> Changes to align with IMO FAL

[CEM001]

Changes to align with IMO FAL

Which specific part of the IMO FAL convention? I suspect we are discussing different terms here, in the sense that what we have here are event names in an event sourcing pattern context.

Originally posted by @raisoman in #64 (comment)

[CEM001]

Below is an extract from ITPCO Port information Manual. This is an example of EPCIS event data message for ETD berth, which might influence the ship to shore interface workgroup to create technical standard. Also adding the official link to the entire document online. https://portcalloptimization.org/images/Port%20Information%20Manual%203.02.pdf

[raisoman]

In a DCSA context that would translate into:

• using the term "Action" rather than "Event Classifier Code"
• Use "OBS" rather than "ACT" (for "Observed" rather than "Actual")
• Consider using present tense for the action (keeping past tense for the event), specifically: "Observe", "Plan", "Request", "Estimate"

[CEM001]

Below please find the link to the IMO FAL convention.

https://svn.gefeg.com/svn/IMO-Compendium/Current/index.htm

On the left menu, you can click on the IMO data set and then the data elements in the sub menu, or on the reference data model.