Difference between revisions of "Talk:SNPWG3"
(New page: This discussion page is subdivided according to the menu of the parent page. Contributers should place their discussions to the menu items. ==Scope== xxxxx ==Datasets== General informa...) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
===Dataset 1=== | ===Dataset 1=== | ||
| − | Good starting point. However, we should careful use existing SDs structures considering duplication of charted or chartable information. Potential candidates are i.a. sub-marine pipelines and cables, principle marks, major lights, position of the harbour and controlling depth. Other entries should be checked against the information provided:<br> | + | Good starting point. <br> |
| − | + | However, we should careful use existing SDs structures considering duplication of charted or chartable information. Potential candidates are i.a. sub-marine pipelines and cables, principle marks, major lights, position of the harbour and controlling depth. Other entries should be checked against the information provided:<br> | |
| − | + | * is the information necessary in an ECDIS (consider SDs/Pilots historically were the first written guides to mariners and the chart absorbs chartable informations very much), | |
| − | + | * is the information already presented on the chart and cause any consequences of the ECDIS software intelligence (check the performance standard to indications and alarms!) | |
| − | + | * is the information obvious to be identified on the chart (e.g. indications for proposed tracks), | |
| − | + | * is the information in the mariner's responsibility (routes choosen), | |
| + | * cause the combination of the mariner's choice (e.g. routes) and charted feature (e.g. depth) any consequences to ECDIS work (consider checks to be done for route planning, checking, monitoring), | ||
| + | * how can the information compared to our FCD (particularly candidates of Reg/Res/Rec/NautInf), | ||
| + | * ...? | ||
| + | |||
| + | I afraid that providing a complete SDs chapter concept brings us back to the point that one likes to see the complete content in an ENC. That is the wrong way. Years ago we developed the scope, considered all information NPUBS offers. We should compare the first proposal against SDs structure of other HOs and select items fixed by the scope. Having identified items worth being considered again we can easily add them the the FCD discussion. In that point of view the starting point is a well structured basis for discussion and proofed against the reality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | And finally, how much we trust in mariner's intelligence? Is is possible that we tend to underestimate our audience? Could we assume that ECDIS users provide a minimum of decision flexibility? ... | ||
===Dataset 2=== | ===Dataset 2=== | ||
Latest revision as of 17:48, 21 October 2009
This discussion page is subdivided according to the menu of the parent page. Contributers should place their discussions to the menu items.
Scope
xxxxx
Datasets
General information
Generals
xxxxx
Dataset 1
Good starting point.
However, we should careful use existing SDs structures considering duplication of charted or chartable information. Potential candidates are i.a. sub-marine pipelines and cables, principle marks, major lights, position of the harbour and controlling depth. Other entries should be checked against the information provided:
- is the information necessary in an ECDIS (consider SDs/Pilots historically were the first written guides to mariners and the chart absorbs chartable informations very much),
- is the information already presented on the chart and cause any consequences of the ECDIS software intelligence (check the performance standard to indications and alarms!)
- is the information obvious to be identified on the chart (e.g. indications for proposed tracks),
- is the information in the mariner's responsibility (routes choosen),
- cause the combination of the mariner's choice (e.g. routes) and charted feature (e.g. depth) any consequences to ECDIS work (consider checks to be done for route planning, checking, monitoring),
- how can the information compared to our FCD (particularly candidates of Reg/Res/Rec/NautInf),
- ...?
I afraid that providing a complete SDs chapter concept brings us back to the point that one likes to see the complete content in an ENC. That is the wrong way. Years ago we developed the scope, considered all information NPUBS offers. We should compare the first proposal against SDs structure of other HOs and select items fixed by the scope. Having identified items worth being considered again we can easily add them the the FCD discussion. In that point of view the starting point is a well structured basis for discussion and proofed against the reality.
And finally, how much we trust in mariner's intelligence? Is is possible that we tend to underestimate our audience? Could we assume that ECDIS users provide a minimum of decision flexibility? ...
Dataset 2
xxxxx
Dataset 3
xxxxx