[railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2345] |
Tue, 25 February 2020 11:37 |
Torben Brand
Messages: 169 Registered: March 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It seems that the very practical attribute @ruleCode (in railML2) describing the type of signal in a national specific unique way is missing in railML3?
The type can be defined in railML2 (by @type and @function) and in a more detailed way in railML3 (by the used sub elements) in a railML generic way. But the national specific way needs also to be modelled. Both from an asset perspective (a home signal looks different in Germany than in Norway) and in an interlocking perspective. As the rules for a home signal can be different.
|
|
|
|
Re: [railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2361 is a reply to message #2358] |
Fri, 28 February 2020 16:12 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 474 Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Torben,
I agree with Jörg: the content of railML 2 attribute @ruleCode seems to be better located in the interlocking domain of the signal since it refers to aspects the signal can show.
From my understanding, the information should be splitted in two aspects: the name/reference of the rule book (e.g. "Ril301" for DB's "Signalbuch") and the rule code of the signal in the referenced rule book (e.g. "SH2"). So, the structure of this information is very similar to the <designator> element, with the difference that a rule book is being referenced instead of an register and the entry is named rule code.
Best regards
Christian
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Re: [railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2369 is a reply to message #2363] |
Wed, 04 March 2020 19:35 |
Thomas Nygreen
Messages: 79 Registered: March 2008
|
Member |
|
|
Hi,
@ruleCode originatedas a way to include the national code of a stop post (and then more generally any signal). The given examples seem to me to be more about identifying the exact type of signal (e.g. to be able to look up its physical appearance), rather than its aspects. For boards there is little difference, as they have only one aspect. To provide an example, there are multiple light signal types (in any country) capable of showing the aspects "closed", "proceed" and "limitedProceed". In railML3 we can separate between some of these using <signalConstruction>@type and <signalIL>@function, but there may still be more than one type matching the @type and @function. How do you specify which specific type of signal it is? Another example is boards, where IL does not provide much, but where signalbooks usually have specific codes for each kind of board.
Best regards,
Thomas
Thomas Nygreen – Common Schema Coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
Re: [railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2407 is a reply to message #2345] |
Wed, 25 March 2020 11:01 |
Dominik Looser
Messages: 23 Registered: March 2020
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
As this is my first forum post, it seems to be common here to introduce myself first. I work for trafit solutions gmbh in Switzerland and together with Jernbanedirektoratet we are working on railOscope/NRV with a railML-interface.
I also propose to include the @rulecode attribute in railML3 as the information we store there in railML2.4 cannot be placed in any other attribute.
The rulecode does not refer to a particular aspect of a signal, but only implies which aspects that signal has. Therefore, putting the rulecode into the aspects would only make sense for boards, where each board can only show one aspect.
I could also imagine Christian's idea to work: using a "designator-like" format for the rulecode. Since rulecodes already have a format like "NOR:TJN:§9-28", this could easily be split into a "register"(or rulebook) and an "entry". Designators now are used to store unique object-specific identifiers, while for rulecodes we need something not unique.
I see three possibilities now:
- A new @rulecode attribute is introduced in a future railML3 version.
- A new "designator-like" element is introduced with attributes @rulebook and @entry. This could be called <typeDesignator>.
- We use the existing <designator> element for "type designators" as well. Using several designators is already supported.
Best regards,
Dominik
[Updated on: Wed, 25 March 2020 11:03] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: [railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2911 is a reply to message #2407] |
Sat, 19 February 2022 23:48 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 474 Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear railML community,
in order to close this issue with upcoming railML 3.2, I want to ask you:
Which of the three options raised by Dominik do you prefer?
Dominik Looser wrote on Wed, 25 March 2020 11:01Dear all,
I see three possibilities now:
- A new @rulecode attribute is introduced in a future railML3 version.
- A new "designator-like" element is introduced with attributes @rulebook and @entry. This could be called <typeDesignator>.
- We use the existing <designator> element for "type designators" as well. Using several designators is already supported.
Best regards
Christian
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Re: [railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2968 is a reply to message #2967] |
Fri, 18 March 2022 13:26 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 474 Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Torben,
thank you for your feedback. I adapted the Git issue #443 [1] accordingly.
Just one last question: we will implement the <typeDesignator> for all functional infrastructure elements. Or would you like to limit it to some functional infrastructure elements only (which ones?)?
[1] https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/443
Best regards
Christian
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
Re: [railML3] missing @ruleCode? [message #2969 is a reply to message #2968] |
Fri, 18 March 2022 14:07 |
Torben Brand
Messages: 169 Registered: March 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes, we at Jernbanedirektoratet agree that it makes sense to implement <typeDesignator> for all functional infrastructure elements and let the user decide where it would be relevant to use them.
|
|
|