| Re: constraints for OperatingPeriod [message #917 is a reply to message #871] |
Wed, 06 February 2013 16:46  |
Joachim Rubröder railML
Messages: 0
Registered: November 2019
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
I totally agree about the different kinds of operatingPeriods and the need
for an 'abstract period'.
The second important point to consider is the operatingPeriod in the
different stages of the planning process. Evolving from an 'abstract
period' to a concrete 'bitmask'.
> Andreas Tanner <ata(at)ivude> writes:
>
> as far as railML 2.x is concerned, my suggestion was just to enhance
> the documentation.
>
> For railML 3.0, however, I would like to keep the discussion open and
> let us elaborate a model of validity with a more formally defined
> semantics that allows to address specific instances of trains from a
> timetable.
Many thanks for the discussion in this thread. I will be glad to implement
such a model of validity in a future version of railML.
I therefore switched the ticket to railML 3.0:
http://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/187
Kind regards,
Joachim
-------------------------------------
Joachim Rubröder
Schema Coordinator: railML.timetable
--
----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
