IHO / OHI Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

Home
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 
IHO / OHI > IHO > Hydrographic Dictionary > Proposals from the WWNWS Sub-Committee


Proposals from the WWNWS Sub-Committee
 Moderated by: ihbpah  

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jul 5th, 2011 01:25 pm

Quote

Reply
The attached file contains proposals submitted by the WWNWS Sub-Committee. Many of these entries do not currently exist in S-32. Initial comments would be appreciated at your earliest convenience.

Attachment: WWNWS-proposals.zip (Downloaded 6 times)

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Jul 7th, 2011 02:30 pm

Quote

Reply
While these may have implications for IMO, I don't see any reason for including any of these in S-32.  They all seem to be well beyond the discipline of hydrography and nautical charting.  Having said that, I would be interested in hearing other opinions.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jul 8th, 2011 06:56 am

Quote

Reply
I tend to agree with Jerry's comment and as stated in my posting note that these definitions are covered in IHO Publication S-53. Whilst of great importance to Maritime Safety and the work of part of the IHO they cannot be considered as directly relevant to hydrography or cartography. However we asked a question of HSSC1 about terms to be included in S-32 and the following answer appears in the report of HSSC1:

"...determine whether the HD should include any term requested by IHO Committees, Sub-Committees and Working Groups or should be restricted to more general ‘hydrographic’ terminology”, the Chair indicated that the goal of any definition in the dictionary should be clarity of description of all the terms needed for the work of IHO, whether specific or general."

Based on this I considered that we should consider these terms for S-32. I will discuss this matter further with the IHB staff who work with HSSC and report back.

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jul 8th, 2011 01:00 pm

Quote

Reply
Recently I came across CL2/1986 that dealt with S32.  It included the following:

",,,the Hydrographic Dictionary will cover all disciplines covered by the field of hydrography, as follows:

a)  Sea Surveying - to be treated exhaustively;

b)  Land Surveying, Cartography, Geodesy, Navigation and Law of the Sea to be covered for basic and specific terms only;

c)  Terms in general Mathematics and General Physics - will be listed only where ambiguity is likely to arise;

Of course, the content is always subject to change but I find it interesting what the opinions were 25 years ago.

I have two concerns about broadening the HD terms to include "all the terms needed for the work of IHO..." - (1)  I find myself less able to provide any "value added" to the review of such terms.  That is, I have no idea whether such proposed terms are correct or not.  Unless others on the HDWG can do so, then there should be some indication that the terms have not been reviewed for correctness/validity.  This could easily be accomplished by including in the definition, its source.  In the case of these terms, S-53 or IMO could be cited as the authoritative source. (2)  As more and more terms from more widely varying fields related to marine activities are added, the importance of hydrography and charting may be somewhat diminished.  This may merely be a perception and not be a problem at all with the increased use of the Wiki.

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 05:27 am

Quote

Reply
Please find attached a copy of the proposals with my comments added in blue text.

I am interested to see the results of Steve's discussions with others at IHB in relation to the content of S-32.  I have found it very difficult to evaluate whether or not the terms raised in this discussion should be in S-32.  In regard to my comments in the attached, I have probably related these more in terms of the CL2/1986 guidelines that Jerry has quoted.

Attachment: WWNWS-proposals_AU.zip (Downloaded 3 times)

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 07:32 am

Quote

Reply
I have now concluded my discussions within the IHB as to what should or should not be in S-32. The results together with my proposals for the treament of the terms proposed by WWNWS are in the attached. Your early response would be appreciated.

Attachment: WWNWS_review.zip (Downloaded 4 times)

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Aug 9th, 2011 12:47 am

Quote

Reply
My comments on the latest proposals are as follows:

Coastal warning:  The original proposed definition included the words "or in-force bulletin" similar to the definition for NAVAREA warning.  If coastal warnings are "part of a numbered series", I would think that the retention of this phrase is required.

Enhanced group call:  Even though the acronym is included in the acronym list, I would prefer to see "(EGC)" after the term (i.e. "Enhanced Group Call (EGC) - ...."), particularly as the acronym is used in the last sentence of the definition.

Inmarsat-C:  Suggest expand MSI in last sentence to "MARITIME SAFETY INFORMATION".

Inmarsat:  I assume this will be in the definitions part of S-32 and not in acronyms?

IMSO:  I assume this will be in the list of acronyms?  I think we should identify this in the submission to HSSC.  Same for Inmarsat.

Agree with all other proposals.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Aug 9th, 2011 12:31 pm

Quote

Reply
Thanks Jeff,

Regarding:

coastal warning - yes this text should be added. I took my definition from the revised Joint IMO/IHO/WMO MSI Manual where it is missing. It is also missing from the new International SafetyNET Manual. However the words ",or in-force bulletin," are included in the NAVTEX Manual which was the last publication to be revised and we have an action note to update the definition in the other two publications so yes we should include it in S-32.

enhanced group call - I agree that (EGC) should be added as we use EGC later in the definition.

Inmarsat C - I agree to expand MSI although in the WIKI MSI would be hyperlinked to the full text.

Inmarsat and IMSO - In the printed copy there was a clear distinction between the definitions and the acronyms which were in an appendix/annex. However in the WIKI they are all in the same database so there is no longer any real distinction. I do not think we need to highlight this.

I have included these updates in the attached.

Attachment: WWNWS_review.zip (Downloaded 1 time)

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Aug 9th, 2011 02:04 pm

Quote

Reply
I concur with the new business rules and the proposed definitions.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Aug 25th, 2011 12:14 pm

Quote

Reply
I have rather belatedly discussed our proposals with the secretary of the WWNWS Document Review WG. He was in agreement with most of our decisions but has raised a fewpertinent points:

He agrees that there is no need to get into "national" services which are adequately covered oin S-53 but was suprised that we had defined "SafertyNET" and not "NAVTEX". His view was that it should be both or neither. Well in fact NAVTEX is already defined in S-32 but its definition can certainly be improved in terms of consistency.

He also reminded me that WWNWS has recently decided that the word "broadcasting" should be replaced by "broadcast" throughout the WWNWS documents.

Finally he suggested that some additional words at the end would conform better with SOLAS Chapter IV, Regulation 7, Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5).

In the attached I give the revisions to pick up these points and hope that we can quickly agree so that I can update the report to HSSC3?

Attachment: NAVTEX-SafetyNET.zip (Downloaded 2 times)

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Aug 26th, 2011 01:44 am

Quote

Reply
I agree with the proposed changes.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Aug 26th, 2011 06:51 am

Quote

Reply
A further revision to the definition of NAVTEX is proposed:

NAVTEX - the system for the broadcast and automatic reception of MARITIME SAFETY INFORMATION by means of narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy.

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Aug 26th, 2011 12:00 pm

Quote

Reply
I agree.

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2011 10:36 pm

Quote

Reply
I agree.


 Current time is 01:26 pm




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez