[Platforms] Proposal for revision of platform governance (initiated by ICES)

[Adam Leadbetter]

Hi Neil, all

I'd like to add my "No" vote, agreeing with everything Roy and Bob have said.

They have both highlighted the need to consult with a wider user base of users of the platforms codes in operational applications on such a fundamental shift in the semantic definitions - and a serious look at the consequences to these applications of your proposed changes needs to happen.

As Bob says, perhaps there is a requirement to publish co-existing lists for different communitites?

Adam 

-----Original Message-----
From: platforms-bounces at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk [mailto:platforms-bounces at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Bob Arko
Sent: 29 January 2016 17:09
To: Neil Holdsworth
Cc: platforms at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Platforms] Proposal for revision of platform governance (initiated by ICES)

Hi Neil.  We use ICES Platform Codes for the US academic research fleet and the US R2R Cruise Catalog.  We depend on the existing definition of Platform as "hull+name+flag".  If I understand your proposal correctly, it would changing the definition to simply "hull".  This is a fundamental change to the semantics that would negatively impact our existing applications.

I do appreciate the problem you're trying to address.  I wonder if the solution is a new/separate (hull-based) Code List?

Bob


On Fri, Jan 29, 2016, Neil Holdsworth wrote:
> Dear Platform Group,
> 
> Please respond to this proposal with a "Yes" to accept the proposal or "No" to reject the proposal by close of business February 12. No reply will be considered as a "Yes".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> ICES has been assigning codes for JCOMMOP vessels for the past 4 months. This has given us the opportunity to test and re-evaluate the effectiveness of the Platform code system now that the predominant platform class has moved from research vessels to ships of opportunity. We are finding that these vessels are changing name, flag, and owner much more often than research vessels and according to the current Platform Decision Tree, some vessels will need 5-6 codes in their data collecting lifetime. We believe that this is an unnecessary complication, especially for vessels which have IMO numbers since IMO numbers never change and can be used for tracking.
> 
> We would like to propose focusing on identification of a given platform which follows the hull and not the country of any governance (flag, owner or institute). We will keep track of the governance histories of the platform in the platform request system.
> 
> In order to do this, we propose:
> 
> *         a new attribute for "Operational Governance". It will allow multiples and will be based on EDMO codes.
> 
> *         replace the decision tree with a simplified process
> 
> *         an update to vocab.ices.dk to offer a clear linking between related platform codes
> 
> *         to only create codes based on a random generated unique identifier (see development history)
> 
> The decision process will be as follows:
> 
> If there is an IMO number:
> 
> *         Attribute "Country", i.e. Flag of country where platform is registered, is mandatory.
> 
> *         The flag and call sign will be set for the current registration of the platform.
> 
> If there is no IMO number:
> 
> *         Attribute "Operational Governance" is mandatory and designated by EDMO codes.
> 
> *         When the flag/call sign/MMSI/Notes etc. changes, the attributes will be updated. Name changes will be documented in the "Note" attribute as "Built as name, became name 2 in xxxx, name 3 in yyyy, name 4 in zzzz etc.". The "Previous name" attribute will have the latest previous name. The previous flag/call sign attributes will be "unaccepted" but kept on the Attribute History page to aid user searching and kept on the Action History page for tracking.
> 
> For both cases above:
> 
> 
> *         A code will be assigned as a random generated unique identifier and it will not change.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Neil
> 
> Development history
> When ICES first started assigning platform codes, the majority of codes were for research vessels which were collecting nationally funded monitoring data or project data. The system was based on the assumption that these national data were collected by their national vessels so the first two digits of the codes designated country.
> 
> ICES then became part of the SeaDataNet project, new attributes were added and a decision tree was developed to determine what was needed to assign a code. The decision tree was accepted by the SeaDataNet Platform Governance Group after many discussions:
> 
>   *   should there be a country part of the code?
>   *   what type of governance should determine the country part of the platform code: owner of the vessel, Institute collecting the data, flag of the country where the vessel was registered?
>   *   Should an IMO code be added for identification when most research vessels can't receive an IMO number?
> Among other attributes, it was decided that the vessels' flag should determine the country part of the code and IMO codes should be added when available.
> As more platform classes were added to L06 (and therefore added to the platform request system), new situations and questions came up:
> 
>   *   what is the country when multiple Institutes from different countries share the vessel during the year or even share during the same cruise? See the POGO initiative http://www.pogo-oceancruises.org/content/content.asp?pageid=4
>   *   what is the country when multiple countries own the platform?
> In preparation for running out of codes and removing semantics from codes, in March 2010 it was decided by the platform group that the country part of the code could be abandoned and the codes extended although in practice we have continued to use the country as the first two digits of the four digit code.
> 
> In 2015, additional changes were made to accommodate JCOMMOPs vessels. It was decided that the codes would be extended to 6 digits once the current 4 digit system ran out of codes for a particular country, additional attributes were added and the possibility to add multiple countries was incorporated into the request program. Almost 2000 platforms have since been requested by JCOMMOPs of which 98% are Vessels of Opportunity. This has changed the predominant platform class of the platform code system.
> 

_______________________________________________
Platforms mailing list
Platforms at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/platforms