Home » railML newsgroups » railml.infrastructure » [railML3] rail3:netElement.relation seems useless
[railML3] rail3:netElement.relation seems useless [message #2827] Wed, 15 September 2021 11:00 Go to next message
Raphaël Gaudy is currently offline  Raphaël Gaudy
Messages: 1
Registered: July 2021
Junior Member

I'm puzzled by the fact that in the infrastructure subschema, netElements contain references to their relations (RTM_NetElement/relation in the schema documentation).

It seems redundant with the definitions used in netRelation: it's always possible to deduce which relations an element is part of, by iterating through all the relations of the infrastructure. But maybe I'm missing something.

In any case, it seems to me that such a redundance could cause more problems than is solves (such as discrepancies due to storing the same piece of information essentially twice). And the rest of the schema does not seem to use this kind of double referencing pattern anyway.

Best regards

PS: by the way thanks for fixing the forum login :)
Re: [railML3] rail3:netElement.relation seems useless [message #2830 is a reply to message #2827] Thu, 16 September 2021 21:36 Go to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 351
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Raphael,

thank you for your post and welcome to the railML forum. You are absolutely right with noticing that the (optional) reference from the NetElement to the NetRelation is redundant to the (mandatory) reference from the NetRelation to the NetElement. However, fundamental RailTopoModel (RTM) that railML 3.x is based on, contains both references in the model.

Your remark, that this redundancy may cause conflicts, is correct. I suggest the following solution: In order to stay compliant with RTM, we leave the syntax as it is with a (mandatory) reference from the NetRelation to the NetElement and an (optional) reference from the NetElement to the NetRelation. But, as we do not want to have the optional references, we document them as being DEPRECATED and not to be used in order to avoid potential inconsistencies.

This is a proposal and I am eager to hear other opinions from the community...

Thank you very much and best regards

Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
Previous Topic: [railML3] transfer times for connections
Next Topic: [railML3] How to assign a mileage change to a netElement
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Mon Sep 20 22:49:28 CEST 2021