Today's Messages (on)  | Unanswered Messages (off)

Forum: railml.common
 Topic: [railML3] Overview of how to deal with schema changes
Re: [railML3] Overview of how to deal with schema changes [message #3232 is a reply to message #3228] Fri, 26 April 2024 17:49
Thomas Nygreen is currently offline  Thomas Nygreen
Messages: 68
Registered: March 2008
Member
Dear Christian,

Strictly speaking, the discussion and decided approach only covers how to remove something that has already been included in railML 3.x. In some cases this may happen without it being replaced, but as you imply, the normal case is that something new will take its place, normally in the same minor version where the old modelling is deprecated. We have already identified some types of changes where the old and new modelling will conflict, and I am working on a suggestion on how to extend the decided policy in the same spirit of balancing stability and progress: https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/535

I will include your input in the process. Others in the community are also very welcome to contribute.

Best regards
Thomas


Thomas Nygreen – Common Schema Coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
Forum: railML.infrastructure
 Topic: Infrastructure element datamodel quality and input-data source
Re: Infrastructure element datamodel quality and input-data source [message #3233 is a reply to message #3213] Fri, 26 April 2024 18:09
Thomas Nygreen is currently offline  Thomas Nygreen
Messages: 68
Registered: March 2008
Member
Dear Torben,

Regarding your question 1, I have to point out that human readable properties like name and description "are not to be used to contain computer-processable data, nor shall it be parsed by programmes in any way." (see https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/Dev:Identities#Differentiation _from_other_indications)

Regarding question 2, there is also a proposal to move states into Common, to allow use by all the subschemas: https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/491
I still think the interpretation of a state referring to an area should be decided in the Infrastructure community.

Regarding question 3, is this covered by an existing or proposed railML 3 use case?

Best regards
Thomas


Thomas Nygreen – Common Schema Coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org



Current Time: Fri Apr 26 21:25:52 CEST 2024