| [railML3] InfrastructureVisualization [message #2246] |
Tue, 03 September 2019 08:23  |
Heidrun Jost
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
in railML 3.1 the visualization of railway elements are defined in the
infrastructure schema as “InfrastructureVisualizations”.
Currently there is no possibility to visualize elements without a
connection to the infrastructure (e.g. for TVD sections [track vacancy
detection sections] or indicating objects from the interlocking schema).
Therefore the following request and proposal:
Is it possible to move the “InfrastructureVisualization” to the common
schema as “Visualization” in a future version of railML 3?
Best regards,
--
Heidrun Jost
Data Manager
Transportation Systems
Thales Deutschland GmbH
Phone: +49 (0) 30 688306 423
Schützenstr. 25 – 10117 Berlin – Germany
|
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] InfrastructureVisualization [message #2255 is a reply to message #2246] |
Mon, 07 October 2019 21:45  |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Heidrun,
Am 03.09.2019 um 08:23 schrieb Heidrun Jost:
> [...]
> Is it possible to move the “InfrastructureVisualization” to the common
> schema as “Visualization” in a future version of railML 3?
thank you for bringing up this topic here in the forum. The
generalization from "infrastructureVisualization" to "visualization"
affects also the other schemes: for example, there may be visualizations
(aka graphical representations) of timetables, rolling stock material or
interlocking issues. Considering this generic and cross-schema approach
to visualization, the forum post may be also added to the "misc forum"
to reach the whole community.
But more important, dear railML community:
What do you think about the proposal of having a generic approach of
"visualization"? Which examples of graphical representations do you
think of and which of them require an explicit description of the
visualization that cannot be derived directly from the data? Any input
on these questions is highly appreciated.
Thank you very much and best regards
Christian
--
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] InfrastructureVisualization [message #2640 is a reply to message #2255] |
Mon, 18 January 2021 15:49 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
individual discussions resulted in some new ideas for adapting the visualization model. Here, I want to present them and ask for your feedback:
1) The top level container element shall be <visualization> forming the route for the new visualization schema.
2) As a child element of <visualization> the element <views> shall be handled as container for all the different views of data. It is basically a re-naming of the element <visualizations> as known before.
3) The element <view> holds a graphical data representation. It is basically a re-naming of the element <visualization> as known before.
4) A <view> shall be of a specific type. Therefore, an enumeration attribute @type (values "infrastructure", "timetable", "rollingstock", ...) shall be added to <view>.
Any comments on these ideas are highly appreciated...
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] InfrastructureVisualization [message #2873 is a reply to message #2640] |
Fri, 14 January 2022 14:33 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
almost one year ago I presented a proposal for a re-modelling of the visualization model. So far, I have not received any feedback from the community. Does this mean that there is no interest in changing the visualization model? In that case I suggest to keep the visualization model as realized in the railML 3.2 beta2, which looks like in the attached picture [1].
If you are interested in modifying the visualization model with upcoming railML 3.2, please let us know here in the forum.
[1] EA4.png
Thank you very much and best regards
Christian
-
Attachment: EA4.png
(Size: 99.26KB, Downloaded 147 times)
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
