| [railML3] Proposal of a semantic constraint for mileageChange [message #3075] |
Thu, 20 April 2023 12:33  |
Milan Wölke
Messages: 146
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi all,
I would like to propose the introduction of two new semantic constraints for the mileageChange element of the railML 3 infrastructure.
First one would restrict the scope of referencing spot locations with the "from" and "to" attribute to those spot locations that are enclosed by the mileageChange element that carries the attributes.
The second one would ensure that both these spot locations actually refer to the same net element.
Both these constraints should not have a negative impact on any existing interfaces as the described is actually what one would expect anyway. However, I would still propose formalizing this in order to make life easier for importing system.
What does the community think?
Best regards, Milan
Milan Wölke – Timetable scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] Proposal of a semantic constraint for mileageChange [message #3081 is a reply to message #3075] |
Thu, 04 May 2023 09:00  |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 470
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Milan,
although I am not "the community" I understand your argumentation and support your SemCon proposal. So, if there are no further replies by end of next week, I suggest to adapt the SemCons accordingly.
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] Proposal of a semantic constraint for mileageChange [message #3085 is a reply to message #3081] |
Wed, 10 May 2023 15:55 |
Thomas Nygreen
Messages: 75
Registered: March 2008
|
Member |
|
|
Dear all,
I think we should be very careful about assuming what (every)one expects. Why would one expect never to find a netElement that is split at a mileage change? In that case, would it not be expected that the mileage change refers to the end of one and the start of the other? Or should this be modelled without any mileage change?
Why do we need the attributes from and to at all? Is it not given that the spot locations given for the mileage change represent the same location? And the type attribute takes care of the order.
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] Proposal of a semantic constraint for mileageChange [message #3090 is a reply to message #3085] |
Thu, 25 May 2023 21:01 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 470
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Thomas,
interesting thoughts, thank you.
For the first question regarding the location of a mileage change on more than one netElement, I would ask the community for their opinion: Do you want to model mileage changes on two netElements?
Concerning the second point: Yes, the attribute <mileageChange>@type already tells you what to expect: a gap or an overlap. Therefore, the attributes seem to be indeed redundant.
As usual I appreciate any kind of further opinion from the community...
Best regards
Christian
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
