| Re: Proposal for semantic constraints for usage of GML elements [message #3827 is a reply to message #3825] |
Tue, 09 December 2025 14:40  |
Marharyta Vyskarka
Messages: 23
Registered: April 2025
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello everyone,
Thank you for your input. I also agree that we need to find a way to define how we should interpret GML locations. Part of the goal of defining these constraints is to bring more clarity to our interpretation and to make the usage of GML elements also make sense with other *locations, so I agree with Milan regarding the usage of multiple <gmlLocations> elements for different representations.
Also thank you, Mathias, for pointing out the usage of multiple different RTM locations within an element, which was not properly considered in initial wording of the proposed constraints. Based on your feedback the definition of such constraints definitely would need improvement, on which we will work on once we can reach the conclusion regarding the intent of GML locations.
As for the topic of srsName and EPSG code, Thomas, this is actually a topic we were already planning to discuss. We would need to have a separate conversation about it, so we could also define it's usage.
Best regards,
Margo
Marharyta Vyskarka – Software Developer
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
