Difference between revisions of "Talk:RXNCOD"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Long time ago we discussed the idea of providing more detailed information of res/rec/reg but withdrawn our ideas. We saw that too much differences and dependencies are possible. If we start one we have to collect all (pilotage recommended, stand away for bridge before passage is allowed, do not cross etc.). That was our argument. And presumably we will not be able to collect all, or even we produce an endless list. Thus we decided to not further granulate the information. | Long time ago we discussed the idea of providing more detailed information of res/rec/reg but withdrawn our ideas. We saw that too much differences and dependencies are possible. If we start one we have to collect all (pilotage recommended, stand away for bridge before passage is allowed, do not cross etc.). That was our argument. And presumably we will not be able to collect all, or even we produce an endless list. Thus we decided to not further granulate the information. | ||
I see that the code can be used for recommending agreed headlines of res/rec/reg. That would look to me better than the proposed structure; at least at the moment. | I see that the code can be used for recommending agreed headlines of res/rec/reg. That would look to me better than the proposed structure; at least at the moment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 07:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC): Example of headline, please? (I'm wondering whether using it that way might duplicate what CATRXN does.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, my thought was that coding even just the most common 10-15 types might still suffice to cover many or most of actual regulations (rec/res), perhaps enough that applications could do useful things with them even if the RXNCOD list is not a 100% complete and perfect capture. | ||
Revision as of 07:25, 17 September 2009
raphael 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC):
RXNCOD (Regulation/restriction/regulation code) is intended to provide numeric codes that identify the information as one of the most common types of regulations (or restrictions, etc.) RXNCOD values are precise enough for an application to display specific alerts. RXNCOD values may correspond to specific text ("e.g., pilotage compulsory"). Applications could use RXNCOD to display specific strings, or provide and handle specific alerts.
jens 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Long time ago we discussed the idea of providing more detailed information of res/rec/reg but withdrawn our ideas. We saw that too much differences and dependencies are possible. If we start one we have to collect all (pilotage recommended, stand away for bridge before passage is allowed, do not cross etc.). That was our argument. And presumably we will not be able to collect all, or even we produce an endless list. Thus we decided to not further granulate the information. I see that the code can be used for recommending agreed headlines of res/rec/reg. That would look to me better than the proposed structure; at least at the moment.
raphael 07:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC): Example of headline, please? (I'm wondering whether using it that way might duplicate what CATRXN does.)
Also, my thought was that coding even just the most common 10-15 types might still suffice to cover many or most of actual regulations (rec/res), perhaps enough that applications could do useful things with them even if the RXNCOD list is not a 100% complete and perfect capture.