Forum - RDF feed
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php
Rollingstock - modelling patterns
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&goto=2016&th=615#msg_2016
in the misc-forum we have discussed about modelling patterns which shall apply for railML3 development. In the current
RS schema there is one main conflict with the set rules - model hierarchy.
1) What do you think about hierarchy issue concerning a perspective RS in railML3?
2) Shall the modelling split into vehicle components (independent of vehicle) in order to achieve a rather flat hierarchy?
3) What would you see in RS as "view", "container", "object" and "part"?
Regards,
Jörg v.Lingen - Rollingstock coordinator]]>Joerg von Lingen2018-11-20T03:54:05-00:00Re: Rollingstock - modelling patterns
https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&goto=2018&th=615#msg_2018
> 1) What do you think about hierarchy issue concerning a perspective RS in railML3?
I think a flat hierarchy is not more practical especially in a very 'technical' context. I already have often the problem of needing to 'jump' very often in the railML files (when reading manually) to resolve references. Sometimes I loose overview...
So, I would prefer the rather deep but contextual hierarchy we already have.
Additionally, when I made the suggestion of a possible generic model for future <TT> (with a very flat hierarchy), it was widely refused because of too less structure. So, I am probably (obviously) not the only one with this opinion.
Dirk Bräuer wrote on 22.11.2018 10:23:
> Dear Jörg,
>
>> 1) What do you think about hierarchy issue concerning a perspective RS in railML3?
>
> I think a flat hierarchy is not more practical especially in a very 'technical' context. I already have often the problem of needing to 'jump' very often in the railML files (when reading manually) to resolve references. Sometimes I loose overview...
>
> So, I would prefer the rather deep but contextual hierarchy we already have.
>
> Additionally, when I made the suggestion of a possible generic model for future <TT> (with a very flat hierarchy), it was widely refused because of too less structure. So, I am probably (obviously) not the only one with this opinion.
>
> Best regards,
> Dirk.
> ]]>Joerg von Lingen2018-11-22T12:30:34-00:00