Talk:CATREL

jens 06:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need excluded as well?

raphael 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC): If we have "excepted" I think not. Confusion may be my fault, I have probably used "excluded" and "excepted" interchangeably.

jens 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) oops, my fault. I haven't checked the definitions and my translation was tending to German too much :)
Thanks Raphael.

DavidAcland 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC): Can we please now come to some decisions? I recommend the Alternative Definition and the Proposed Alternative Remarks, which is not surprising because I think I drafted them. Any other views?

jens 10:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) copied from Raphael's email sent 4 Oct 2010
About decisions on CATREL: Since we prefer to use roles, CATREL should be deleted as an Attribute and turned into a Role; I can look up the S-100 way of describing Roles and propose a page template for Roles. I am holding back because the final model and wording might depend on TSMAD's reply to our email about roles and named associations.

DavidAcland 09:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC) We now know that, if the S-100 changes proposed by SNPWG and developed at TSMAD21 in Vancouver Island are adopted, our MPA application schema, including CATREL, will not have to change. In order to avoid the "limbo" mentioned by Eivind, I suggest that we continue on the assumption that the S-100 change will be adopted. We will have to report to HSSC that we have made this assumption.

(( Jens's 07:03 post of 11 Feb 2011 post was here. Moved down to foot of string by DA - 09:45 11 Feb 2011))

I am therefore continuing the review of the FCD, on the basis that CATREL replaces LIMTYP. I have further amended the Proposed alternative Remarks, which I think is now simpler and clearer. Can we agree on this and the CATREL definition?

raphael 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC): Should "not recommended" (value 2) be taken literally, or interpreted as "discouraged"?

Do we need the remarks at all? I think it is clear without any remarks.

The MPA model does not need to change, but the changes proposed by the TSMAD21 group also allow a model like the diagrams in the proposal we submitted and we can use CATREL there too, so references to a specific object (like APPLIC) should be removed.

DavidAcland 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you. Good. I will have a go at redrafting the definition. I think of "Not recommended" exactly as "Discouraged". Sometimes SDs say that use of a passage between two islands or banks is "... not recommended ...", say for vessels over a length, or perhaps "in darkness" or "without local knowledge". Some Masters may choose to ignore this advice and use the passage anyway.

"included" (6) and "excepted" (7) are clearly different from values 1 - 5; apples and oranges. I cannot remember why we needed them but a weakness of my 2nd Alternative definition is that they do not fit into this range of ideas. Assuming we do still need them, can we move them to a different attribute? Perhaps with a name something like:
"Membership".
Definition: Defines whether a vessel of the specified characteristics is a member of the group for which the QUARTET item applies.

jens 07:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC) membership sounds good for me. I also agree with the proposed alternative remarks. My preference would be the 2nd Alternative definition to keep the use of that attribute more open.

DavidAcland 09:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Jens, Judging by the placement and content of your post this morning I have assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you have not seen Raphael's post yesterday and my response to it. Please therefore confirm that you do wish to retain the 2nd alternative Remarks rather than removing them as suggested by Raphael.

I will tidy up where I think we are agreed and draft Membership.

jens 10:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I have seen your's and Raphael's discussion. Removing the remarks might be sufficient. Particularly seeing the 2nd definition alternative it keeps the use more general.
Anyhow, I believe it is worth being mentioned for what this attribute is supposed to be. The only amendment I suggest is to add intentionally to "APPLICABILTY, to which this attribute is intentionally bound, e..." What do you think?

jens 10:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)minor question. Should "when" replaced by "if" at the alternative remark entry?

DavidAcland OK.

In binding we are talking about the Product Specification, so it is hard to imagine a binding which is unintentional. So I think changing "When " to "If" takes account of your "intentionally" suggestion.

I prefer to keep the Remarks; not least because it helps me remember how we were planning to use the features and attributes. When the time comes, we can probably remove them to a "Use of the Object Catalogue" and they will serve as an initial guideline.

jens 11:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I knew it, David, I knew it. You would find a way. lol

raphael 21:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC): In the new Remarks: "...it expresses the relationship to another feature" seems more accurate (if bound to APPLIC, it expresses the relationship of the set of vessels described by APPLIC to, say, REGLTS).

The other changes are fine.

jens 10:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) proposed alternative definitions. I guess the current versions limit the use of the terms.

raphael 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC): I think the dictionary definitions are too general for nautical information. If it is necessary to change the definitions, how about formulating them like this:
prohibited: use of facility, waterway, or service is forbidden