| Re: small issues on "register" and "tLineInfrastructureManagerCode" [message #498 is a reply to message #489] |
Mon, 03 December 2012 22:08   |
Susanne Wunsch railML
Messages: 0
Registered: January 2020
|
|
|
|
Dear Dirk,
Dirk Bräuer <dirkbraeuer(at)irfpde> writes:
> concerning the file structure: I would prefer using named attributes
> rather than default attributes with element names for shortness
> (<version code='ENEE'> rather than <code>ENEE</code>).
Yes, that is a break in the current railML encoding style.
We often stumble over attributes that would need to occur more than
once. That's obviously not possible with XML. We need to convert them to
elements so far. That is a "structure-braking-change". In contrast
changing the elements multiplicity from "1" to "unbounded" is a small
change.
That's the reason for changing the style concept starting with these new
"separate XML file" additions.
> concerning the contents: Please do not provide redundant elements for
> the same register ("RL100", "DS100", "DV100" are all the same).
That is one example for showing how this register renaming may be
defined with the newly created structure.
> You find examples for different registers in Wiki.
Yes, we will fill out the other values, too. But I tried to only cite an
excerpt from the file for two use cases - two registers, one with
historic names, one with only one name.
> If you feel necessary to provide different names for the same
> register, disjunctive validities should be enforced. This is not the
> case in your example.
Yes, you are right. I tried to find out, when the renaming from "DS100"
to "RL100" was done, but I couldn't find it. That's the reason for the
blank "begin" and "end" attributes. It was my intention to show this use
case with disjunctive validities. I'm sorry for that.
Kind regards...
Susanne
--
Susanne Wunsch
Schema Coordinator: railML.common
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
