Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » SpeedChange : Protection system reference
Re: SpeedChange : Protection system reference [message #428 is a reply to message #416] Fri, 09 November 2012 22:29 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Dear Susanne and other railML users,

> A "speed change" is anyway _no_ "physical infrastructure object".

That's somehow true, but worth mentioning :)

> How would you describe it in a semantic model? I think we would add both
> relations: from the speedChange to the facilities (1:n) and back (1:1).
>
> Why not to define both references like already done with the
> <connection> elements? That can be easily assured by special
> constraints. Both sights meet their requirements.

That is a good idea you are bringing up here. From the <speedChange> to
the facilities we have a 1:n relation as you correctly mentioned. But I
am not sure about the 1:1 relation from the facility to the
<speedChange>. Considering a signal, it may show different signal
aspects, which relate to different <speedChange> elements then. If we
want to implement the cross-reference at least on the same level, this
would require to reference all (relevant) signal aspects from the
<speedChange> and not the signals. This might get very big, I think.

However, it is a good idea. Regarding the running time until Zurich, I
want to ask the important question: railML 2.2 or railML 2.x/3.0?

Regards

--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Alternative Stationsnamen (ocp, additionalName)
Next Topic: Tools zum Erstellen der Topologie / Tools for creating the topology
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri May 17 08:00:35 CEST 2024