Difference between revisions of "Talk:SNPWG"
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
(Update: Also, how literally to interpret the definitions - I just placed an example in the discussion page for [[Talk:ntctim|ntctim]].) | (Update: Also, how literally to interpret the definitions - I just placed an example in the discussion page for [[Talk:ntctim|ntctim]].) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 13:32, 12 May 2009 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have replied on the definition issue at [[Talk:ntctim|ntctim]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Recently I have discussed the completeness of attributes available or only being used. At the moment we have worked out a compromise in our data model. We tried to collect all attributes needed for objects developed by SNPWG. Where attributes have been added for existing objects we collected all attributes provided by S57 too. Although some of those are not needed by SNPWG. The flexibility in S100 might cause the case that we have to mix attributes and attribute values more than today. That should be taken into account when developing the ProdSpec. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The introductory paragraph will be discussed with David. He speaks better English than I ever could. | ||
Revision as of 11:32, 12 May 2009
raphael 09:34, 12 May 2009 (CEST) : I think it might be useful to have an introductory paragraph or two describing the scope of the SNPWG model, i.e., saying what the model is supposed to do and what is not expected of it. The Terms of Reference do not say much more than develop guidelines for preparing nautical publications in a digital format compatible with ECDIS. For example, is the aim to list all possible categories of attributes, or just those thought to be most commonly used? (The latter, I'd say.)
(Update: Also, how literally to interpret the definitions - I just placed an example in the discussion page for ntctim.)
jens 13:32, 12 May 2009 (CEST)
I have replied on the definition issue at ntctim.
Recently I have discussed the completeness of attributes available or only being used. At the moment we have worked out a compromise in our data model. We tried to collect all attributes needed for objects developed by SNPWG. Where attributes have been added for existing objects we collected all attributes provided by S57 too. Although some of those are not needed by SNPWG. The flexibility in S100 might cause the case that we have to mix attributes and attribute values more than today. That should be taken into account when developing the ProdSpec.
The introductory paragraph will be discussed with David. He speaks better English than I ever could.