| [railML3] <border> representing open ends [message #3263] |
Tue, 25 June 2024 11:55  |
Larissa Zhuchyi
Messages: 62
Registered: November 2022
|
Member |
|
|
Dear all
In an internal discussion of railML.org reviewing railML3 data coming from different parties there was an idea to unify representation of open ends in railML with semantic constraint IS:007 [1]:
"if border/@isOpenEnd='true' then border/@type should be set as @type='area'"
Do you agree that "area" is an appropriate type for borders representing open ends?
The background is as follows.
In railML3 border/@isOpenEnd=true is used to represent not surprisingly open ends. <border> also has a mandatory attribute @type with following enumeration "area, country, infrastructureManager, state, station, tariff, other:".
Currently users can set any types of borders to open ends, e.g. in one file open end can look like this <border isOpenEnd="true" @type="area"> and in other <border isOpenEnd="true" @type="other:model">.
[1] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/Dev:Semantic_Constraints
Sincerely,
Larissa Zhuchyi – Ontology Researcher
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] <border> representing open ends [message #3270 is a reply to message #3263] |
Fri, 02 August 2024 14:38  |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 503
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
as an "open end" describes the end of a certain railway network without knowledge about what lays behind, another possible (new) border type could be also "terra incognita" (or "terraIncognita" as enum value).
Please let us know your preferences...
Thank you very much and 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] <border> representing open ends [message #3527 is a reply to message #3270] |
Thu, 27 March 2025 16:07 |
Milan Wölke
Messages: 178
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
I would like to suggest to change the wording of the proposed semantic constraint to something like this:
When providing the value 'true' to the attribute @isOpenEnd of <border> the attribute @type shall always we set to 'area'.
From my point of view the semantic constraint cannot contain the word 'should' as that would not express the constraining purpose intended here.
As for the used value, why not use "track". As a railway network is composed of tracks the open end of a railway network is placed at the end of a track, I suppose. Just my 3 cents.
Best regards, Milan
Milan Wölke – Timetable scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
