|Re: roles [message #1212]
||Tue, 12 February 2013 14:07
Registered: March 2008
Hi Andreas and all others,|
Andreas Tanner <ata(at)ivude> writes:
> Am 12.02.2013 12:04, schrieb Susanne Wunsch:
>>> Regarding the vehicleOperator, I would think that binding to trainPart
>>> should be possible for the case that at a certain planning stage,
>>> formations are abstract but the assignment to the operator is already
>> I see, we talk about different "vehicle operators". I try to clarify my
>> point of view. Please, correct me, if I mix other contract bindings
>> * The "vehicle operator" in the Rollingstock sub-schema should be the
>> company that is the "owner" of the vehicle.
>> * The "vehicle operator" in the Timetable sub-schema may be the company
>> that provides the transport service with the vehicle.
>> Such a use case with different wagons and locos did happen at the
>> beginning of this timetable period in December 2012:
>> RE4 of the ODEG: 
>> The wagons and loco of this "fixed formation" had different "vehicle
>> owners", but are operated by one "vehicle operator" for this service.
> Indeed the real world provides a nice example. I suggested  the
> vehicleOperator as an equivalent to the IVU subcontractor
> (Fremdunternehmer), so the binding would be to the timetable
>  news://news.railml.org:119/k7t9ju$cbe$1(at)sifaivifhgde
> The usage in the rolling stock schema also makes sense to me.
Thanks for the clarification.
So I would introduce a "vehicleOwner" element in the metadata block for
the Rollingstock binding in order to minimize confusion. That may be
used the following way:
<operator vehicleOwnerRef="" operatorClass="" startDate="" endDate=""/>
The "vehicleOperator" for the Timetable sub-schema stays unchanged.
Any comments appreciated.
Schema Coordinator: railML.common