| Re: Infrastructure registers [message #1667 is a reply to message #1594] |
Mon, 20 November 2017 16:19   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
the described problem may be solved with version 2.4. The related Trac
ticket #310 is available in [1].
I would like to have your feedback on answering the main question: Do
you prefer having one codelist including all the different existing
registers for providing codes and designators to railway infrastructure
elements, or would you like to have separated codelists?
[1] https://trac.railml.org/ticket/310
Thank you very much and best regards
Christian
Am 29.05.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Christian Rahmig:
> Dear Dirk,
>
> Am 18.05.2017 um 15:46 schrieb Dirk Bräuer:
>> [...]
>> From my understanding, the kind of register is (adequately) specified by
>> the parent element of <designator>. If it is a <designator> of an <ocp>,
>> the station registers are needed. If it is a <designator> of a different
>> parent element, a different register is needed.
>>
>> As is can also happen to have different registers as sub-elements of
>> <infrastructure> in future (such as registers of line numbers), I would
>> not recommend naming the station lists @infrastructureRegister. I would
>> name them @ocpRegister. But this would, as I said, be redundant to the
>> parent's element name.
>
> thank you very much for your feedback. The idea behind was to
> distinguish between registers of the different railML sub-domains
> (infrastructure, timetable, etc.). You are absolutely right with your
> statement that there are different types of infrastructure related
> registers, e.g. for OCPs and for asset management. Therefore, I suggest
> to add a new attribute @type in the codelist InfrastructureRegisters.xml
> (before: Registers.xml). Using this attribute, it shall be possible to
> distinguish between OCP registers, and other infrastructure registers.
>
> The result in InfrastructureRegisters.xml may look like this:
>
> <register code="DfA">
> <name xml:lang="de-CH">Datenbank Feste Anlagen</name>
> <organization xml:lang="en">Swiss Federal Railways on behalf of
> Federal Office of Transport</organization>
> <type>assets</type>
> </register>
>
> <register code="DIDOK">
> <name xml:lang="en">List of station names</name>
> <organization xml:lang="en">Swiss Federal Railways on behalf of
> Federal Office of Transport</organization>
> <type>ocp</type>
> </register>
>
> <register code="DB640">
> <name xml:lang="de-AT">Dienstbehelf Nr. 640</name>
> <organization xml:lang="de-AT">ÖBB</organization>
> <type>all</type>
> </register>
>
> The question to be answered: what kind of infrastructure related
> registers have to be specififed. For the initial version I suggest the
> following types:
> * asset
> * ocp
> * networkStatement
> * all (?)
>
> Any comments etc. appreciated...
>
> Best regards
> Christian
>
--
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
