Difference between revisions of "Talk:MPADET"
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[[User:Jens|jens]] 14:49, 21 January 2009 (CET) | [[User:Jens|jens]] 14:49, 21 January 2009 (CET) | ||
| − | seems we got this too. | + | Following the discussion at '''[[Talk:Restvc]]''' seems we got this too. We should wait what Craig will say. |
Revision as of 15:51, 21 January 2009
jens 12:02, 10 January 2009 (CET)
I deleted mpareg as well. That is fixed by associated information object regulations. Same argument as given for penalties applies.
We have got an information object associated to a certain geo object. The information object fits the requirement to describe the different marine protection areas and is additionally associated with further information objects used to describe the reg/rec/res in this area. If the general nautical information information object is agreed we might add it here too.
DRVAL1/2 make no sence here as they describe the water depth of an geo object. This is an inf object. But, in any case, they are useless in this for MPA.
Some thoughts later I am not convinced that this information object is really needed. We can cover all information with the geo object. That makes to construction easier; see my discussion at mpaare.
DavidAcland 17:01, 14 January 2009 (CET) Trying to make this structure work before accepting deletion.
I think I can see that there may be sanctuaries or reserves that apply between certain depths or from a depth to a drying height. Therefore I have moved DRVAL1 and DRVAL2 to mpaare to solve the geographic/non-geographic problem.
My first instinct was also to put catmpa and catiuc on mpaare. However I understand that NOAA does not want to put non charty information in the ENC. I can see the point of putting amplifying detail like regulations and penalties off the chart.
catiuc looks OK to me and I have proposed at talk:catmpa to replace catmpa with CATREA with a minor extension.
Our only remaining problem would then be the association of information object to information object. I need to talk to Barry Greenslade about this.
jens 19:31, 19 January 2009 (CET)
I can follow your arguments at talk:catmpa and I agree. That is another way. It solves NOAA's interest on this object and keeps it alive. Can we solve the problems with the brothers by following my ideas at Talk:Restvc second section, relationship by using OBJNAM...?
jens 14:49, 21 January 2009 (CET)
Following the discussion at Talk:Restvc seems we got this too. We should wait what Craig will say.