Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s?
What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? [message #2060] Fri, 28 December 2018 23:00 Go to next message
Thomas Nygreen JBD is currently offline  Thomas Nygreen JBD
Messages: 68
Registered: February 2017
Member
Dear all,

I cannot find any documentation of what should determine which assets that go into which <assetForIL>. I assume that there is a reason why the schema allows multiple <assetsForIL>s, but I cannot find that reason in the drafted tutorial or in the forum.

What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? If we look to the infrastructure domain, the closest relative to <assetForIL> is <functionalInfrastructure>, which does not multiply. So why not remove <assetsForILs> and have only one <assetsForIL>?

Best regards,
Thomas Nygreen
Re: What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? [message #2066 is a reply to message #2060] Sun, 30 December 2018 05:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joerg von Lingen is currently offline  Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011
Senior Member
Hi Thomas,

in the beginning <assetForIL> was single but as it contains engineering data of
interlockings one might consider different phases of evolution during
reconstruction of stations. Although explicit validity times are not yet
implemented this was the rationale for having more than one <assetForIL>.

Best regards,
Joerg v. Lingen

Rollingstock Coordinator

On 28.12.2018 23:00, Thomas Nygreen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I cannot find any documentation of what should determine
> which assets that go into which <assetForIL>. I assume that
> there is a reason why the schema allows multiple
> <assetsForIL>s, but I cannot find that reason in the drafted
> tutorial or in the forum.
>
> What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? If we
> look to the infrastructure domain, the closest relative to
> <assetForIL> is <functionalInfrastructure>, which does not
> multiply. So why not remove <assetsForILs> and have only one
> <assetsForIL>?
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas Nygreen
Re: What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? [message #2070 is a reply to message #2066] Thu, 03 January 2019 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thomas Nygreen JBD is currently offline  Thomas Nygreen JBD
Messages: 68
Registered: February 2017
Member
Hi Jörg,

Would this not be the same for all subschemas? At least, both infrastructure and timetables have phases during their planning. Yet, the infrastructure subschema does not have such a grouping of entities. Instead, all functional infrastructure entities are in one view, only grouped into containers by type. I would welcome a coordination of the strategies in the different schemas.


Best regards,
Thomas Nygreen
Railway capacity engineer
Jernbanedirektoratet
Re: What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? [message #2630 is a reply to message #2060] Wed, 13 January 2021 05:41 Go to previous message
Joerg von Lingen is currently offline  Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011
Senior Member
Dear all,

about two years ago the question for multiple <assetsForIL>s was raised. Subsequently the superior container was removed
for railML3.1. However, in-between the need for having more than one asset list became apperant. So for railMl3.2 the
superior container was re-introduced.

In the definition of the generic types of a specificInfrastructurManager there is the reference to the asset lists
belonging to this infrastructure manager. It is also conceivable to have several asset lists covering different stages
of a project although a status attribute is not yet included.

Finally, it means there can be several asset lists belonging to one infrastructure manager but any asset list belongs
only to a single infrastructure manager.

--
Regards,
Jörg von Lingen - Rollingstock Coordinator

Thomas Nygreen wrote on 28.12.2018 23:00:
> Dear all,
>
> I cannot find any documentation of what should determine
> which assets that go into which <assetForIL>. I assume that
> there is a reason why the schema allows multiple
> <assetsForIL>s, but I cannot find that reason in the drafted
> tutorial or in the forum.
>
> What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? If we
> look to the infrastructure domain, the closest relative to
> <assetForIL> is <functionalInfrastructure>, which does not
> multiply. So why not remove <assetsForILs> and have only one
> <assetsForIL>?
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas Nygreen
>
Previous Topic: [railML3] Flank protection
Next Topic: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Jul 13 07:47:29 CEST 2024