Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » forgotten attribute <operatingPeriod> @dayOffset and its future
forgotten attribute <operatingPeriod> @dayOffset and its future [message #1602] Fri, 09 June 2017 12:02 Go to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 213
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Introduced with railML 2.2, there should be a new attribute @dayOffset at <operatingPeriod>.

It now turned out that this attribute seems simply to have been forgotten.
(The attribute with the same name at <blockPartSequence> is already there since railML 2.0 and therefore no mistake.)

So obviously nobody has missed this attribute and the question arises, whether we should still introduce it and/or transfer it into railML 3.x.

There is a lengthy explanation of this attribute in [1] including several reasons for its introduction. So my suggestion is to introduce @dayOffset at <operatingPeriod> from r2.4 AND transfer it into r3.x.

@Stefan Jugelt: I know several infrastructure managers who do not allow "departureDay=1" at the first <ocp> in their data models. How does ERA deal with this issue? Is there a kind of "dayOffset" in TAP/F TSI, too, or is there "departureDay=1" allowed from the start?

Best regards,
Dirk.

[1] http://wiki.railml.org/index.php?title=TT:Midnight_overrun
Re: forgotten attribute <operatingPeriod> @dayOffset and its future [message #1611 is a reply to message #1602] Tue, 20 June 2017 00:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Philip Wobst is currently offline  Philip Wobst
Messages: 36
Registered: November 2013
Location: Hanover, Germany
Member
Hello Dirk,

I do not agree with need to add this attribute in r2.4. Due to the fact that it seems to not have been used at all in any r2.2 interface should rather mean we remove the attribute in the Wiki in a transparent way and then review the need for this attribute in r3.x

Best regards,

Philip
Re: forgotten attribute <operatingPeriod> @dayOffset and its future [message #1614 is a reply to message #1611] Wed, 21 June 2017 12:57 Go to previous message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 213
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Dear Philip,

the fact that the attribute has not been used so far does not mean that there is no demand on it. I think simply the programming lags behind several years. That's normal.

I can remember that there was an original problem to introduce this attribute and a lengthy discussion between <TT> developers at a meeting. I want to respect the earlier decision. I think this is important also in general, to give the developers stability and "protection of investment".

However, if you want to waive the attribute, that means to allow departureDay<>0 at first <ocpTT>. No problem of technology from my side, but as I said, there are several infrastructure managers who do not allow it in their data models. So could we please clarify first what ERA says to this problem in their recommendations? I think it is not reasonable to let railML walk into a different solution than ERA.

Best regards,
Dirk.
Previous Topic: Timetable data elements for railVIVID
Next Topic: Haltezwecke / Stop descriptions
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Aug 20 07:55:22 CEST 2017