Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » [railML3] New semantic constraint restricting RTM:level, IS:netElement and IS:netRelation (Ensuring that each netElement and netRelation belongs to exactly one RTM:level)
Re: [railML3] New semantic constraint restricting RTM:level, IS:netElement and IS:netRelation [message #3496 is a reply to message #3491] Tue, 04 March 2025 11:31 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
David Lichti is currently offline  David Lichti
Messages: 57
Registered: December 2020
Member
It seems to me that the association of a net relation to a topology level is implicitly given by the topology level of the related net elements. If both net elements are nodes in the graph representation in a particular level, then a net relation between them is an edge in the same graph. The explicit association of net relation to a topology level would then be redundant.

I agree that each net element (and, by consequence, each net relation) should belong to exactly one topology level. The semantic constraints IS:022 and IS:023 as proposed by Larissa look good to me.

I am not sure what it would mean for a net relation to connect two net elements from different topology levels. It is neither an edge in one graph, nor in the other. It feels like there should be another semantic constraint to exclude diagonal net relations. Relations between net elements should be either horizontal (using net relations [1]), or vertical (using the ordered [2] or unordered element collections [3]), but not diagonal.


[1] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/IS:netRelation
[2] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/RTM:elementCollectionOrdered
[3] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/RTM:elementCollectionUnordered
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [railML3] Remodelling levelCrossingIS in railML 3.4
Next Topic: [railML3] Use of geometricPositioningSystem/@crsDefinition
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Jun 09 13:27:54 CEST 2026