[Platforms] Content Governance - splitting codes with multiple hulls

[francis Mitchell]

Dear Marilynn and All:

There are here at NODC  an input/or content management group ( four of 
us) who are termed 'Data Officer'.  I would like to have all of us 
agreeing on
the 'split hull' arrangement (Option 3). No one has disagreed .; so I 
will just go ahead. Meanwhile, we have restructured the various codes 
that show up on our
home page.  The lower right side:  'Data Formats & Codes' will show up 
ship codes.   Once you select this option ,you also may , in the upper 
left corner, select an  individual platform list from our Ocean Archive 
Database which will show all the extra 'split hull' information. NOTE: 
These ships are sorted by country in the 'Data Formats & Codes' list. We 
are not really too happy with this, but, it is something we will have to 
live with, I guess.

Regards,


=Mitch=


Marilynn Sørensen wrote:
> Dear Platform group,
>
> I have spoken with/heard from a few of you (the UK, France, Norway and the US) in the past week and have a preliminary acceptance of option 3) for the splitting of codes with multiple hulls. I would appreciate more responses especially if you disagree. 
>
> We have begun to split codes in this way so please send in your lists as has been done by Norway so codes can be created for identifiable single hulls.
>
> Best regards,
> Marilynn
>
>   
>> Fra: Marilynn Sørensen [mailto:marilynn at ices.dk]
>> Sendt: 13. april 2007 15:02
>> Til: Roy Lowry; platforms at biwebs1.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>> Kopi: Sagen, Helge; Strand Øyvin
>> Emne: Content Governance - splitting codes with multiple hulls
>>
>>
>>  
>> Hi platform group,
>>
>> We at ICES have discussed how to "split" ship codes that have 
>> used the "code following name" tradition. Ideally, we prefer 
>> that there is one rule which applies to all countries. We 
>> have discussed three options, all of which have advantages 
>> and disadvantages:
>>
>> 1) the existing code is kept for the "old" ship. 
>>
>> 2) the existing code is kept for the "current" ship.
>>
>> 3) the existing code is kept but with the attributes removed 
>> except for a note stating "multiple hulls". For each separate 
>> hull referenced by the "old" code, a new code will be created 
>> with attributes (see below) filled in. Attributes must be 
>> supplied when requesting that a code be "split". For example, 
>> call sign, IMO number, month and year of service are 
>> important for identifying hulls. In this way the old code 
>> (referencing multiple hulls) will be preserved, but the 
>> single hulls can also be identified. 
>>
>> The current ship code list is available at 
>> http://www.ices.dk/datacentre/reco/reco.asp?sortby=Description
>>     
> &ref=315. Please take a look at the current setup which may be new for some of you. Press the green arrow to download and view attributes. We suggest that a facility is created to track the relationships between the old multiple hull codes and the new single hull codes. It will be up to each country which code they use in their own databases but the tracking facility will allow international linking to the correct hull via the dates.
>
> If a common rule can not be found for splitting, each country should specify the option they prefer.
>
> Please discuss this and/or other solutions.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marilynn
>
> Attributes:  
>
> Country, callsign, commissioned, decomissioned, previous_name, previous_code, previous_callsign, previous_pennant, platformclass, notes (= definition)
>
> **************************************************************************** 
> Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com 
> ****************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Platforms mailing list
> Platforms at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
> http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/platforms
>   


-- 
Francis Mitchell
NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center
1315 East West Highway, SSMC3, Room 4637
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-3272 x113