Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » [railML3] Changes to identifiers for better support of the TAF/TAP TSI
[railML3] Changes to identifiers for better support of the TAF/TAP TSI [message #3712] Mon, 08 September 2025 13:41
Milan Wölke is currently offline  Milan Wölke
Messages: 213
Registered: April 2007
Senior Member
Hi all,

in the last timetable developer group meeting we had the chance to talk with a colleague from ERA about the TAF/TAP TSI. During this meeting we identified some potential shortcomings we want to mitigate in the upcoming version 3.4 of railML. This post is to let you know what we have in mind and give you the opportunity to point out further improvements or concerns you may have.

First thing we noticed is that we are lacking the timetable year that can be part of the TAF/TAP TSI identifier. Out original thought when modelling the identifiers in railML 3 was that this may be extracted from the timetable period. However, in our discussion we came to the conclusion that this may not be as straightforwardly possible as we initially expected. Hence, we would like to extend the identifiers element to allow specification of the timetableYear as well. This would be an optional attribute of type string.

Basically the same applies to the start date of the TAF/TAP TSI object identifier. The reasoning was that the start date could be extracted from the operating period. Practical experience, however, indicates that this approach is not feasible and an explicit mention of the start date would be better.

Another addition would be to the enumeration of the IdentifierType. In the TAF/TAP TSI basically for all communication is is required to include the reference train into the set of identifiers. In the TAF/TAP TSI this reference train is identified with the object identifier type TR and a variant value 0. In order to make this more prominently in railML it was proposed to introduce a dedicated value to the IdentifierType, named TafTapTsiReferenceTrainId.

Please let us know if you have concerns with the above. Please let us also know if you have further ideas of what to improve concerning the interoperability with the TAF/TAP TSI.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards, Milan

Milan Hoffmann – Timetable schema coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: [railML2] New semantic constraint for <trainPart>
Next Topic: [railML3] Semantic Constraint TT:003 <commercialTrainVariant>
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Mon Feb 09 10:10:10 CET 2026