Review - 3.0.0 - BSH findings

[RohdeBSH]

Based on artefact from 03.07.2024 19:37

General

• Some section seems not to be formatted as justified text. Is that indented?

  2.2. References

• Reference to S-100 is not displayed (HTML)
  • Reference in S-102 adoc looks good
  • Issue is may located in relation-iho or relation-data-iho
  • relation-data-iho looks also good
  • ask metanorma guys

    2.3.3. Abbreviated terms

• GFM is not contained in the text of the document
• SA is not contained in the text of the document

  4. Data Product Identification

• Classification -> 8. Protected; or -> the “or” can be omitted. The senctence above states “[…] one of the following:”, so there is no need of the “or”.

  5.2.1.1.1.8. dimension

• States that the value 2 is fixed and does not need to be encoded.
  • But in 11.2.4 Table 7 the dimension is mandatory to encode
  • S-100 5.2.0 Table 10c-10 also states dimension as mandatory to encode
  • The statement of this clause does not match the encoding rules

    5.2.1.1.1.11. sequencingRule

• There is no class with the name _“CVSequenceRule” in S-100 5.2.0
  • The class _“CVSequenceRule” is descripted in the S-100 2.0.0 UML model only.
  • sequenceRule is a complex attribute containing the attribute scanDirection and type
  • Only the value for sequenceRule.type can be “linear”. The clause is somehow misleading.
    • What is meant here is _“CVSequenceType” see S-100 5.2.0 cl. 8-7.7.2 _“CVSequenceType” contains the value “linear”

      5.2.1.1.2.2. values

• Reading the last sentence of the clause sounds strange to me. But I’m a non-native speaker.
  • […] _There are two attributes in the bathymetry value record, depth and optional uncertainty in the S102BathymetryValues class.

[hasel001]

Addressed dimension, sequencingRule, and values here.

[hasel001]

Addressed unused abbreviations here. Bad S-100 5.2.0 link is known, and I will ensure I address it upon the next release of metanorma.

[hasel001]

Addressed extraneous "or" here. Thank you for the review!

[RohdeBSH]

I wasn't finished yet. The weekend just came quicker than expected and I had to document it. ;)

[hasel001]

@RohdeBSH Sorry for the premature closure.

[RohdeBSH]

Based on artefact from 07.07.2024 18:39:13 GMT

2. Overview [PDF]

• placement is disordered again
  • Correct placement Contents section
  • Incorrect placement within the document (page numbers)

    5.7 Geometry

• Reference is not correct defined

  6.4 Temporal reference system

• Attributes with S-100 dateTime-Format (S-100 5.2.0 Part 1 clause 4.5.2 Table 1-2 & S-100 5.2.0 Part 10c clause 7 Table 10c-1) are forced to be in UTC (because of the Z at the end of the String).
  • Does this also apply to the attribute issueTime, so to attributes in time-Format?

    11.2 Product Structure

• Table 4 is missing the axisNames for "LEVEL 2 CONTENT" for QualityOfBathymetryCoverage see Figure 10

  11.2.3 BathymetryCoverage and QualityOfBathymetryCoverage Tables (in Group_F)

• Table 6 QualityOfBathymetryCoverage is not valid
  • name -> not set -> either all values are unset or "(empty)" [name, uom.name, upper]
  • the code id must be available in the feature catalogue and die attribute in the FC must correspond to IHO registry
  • An Attribute id has not been defined at the feature QualityOfBathymetryCoverage in the IHO registry

    11.2.5 Feature Instance group — BathymetryCoverage.nn

• Table 9 No. 11 verticalDatumReference
  • This makes no sense. The concept is called "Attribute Overriding". An Attribute is only allowed to override if it changes.
  • This attribute won't change because it is limited by S-102 to the value "1".
• Second last paragraph
  • "If multiple vertical datums are present [...] and verticalDatumReference (on the feature instance group)."
  • Only if verticalDatumReference differs from the root-group, which is never the case.

    Annex A.1.1 BathymetryCoverage

• The uncertainty attribute is mandatory, which is not correct. According to S-102 3.0.0 clause 11.2.7 the uncertainty is optional.

  Annex A.1.2 QualityOfBathymetryCoverage

• The listed attribute id is not registered within IHO registry for the feature QualityOfBathymetryCoverage

  Annex A.2 Feature Attributes

  • The attributes of QualityOfBathymetryCoverage are missing

[RohdeBSH]

FC

• needs to be updated
  • Attribute binding for feature QualityOfBathymetryCoverage is not correct
  • uses depth & uncertrainty instead of id

[RohdeBSH]

Review done

[RohdeBSH]

Im sorry here is another one.

11.2.3 BathymetryCoverage and QualityOfBathymetryCoverage Tables (in Group_F)

• Table 6 BathymetryCoverage.uncertainty
  • According to IHO Registry, the uncertainty Attribute associated with BathymetryCoverage has an incorrect range
  • IHO Reg: Lower=0 & Upper=unset
  • In my opinion, S-102 has to correct the upper to "(empty)" and the closure to geSemiInterval