Talk:CATCGO

Drafted by DA 29 Jul 2008

Drafted following discussion with Jens to provide a simple descriptor of the type of cargo

Rolando Rios 2008-08-24 I am a little confused. It´s about shptyp, attribute that was proposed this year to replace catcgo.

DavidAcland 12:24, 1 September 2008 (CEST)

Yes, they did not like shptyp at Brest; particularly Peter Parslow and Eivind. They could not accept that we could easily put detail into more than one attribute. For example, for "cargo ship" how does an encoder decide to use 70 or 79?

70: Cargo ships - All ships of this type

71: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category A

72: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category B

73: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category C

74: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category D

79: Cargo ships - No additional information

So Jens and I have decided to go back to the earlier model. In this we have one attribute for the type of ship and another for the type of cargo and both must be very generalised. Also "other" is not allowed.

Rolando Rios 2008-09-01 - Yes, David. Now I remember. Thank you.

DavidAcland 16:55, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Jens, Do you remember why we do not have a category of dangerous or hazardous cargo any more? Ref ID: 7 and Remark.

DavidAcland 13:14, 19 January 2009 (CET) I have redrafted and re-inserted CATDHC and redrafted "Remarks", removing reference to "ballast" and "waste" from both CATCGO and CATDHC.

jens 14:33, 19 January 2009 (CET)

I would say it is a simple copy 'n past fault. I checked that against our discussions placed in the associated files. We simplified the complicated and not accepted former category of vessel attribute and split the information up into category of vessel and category of cargo. Initially we placed no dangerous cargo according to the IMDG code, rather we thought MARPOL fits our requirements. The current construction looks better. We can (have) add(ed) the attributes to describe vessels characteristic (although I believe that the cargo not characterize a type of a vessel).

I also thought about using it to describe harbour facilities. But that is fixed by HRBFAC/CATHAF. And the more I am thinking on that the less it makes sense to add it there. At the moment we should keep it as it is.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date

DavidAcland 09:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have spoken to Barrie about former S-57 style "List" attributes. We now declare them all as Enumerations in the FCD. The Feature Catalogue in the Product Specification will then further define how it is to be used. It could be like an old style enumeration: i.e. choose only one value; it could be like an old style list: i.e. choose as many as apply; or it could be constrained in the feature catalogue in other ways.

I will go through our enumerations (probably on friday) and change the format to what Raphael has been trying to get us to do for some time:

Attribute Type: Simple or Complex

Data type: as in S-100 2a-4.2.9: Boolean, Enumeration, Integer, Real, Text, Date, Time.

Minor adjustment to "Bulk" definiton.

--raphael (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2017 (CET): New proposed listed value
8: heavy-lift
individisible heavy items of weight generally over 100 tons, and width or height greater than 100 meters
Wikipedia (adapted). Would 'or width ... 100 m' be better than 'and width ... 100 m'? (see also CATVSL discussion, do we need both cargo and vessel listed values?).

jens (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2017 (CET) cargo is fine, I'm hesitant with vessels. Do we have use case saying that e.g. is pier can only be used for heavy lift vessels? or that certain regulations apply exclusively for heavy list vessels?

raphael (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2017 (CET): Minor update to current GI registry definition for consistency with other categoryOf... attributes:
Classification of the different types of cargo that a ship may be carryiing.

raphael (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2018 (CEST): The record of the February/March 2017 NIPWG email discussion has an accepted suggestion to make "ballast" a listed value of CATCGO. It was accepted with a modification to use something different from "ballast" (e.g., "in ballast") because that is an attribute name for a Boolean attribute. It seems more appropriate to use "in ballast" for the attribute name (1=Yes, 0=No) and "ballast" for the CATCGO listed value, but given that "ballast" is already an attribute entered into the GI registry...let it be?
Suggested definition for the new listed value: Heavy material, such as gravel, sand, or iron, placed in the bilge of a ship to ensure its stability.
Source: OED
GI registry has a listed value "ballast" defined in the Inland ENC domain as "ballast available". That would not be appropriate for NPUB modeling because it would be a circular definition.

jens (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2018 (CEST) I agree with following solution: in Ballast Boolean yes/no; that is usually water pumped in tanks or cargo holds Ballast: any kind of material which is more "stable" to ensure persistant stability. I don't see where it is being provided in NPUBS.

raphael (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2018 (CEST): Your definition is a little different. So have we have reached agreement as follows?

• Rename the present simple attribute "ballast" as "in ballast" (inBallast); no change to its definition.
• Add a listed value "ballast" to CATCGO.
  • Definition: Material carried by a ship to ensure its stability.
  • Definition source: OED, adapted.
  • Remark: The material is generally a heavy material such as gravel, sand, iron, or water.