Talk:Mpapen

jens 15:57, 21 December 2008 (CET)

we should consider whether it makes more sense to place such information at reglts. I am not convinced that penalties as a singe attribute is useful. Penalties are defined by law and law defines regulations.

Also trying to generalize to a common attribute which is working with penalties makes no sense; see arguments above.

--Cwinn72 14:25, 30 December 2008 (CET)

I certainly agree that penalties cannot be standardized, providing a specific text attribute for a member state to encode penalty information does make sense. A mariner, although bound by the regulation, is primarily concerned about what fines he or she is subject to. I have no problem with using reglts, but the encoder is still forced to encode specific information with TXTDSC, a habit that HO's would like to move away from.

jens 07:40, 6 January 2009 (CET) Craig, I see your point, but I have got problems with having an additional attribute which is only a subset of another one. That might cause problems with others who want "their" information seen to be coded separately. The second problem is that the detailed quotation of the penalties can cause an cost/average thinking of the Mariners involved (ok, that is a theoretical approach but you know, with a minimum of criminal energy...;=)).

For the use of TXTDSC refer to the extensive discussion there. The reference to a penalty information can easily be arranged by using the correct file name as the Indication of TXTDSC says:"the string encodes the file name of an external text file that contains the text in English." Thus a construction is likely that split up legal text into different regulations e.g The harbour authority of ABC port has 1..n regulations entries, each with a different topic. The ECDIS machine should be able to detect the headlines or subjects from the TXTDSC file name.