unknown table entries (other than TableCCCC)

[petersilva]

cd GTStoWIS2
fractal% grep -i missing *.json | wc -l
589
fractal% grep -i unknown *.json | wc -l
5
fractal% 

Sample missing entry from tableCCCC:

TableCCCC.json:"VASD":{"centre":"vasd", "name":"MISSING from Table", "country_short":"in",  "comment":""},
TableCCCC.json:"LRAF":{"centre":"unknown", "name":"unknown", "country_short":"ro",  "comment":"unknown"},

other tables:

TableC1.json:"aw": { "topic":"aw", "note":"MISSING from WMO Table C1, and a conflict" },
TableC1.json:"BB": { "topic":"bt","description":"Bhutan, different country code", "note":"MISSING invented WMO code"},
TableC2.json:"L": "sea/missing_c2_l",
TableC2.json:"Y": "sea/missing_c2_y"
TableC3.json:"M":"missing_c3_m",
TableC3.json:"O":"missing_c3_o",
TableC3.json:"P":"missing_c3_p",
TableC3.json:"Q":"missing_c3_q",
TableC3.json:"R":"missing_c3_r",
TableC3.json:"U":"missing_c3_u",
TableC3.json:"V":"missing_c3_v",
TableC3.json:"W":"missing_c3_w",
TableC3.json:"Y":"missing_c3_y",
TableC3.json:"Z":"missing_c3_z"
TableC6.json:     "G":"missing_c6_isg",
TableC6.json:     "H":"missing_c6_ish",
TableC6.json:"IX":{"A-Z":"missing_c6_ix"},
TableC6.json:"JN":{"A-Z":"missing_c6_jn"},
TableC6.json:"JP":{"A-Z":"missing_c6_jp"},
TableC6.json:"JX":{"A-Z":"missing_c6_jx"}

[petersilva]

As there is a separate, broader issue tableCCCC itself #4, perhaps this issue should only concern itself with gaps in the other tables (C1, C2, C3, C6) The rationale for the separation, is that we hope to be able to derive CCCC from some other source, perhaps by convincing WIGOS to include CCCC's in their information, or finding an IATA/ICAO source... whereas no external authoritative source is likely for the other tables.

[antje-s]

I agree with a separate discussion of the missing values of TableCCCC

[petersilva]

Perhaps mis-quoting @efucile ... I think he said:

• TT-GISC needs to be involved to review these entries. He is worried that different producers are using these "unused" entries in inconsistent ways. There may be no one correct interpretation.
• It is likely the best approach to proceed with the tables as-is for now.

recommends we make a formal release.

[petersilva]

@chenxiaoxia2019 fyi.

[antje-s]

in the current code toplevel topic value is used if no more specific entry is available for TableCCCC see #4