Talk:UKCVAR

jens 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That might fix the problem of UKC stated sometimes. The problem remains is if authorities declare. "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught but at least 2.5 metres". That sounds serious to code.

However, ideas please!

raphael 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC): In that case ("at least") use both UKCFIX and UKCVAR? That leaves, theoretically, "... an UKC of 10% of the ship's draught or 2.5 metres whichever is less".

If we want a complete solution one way is to make it a complex attribute like this:

Attribute: UKC...
Sub-attributes:
UKCFIX
UKCVAR
OPERAT: 1 (whichever is more) or 2 (whichever is less)

where OPERAT is an operation applied to the other sub-attributes.

Just an idea. (And now that I have put it down, it (OPERAT) could be extended to define expressions to other combinations of attributes in other circumstances...)

jens 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense. But S100 v 0.0.4 which is the current draft now state on page 17 1-4.3 "In S-100 operations are not used". However, further down operations seems to be possible, or my English goes the German way ;) ... and more down it is prohibited again page 74 3-5.2.9

raphael 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC): Function (FUNCTN) is a better word than operation but FUNCTN is an existing attribute in S-57. Anyway, the proposal is consistent with S-100 because it is not an operation in the UML sense. It would not have to be represented by an operation in UML. It is just another attribute of type Enumeration that can take one of a set of values from a CodeList {1, 2}.

jens 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understood your idea now and have developed the complex attribute using OPERAT.