However, questions remain regarding the inclusion of workingGroup in the overwriting level and in the CEF (in most cases each stock belongs to only one working group, e.g., some stocks under WGBFAS are also requested by MIXFISH, but with different fleets). The issue becomes more complex in the case of effort data, where different fleets may be requested by different working groups. Although the underlying data may be identical, fleet definitions can differ. Therefore, the working group issue is closely linked to the fleet definition issue and requires further consideration. The effort tables may also end up being stock specific, since it looks a bit like the fleet definition is more stock specific than workingGroup specific.
So do we need both workingGroup and stock?
However, questions remain regarding the inclusion of workingGroup in the overwriting level and in the CEF (in most cases each stock belongs to only one working group, e.g., some stocks under WGBFAS are also requested by MIXFISH, but with different fleets). The issue becomes more complex in the case of effort data, where different fleets may be requested by different working groups. Although the underlying data may be identical, fleet definitions can differ. Therefore, the working group issue is closely linked to the fleet definition issue and requires further consideration. The effort tables may also end up being stock specific, since it looks a bit like the fleet definition is more stock specific than workingGroup specific.
So do we need both workingGroup and stock?