search

S-101-Portrayal-subWG / Working-Documents

16 stars 5 forks source link

Invalid display modes in registry #126

Closed DavidGrant-NIWC closed 9 months ago

DavidGrant-NIWC commented 1 year ago

image

alvarosanuy commented 1 year ago

I will proceed and submit requests to remove duplicate entries from the GI Registry but will retain 'Mariners' display until this topic is further discussed at the next PsWG meeting. Accordingly, I have labelled this issue as 'PC 1.2.0 or later'.

Is S-52 clause 14.2 replicated in S-98 ? I have added a label to review content based on future decisions.

alvarosanuy commented 1 year ago

20230316 - I have completed the GI Registry requests to retire all duplicate versions of the 4 display modes.

Still pending for PC 1.2.0 or later:

alvarosanuy commented 1 year ago

Mariners' objects extracted from S-52 LUT: image

VGs 53nnn are not listed in the the S-52 section 14.2 VGL table (refer to 1st comment in this issue). This table includes VGs allocated to 'Mariners Information' objects (i.e own ship, north arrow, etc) which are a different thing. My understanding is that their symbology have been standardised and is currently managed by IEC. Not sure if they should be included in the IHO GI Registry.

My understanding is that the S-101PC won't include any of the symbols known as 'Mariners' Objects' (refer to the image above) and that they will need to be managed by the OEMs in ECDIS. I think these symbols are currently defined and registered in the GI Registry. Based on this, the S-101 PC shouldn't be making any reference to the 'Mariners' display mode.

alvarosanuy commented 1 year ago

Decisions made at Portrayal subWG meeting on 10/5/23

alvarosanuy commented 10 months ago
  • [ ] 1. NIWC to remove 'Mariners Objects' from the S-101 PC (CHINFO08, CHINFO09)
  • [ ] 2. NIWC to assess if INDHLT01, INDHLT01 and DNGHILIT can be also removed from the S-101 PC due to their potential relationship with A&I

@DavidGrant-NIWC - Can you please provide an update on these 2 actions? Action 1 is for PC 1.2.0.

Also, is the action below linked to https://github.com/S-101-Portrayal-subWG/Working-Documents/issues/135. If so, please tick off and follow up on the S-98 change proposal as recommended in that issue.

[ ] 4. NIWC to review S-98 and recommend changes as required.

DavidGrant-NIWC commented 10 months ago

@DavidGrant-NIWC - Can you please provide an update on these 2 actions? Action 1 is for PC 1.2.0.

No work has been done on anything labeled as PC 1.2.0 - we will start once we get a draft 1.2.0 FC.

Regarding items 1 & 2, there are a bunch of items in the PC that are unreferenced, including the items you listed but also BLKADJ01, CURSR, SCALEB, etc. We've pointed this out previously in testbed reports, but as far as I know there has been no direction on how these objects should be handled:

I'd recommend leaving them in for now until someone tells us they are no longer needed.

Also, is the action below linked to https://github.com/S-101-Portrayal-subWG/Working-Documents/issues/135. If so, please tick off and follow up on the S-98 change proposal as recommended in that issue.

Yes, but I can't update your checkboxes.

alvarosanuy commented 10 months ago

Yes, but I can't update your checkboxes.

Done on your behalf.

We've pointed this out previously in testbed reports, but as far as I know there has been no direction on how these objects should be handled:

My view is that all these symbols must be in the registry but probably under an IEC Domain. It shouldn't be the S101PT (IHO) responsibility to develop and register the portrayal for mariner's objects (some of which are linked to IMO requirements). My view is that an IEC representative should coordinate this activity and generate a dedicated (standardised) catalogue for Mariner's symbols. The concept may extend beyond Portrayal but I won't to get there. This approach aligns with the IHO GI Registry foundational view and is up to HSSC to provide high level direction (in my opinion).

I have a slide on this in my PsWG status report to S101PT11. Final direction should come from that.

We may get directed to proceed as per your bullet point 3 above but I hope the message gets through and is seen as a short term solution. I would like this topic to be escalated to S100WG/HSSC and have a different approach for the medium and long term.

DavidGrant-NIWC commented 10 months ago

Sounds reasonable to me.

TomRichardson6 commented 10 months ago

Support Alvaro's view that this should sit with IEC and escalation at S-100WG8 is appropriate. Please include in PT11 brief so I can include it at WG8 @alvarosanuy I have previously suggested inclusion in S-421 as an option but noting some of the items here there is probably a need for something separate but maintained by IEC.

alvarosanuy commented 9 months ago

S101PT11 decision was to retain the Mariners Objects in S101 PC 1.2.0 awaiting outcome of discussions with IEC.

On this note, the S101PT Chair sent a letter to IEC's rep to S101PT requesting this topic is escalated to the right IEC forum for discussion and resolution.

alvarosanuy commented 9 months ago

Decisions made at Portrayal subWG meeting on 19/10/23

CLOSE this Issue and create anew one to track the progress of the S101PT proposal to IEC.