Talk:LOGCON

jens 08:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC) it seems to me the example at remarks is not correct.
Using option 1 of my proposal stated at Talk:VSLMSM the correct version should be

 
APPLIC
 
LOGCON=1
 
VSLMSM/[VSLCAR=10/VSLVAL=50.0/COMPOP=1]
 
VSLMSM/[VSLCAR=6/VSLVAL=10.0/COMPOP=1]

Using version 2 the correct version should be

 
APPLIC
 
LOGCON=1
 
VSLMSM/[VSLCAR=10/VSLVAL=50.0/COMPOP=1, VSLCAR=6/VSLVAL=10.0/COMPOP=1]

DavidAcland 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC) This helps with the discussion at Talk:VSLMSM. This shows me that only example 1 above works. As currently defined, I do not think that LOGCON works on two sub-attributes of a different attribute as in version 2. Further discussion at Talk:VSLMSM.

jens 11:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC) ok, I agree. We can close this topic and I hope we have settled VSLMSM too.

--raphael (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2017 (CET): Proposed definition: Expresses whether all the constraints described by its co-attributes must be satisfied, or only one such constraint need be satisfied.

Remark:

• This atribute is intended to be used with co-attributes that encode limits on vessel dimensions, type of cargo, and other characteristics.
• The combination of constraints described by logicalConnective and its co-attributes defines a subset of vessels to which information described by a feature or information type instance applies (or does not apply, is required, recommended, etc.).
• The relationship between the vessel subset and the information is indicated by an association - see PermissionType and InclusionType).
• The two listed values of logicalConnective are two of the basic operations of Boolean logic. The third basic operation (not) is not used.

Example: (Use the example currently on the main page, with the correct camel case codes.)

jens (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2017 (CET) done