Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » circulations should be optional
circulations should be optional [message #912] Wed, 02 January 2013 10:29 Go to next message
Andreas Tanner is currently offline  Andreas Tanner
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2012
Member
Dear group,
currently blocks can be defined only when also at least one circulation
is present: the type rRostering has mandatory child elements blockParts,
blocks and circulations. We use blocks to describe vehicle duties within
a day, and circulations to concatenate them within a multiple day schedule.
Now we have a case where there are no circulations present (as they are
defined only in a later planning stage). I think this should be valid,
and therefore I propose to relax the standard in that point. One way
would be to allow a <blocks> element directly below the <timetable>. I
think this would be more correctly model the situation than just to
allow rosterings without circulations because without circulations,
assigning a block to a rostering would be somewhat arbitrary.

So my suggestion is: insert <blocks> with minOccurs=0 into the sequence
of the <timetable> element.


Best, Andreas.
Re: circulations should be optional [message #923 is a reply to message #912] Tue, 12 February 2013 16:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joachim Rubröder railML is currently offline  Joachim Rubröder railML
Messages: 0
Registered: November 2019
Dear Andreas,

there seem to be no objections against this issue. I therefore opened a
ticket:
https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/221

But for an implementation in version 2.2, I definitely prefer the solution
with optional <circulations>. Your suggestion with additional <blocks>
below <timetable> would result in two different possible locations which
is not desirable

Kind regards,
Joachim

-------------------------------------
Joachim Rubröder
Schema Coordinator: railML.timetable


--
----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
Re: circulations should be optional [message #924 is a reply to message #923] Wed, 13 February 2013 08:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andreas Tanner is currently offline  Andreas Tanner
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2012
Member
Thanks a lot. Optional circulations within a rostering would be helpful.
The rest should be discussed at the upcoming conference.
--Andreas.

Am 12.02.2013 16:55, schrieb Joachim Rubroeder:
> Dear Andreas,
>
> there seem to be no objections against this issue. I therefore opened a
> ticket:
> https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/221
>
> But for an implementation in version 2.2, I definitely prefer the solution
> with optional <circulations>. Your suggestion with additional <blocks>
> below <timetable> would result in two different possible locations which
> is not desirable
>
> Kind regards,
> Joachim
>
> -------------------------------------
> Joachim Rubröder
> Schema Coordinator: railML.timetable
>
>
Re: circulations should be optional [message #933 is a reply to message #924] Tue, 12 March 2013 18:25 Go to previous message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Dear Andreas and Joachim,

I also see no objections against optional circulations (i. e. rosterings
with blocks but without circulations) and would prefer this against
additional blocks at <timetable> but outside <rosterings>. Concerning the
latter, it seams to me that we could skip that redundancy.

Best regards,
Dirk.
Previous Topic: train annotations
Next Topic: infrastructure train path: where to put path parameters
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jul 12 19:15:51 CEST 2024