-101 Beta version. |
Latest revision as of 13:24, 30 May 2018
Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 6
30.06.06 agreed SNPWG6
16.08.2006 checked DA
8.Nov.2006 checked Northern
SNPWG8 improve clapbp
14.01. Jens added dirctn; dstntn
14 Feb 08 WEG Changed clapbp to catpbp and agreed
12 July08 Jens agreed too
Submitted to Hydro register manager Date
Submitted to Nav register manager Date
--raphael 10:29, 20 March 2009 (CET)
S57 MD8 mentions new attribute CALSGN (which is also one of the attributes of condet)
jens 14:24, 20 March 2009 (CET)
Correct, that was forgotten. Although we might have this attribute available twice, I added to this object to satisfy S57. The duplication of CALSGN will not cause in the new S100 structure due to loose bindings between objects and attributes as we have it now with S57. That is why our approach offers more than only a list of objects/attributes. It offers the first approach to a ProdSpec too.
jens 13:52, 28 April 2009 (CEST)
chalim should be considered when developing the ProdSpec. At certain places the PILBOP depends on different vsl limitations
raphael 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC): Proposal for new attribute GMLLCN was moved to its own page.
raphael 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC): Just a note to say that the group is invited to consider adding bindings for attributes NTCTIM, PLTRQS and SVAPRC to PILBOP (in addition to GMLLCN, above). These suggestions are based on our experience working on data capture for the test examples of pilotge information.
Definition of CATPIL
raphael (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2018 (CET): CATPIL (categoryOfPilotBoardingPlace is not defined in the S-101 DCEG or the GI registry).
Proposed definition: Classification of pilot boarding place by method used to board pilots.
PILDST/NPLDST attributes and S-101 Pilotage District
raphael (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (CET): S-101 DCEG 0.0.2 defines the feature Pilotage District instead of the attributes PILDST and NPLDST. At this time the GI registry contains both the feature and the attribute. Propose harmonizing with S-101 and removing PILDST and NPLDST from PILBOP.
jens (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2018 (CET) That is an harmonisation and I agree.
Definitions of PILBOP
raphael (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2018 (CEST): Conflicting definitions as of 22 May 2018:
- GI registry: The meeting place to which the pilot comes out.
- S-101 DCEG 1.0.0 Beta 1: A location offshore where a pilot may board a vessel in preparation to piloting it through local waters. (Defence Geospatial Information Working Group; Feature Data Dictionary Register, 2010).
Eivind remarks that the PLTMOV value disembarkation is contradictory to the definition of PilotBoardingPlace. NIPWG should review and resolve.
jens (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (CEST) I will contact Al to seek harmonisation between our data model and S-101 Beta. I strongly believe that our model offers more options for encoders and that this model reflects the rela world bettern than the current S-101 Beta version.