| Re: Where to place a "comment" value? [message #2596 is a reply to message #1579] |
Sun, 22 November 2020 10:11  |
Torben Brand
Messages: 158
Registered: March 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear railML-community,
We come back to this older forum posting. We will refer to "remarks" from now on, to describe comments/remarks, as this is a better describing term of the desired use. I will refer to railML2 here. RailML3 knowledgably users please also check if fulfilled in railML3. The term "remarks" is in use in the intended manner in railML2 in an @remarks attribute under, amongst others, <state>, <train>, <opcTT>, <sectionTT>.
I agree that there should be created a use case for "Metadata" in railML3 which also should be applied in railML2.5 as we have the same requirements here. UC for "remarks" is Planners note with opinion on the object. Often describing actions to be taken concerning the remarked object in a workflow.(see also definition suggestion bellow). Context to the remark is given on which object it is placed.
For an example for an remark (in infrastructure) please see: https://railoscope.com/tickets/bRbcASDgBifKJ9rM?modelId=5c81 5c32137e0f14761f0bae&selectId=153
The definition of "remarks" is varying a great deal in the railMl2 wiki and should be improved and made consistent.
Remarks definition under <train>: This is a free attribute for further remarks, which should not be mixed with the description of a train.
I suggest the following two definitions:
Description: Human-readable description giving added information to the name of an object.
Remark: Planners note with opinion on the object. Often describing actions to be taken concerning the remarked object in a workflow.
For implementation we have chosen to go with Christians option 1 for the moment, mixing description and remarks in the @description attribute. As this is not very clean modelling, we suggest the following.
Make a separate element <remark> that can refer to any element. Have a <remarks> container, placed under <metadata> in railML2 and <common> in railML3, as the use case is a common one for all schemas.
The remarks are visualized related to but placed by the user in the visualisation free of the related object (usually with bubbles containing the remark text with a tether connecting to the object). With a separate <remark> element the remark can also be placed independently in the visualisation scheme (in railML2 only for infrastructure).
What does the community think about this solution suggestion? Any feedback is highly appreciated.
Kind regards
Torben Brand
Jernbanedirektoratet
[Updated on: Sun, 22 November 2020 10:29] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
