| Re: [railML3|alpha] Suggestion for an enhanced topology model [message #1432 is a reply to message #1430] |
Mon, 31 October 2016 13:21   |
Martin Karlsson
Messages: 14
Registered: October 2016
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear Alain,
Thank you for your clarifications.
I appreciate the philosophy of separating pure topology from physical objects, and I do not suggest to change this fundamental principle, or at all to change anything in RTM. As I wrote, I was sure there were good reasons behind chosing this model, and you have clarified that further.
My suggestion is rather to add - in railML, not RTM - a second layer of information, to reflect the topology related properties of the physical objects, in particular
- dependence of relation navigability on the run time state of a physical object (i.e. the course of a switch)
- mutual exclusivity of navigable relations (in the case of diamond crossings)
- length of tracks
For sure, my suggestion is not the only way to address these issues, but they need to be adressed one way or another.
-------------------------
Martin Karlsson
Bombardier Transportation
Rail Control Solutions
EAPD/ECC
S-405 02 Göteborg, Sweden
Visiting address: Polhemsplatsen 5
Tel.: +46 70 6667615
martinkarlsson(at)railbombardiercom
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
