Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » [railML2] Proposed semantic constraint for <specialService>
Re: [railML2] Proposed semantic constraint for <specialService> [message #3416 is a reply to message #3414] Thu, 19 December 2024 15:06 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
David Lichti is currently offline  David Lichti
Messages: 53
Registered: December 2020
Member
I agree with the second constraint proposal. (Suggest to add an article, though.)
Quote:

The values of @singleDate, @startDate and @endDate of <specialService> must not be outside of time period defined in the enclosing <operatingPeriod>.
This constraint is about the consistency of <specialService> elements with their parent <operatingPeriod> element.

The first one, strictly speaking, only excludes overlaps of date periods (start/end date) with other date periods or single dates.
Quote:

Any starting time stamp (as it may result e.g. from a combination of startDate and startTime) shall be lower or equal any ending time stamp (e.g. endDate) if both are given. Must not overlap with other <specialService> validity periods or single dates of the same enclosing <operatingPeriod>.
It does not exclude overlaps of two single dates.

Suggest to define two separate constraints. One for the internal consistency (adding the endTime for symmetry):
Quote:

Any starting time stamp (as it may result e.g. from a combination of startDate and startTime) shall be lower or equal any ending time stamp (e.g. endDate and endTime) if both are given.
A second one for the relation between the individual <specialService> elements:
Quote:

The validity periods and single dates of two <specialService> elements must not overlap.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [railML2] Wording of semantic constraints TT:015 and TT:016
Next Topic: [railML 2] New semantic constraint for <operatingPeriod>
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Nov 15 18:38:44 CET 2025