Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » [railML3]: RbcBorder: IS vs IL
[railML3]: RbcBorder: IS vs IL [message #3292] Sun, 01 September 2024 04:49
Jörg von Lingen is currently offline  Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 91
Registered: March 2016
Member
Dear all,

the RBC is an element in railML, where the sub-schemas IS and IL are connected.
In particular, the IS element <radioBlockCentreBorder> references a
<radioBlockCentre> via the child element <belongsToRadioBlockCentre>.
Actually, this referencing direction is conflicting with one of our modelling
rules that there should be only links from one schema to the other one. For IS
and IL sub-schemas, this rule means that IL can refer to IS elements, but IS
should not link (back) to IL elements.
In order to solve this potential conflict, we created a Gitlab issue [1] and
want to change the model with upcoming railML 3.3. In future, the only reference
between <radioBlockCentre> in IL and <radioBlockCentreBorder> in IS will be the
already existing repeatable RBC child element <isLimitedByRadioBlockCentreBorder>.

In general the linking between IS and IL is to provide the functional relation
of physical or virtual objects with railway network location in the
signalling/interlocking sense. The IS element <radioBlockCentreBorder> is such
an object with location. But the functional relation is made only by IL element
<radioBlockCentre>. Whereas an RBC has not and does not need a railway network
location. It is a pure functional unit.

Please let us know your ideas and comments on this proposed railML 3.3 model change.

[1] https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/565
--
Best regards,
Joerg v. Lingen - Interlocking Coordinator
Previous Topic: [railML3]: signal lamps
Next Topic: [railML3] Request for feedback on changes of our deprecation policy
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Nov 14 05:22:34 CET 2024