| missing bitMask at <trainPart><operatingPeriodRef> [message #781] |
Thu, 17 May 2012 13:32  |
Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Joachim and all others,
there is one small issue which we should fix with RailML 2.2:
A <trainPart> references its operating days with <operatingPeriodRef>.
Normally one should expect that there is a 'ref' to an operatingPeriod
only and nothing more.
However, there are some more elements there for reasons which I do not
know. They are repeated from 'operatingPeriod' and therefore tend to be
redundant.
1) There are 'startDate' and 'endDate' which allow to reduce the given
operatingPeriod. I suppose this is to reduce the number of
operatingPeriods. It is easy to understand how it works and so I think we
should keep that possibility in spite of its redundancy. But: There is
currently no 'bitMask' for such a reduced operatingPeriod. Since the
'bitMask' becomes more and more the most important attribute of operating
days we should provide it here also.
--> I herewith plead for an optional 'bitMask' attribute at
<operatingPeriodRef> with the annotation: "to be used together with
startDate and endDate".
---
2) More confusing, there is a sequence <specialService> at
<operatingPeriodRef>. It seams that one can _alter_ the referred
'operatingPeriod' using special days!
- To define an <operatingPeriod> and later alter it at
<operatingPeriodRef> is very much confusing. It would be better to define
one more <operatingPeriod> and not to alter them. The size of the file has
never been a question with RailML.
- If we allow altering of operatingPeriods, why with <specialService> and
not with <operatingDay>?
- The altered operatingPeriod would again have no bitMask.
From my opinion, we should clear that situation as soon as possible. We
have two possibilities:
a) Simple to delete the sequence <specialService> from
<operatingPeriodRef>.
b) To allow the definition of operating days without an
<operatingPeriod>. This would mean
- to copy the sequence <operatingDay> into <operatingPeriodRef>,
- to add some attributes including 'bitMask',
- to declare the attribute 'ref' as optional,
--> I would plead for (a) for reasons of simplicity and less redundancy.
Best regards,
Dirk.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
