Forum - RDF feed
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php
Version 0.93 - request for comment
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&goto=1165&th=365#msg_1165
as briefly described during meeting in Brunswick the latest version of rollingstock scheme is 0.93
with the major addition of train related data in <formation> branch. However, it is still possible
to discuss the best "mounting point" of this branch:
1. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
|
-- formations --- formation <= train related
*or*
2. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
|
-- formation <= train related
Please give me your opinions.
Best,
Joerg von Lingen]]>Joerg von Lingen2004-04-06T13:08:35-00:00Re: Version 0.93 - request for comment
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&goto=1166&th=365#msg_1166
I'd prefer not to have <formations> as another direct child-element of the
<railml> root element. So I'm in favour of the second option.
But what about separating vehicle and train related data by means of two new
container elements? I mean something like this:
railml --- rollingstock --- vehicles --- rs <= vehicle related
|
-- formations --- formation <= train related
The naming of these container elements (<vehicles> and <formations>) would
have to be discussed probably (or shall we rename <rs> to <vehicle>?)
This version would be similar as we have it in the infrastructure (container
elements lines, tracks, operationControlPoints, etc.)
Other opinions?
Best regards,
Matthias Hengartner
"Joerg von Lingen" <jvl@bahntechnik.de> wrote in message
news:GlwwHj9GEHA.1168@sifa...
> Hallo,
>
> as briefly described during meeting in Brunswick the latest version of
rollingstock scheme is 0.93
> with the major addition of train related data in <formation> branch.
However, it is still possible
> to discuss the best "mounting point" of this branch:
> 1. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
> |
> -- formations --- formation <= train related
> *or*
> 2. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
> |
> -- formation <= train related
>
> Please give me your opinions.
>
> Best,
> Joerg von Lingen]]>Matthias Hengartner2004-04-07T13:17:06-00:00Re: Version 0.93 - request for comment
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&goto=1167&th=365#msg_1167
I agree that the schema should branch below the rollingstock element,
like in the infrastructure. And to rename the somehow cryptic <rs> to
<vehicle> would also be more railML like. So I will also vote for:
railml --- rollingstock --- vehicles --- vehicle <= vehicle related
|
-- formations --- formation <= train related
besr regards,
Joachim Rubröder
Matthias Hengartner schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> I'd prefer not to have <formations> as another direct child-element of the
> <railml> root element. So I'm in favour of the second option.
>
> But what about separating vehicle and train related data by means of two new
> container elements? I mean something like this:
>
> railml --- rollingstock --- vehicles --- rs <= vehicle related
> |
> -- formations --- formation <= train related
>
> The naming of these container elements (<vehicles> and <formations>) would
> have to be discussed probably (or shall we rename <rs> to <vehicle>?)
>
> This version would be similar as we have it in the infrastructure (container
> elements lines, tracks, operationControlPoints, etc.)
>
>
> Other opinions?
>
> Best regards,
> Matthias Hengartner
>
>
>
>
> "Joerg von Lingen" <jvl@bahntechnik.de> wrote in message
> news:GlwwHj9GEHA.1168@sifa...
>
>> Hallo,
>>
>> as briefly described during meeting in Brunswick the latest version of
>
> rollingstock scheme is 0.93
>
>> with the major addition of train related data in <formation> branch.
>
> However, it is still possible
>
>> to discuss the best "mounting point" of this branch:
>> 1. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
>> |
>> -- formations --- formation <= train related
>> *or*
>> 2. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
>> |
>> -- formation <= train related
>>
>> Please give me your opinions.
>>
>> Best,
>> Joerg von Lingen
>
>
> ]]>Joachim.Rubröder2004-04-08T06:37:10-00:00