| Re: "stop post" / "platform edge" reference from ocpTT [message #858 is a reply to message #856] |
Thu, 08 November 2012 22:38   |
Susanne Wunsch railML
Messages: 0
Registered: January 2020
|
|
|
|
Dear Dirk, Joachim and others,
Dirk Bräuer <dirkbraeuer(at)irfpde> writes:
>> * A reference from the <ocpTT> to either a certain <stopPost> or a
>> certain <platformEdge> is currently missing.
>
> But they would be a kind of redundant to "the way via the track" which
> you described above.
There may be more than one stop post that refers to the same platform
edge.
I thought the train part should refer to its appropriate stop post if it
exists otherwise to the platform edge.
You may cut the platform edge ref from the ocpTT if you refer to the
stop post. There is a one-to-one reference from a stop post to a
platform edge. But nevertheless there is no need to define platform
edges at all. You may only define tracks and stop posts without platform
edges.
>> Both attributes are needed for different modeling levels. Some
>> software tool handles platforms without stop posts another tool
>> may only accept stop posts but no platforms.
>
> In other cases of that kind, RailML forces the user to use the one and
> only way "in a wider sense".
That would mean to keep the stop post ref and don't implement the
platform edge ref.
> So why not "forcing" to use <ocpTT>.trackRef to come from a train to
> platformEdges and stopPosts?
Sorry, I don't understand this suggestion.
>> * The current 'trackInfo' attribute in <ocpTT> would be marked
>> deprecated.
>
> Generally: I understand and tend to agree. But: Do we possibly need
> the "trackInfo" for additional (plain-text) info on the stop? Possibly
> remarks for the passengers to be printed by a passenger information
> system? Possibly for the difference between the railway-internal
> (IM's) track number and a published platform number (think about
> Czech platforms -
> there is a platform name additionally to the track number).
>
> For the moment, I would leave the 'trackInfo' for individual
> plain-text use like "remarks".
I'm totally with you. There are enough examples from the practice for
meaningful filling this attribute.
But I feel a bit uncomfortable in changing the semantics without
changing the attribute's name. The 'trackInfo' attribute is used for
platform numbers up to now with no appropriate attribute name.
>> Is there the need for more than one reference to either a 'platformEdge'
>> or a 'stopPost'?
>
> I don't think so. I would provide only one way and wait until somebody
> claims and explains why there is a need for another one which is not
> redundant.
I would like to ask in advance because of the experiences in other
cases: Changing an attribute into an element is not so easy done.
Kind regards...
Susanne
--
Susanne Wunsch
Schema Coordinator: railML.common
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
