| Re: roles [message #1149 is a reply to message #1147] |
Tue, 12 February 2013 13:01   |
Andreas Tanner
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2012
|
Member |
|
|
Am 12.02.2013 12:04, schrieb Susanne Wunsch:
> Hi Andreas,
>
>> Regarding the vehicleOperator, I would think that binding to trainPart
>> should be possible for the case that at a certain planning stage,
>> formations are abstract but the assignment to the operator is already
>> known.
>
> I see, we talk about different "vehicle operators". I try to clarify my
> point of view. Please, correct me, if I mix other contract bindings
> here.
>
> * The "vehicle operator" in the Rollingstock sub-schema should be the
> company that is the "owner" of the vehicle.
>
> * The "vehicle operator" in the Timetable sub-schema may be the company
> that provides the transport service with the vehicle.
>
> Such a use case with different wagons and locos did happen at the
> beginning of this timetable period in December 2012:
>
> RE4 of the ODEG: [1]
>
> The wagons and loco of this "fixed formation" had different "vehicle
> owners", but are operated by one "vehicle operator" for this service.
>
Indeed the real world provides a nice example. I suggested [2] the
vehicleOperator as an equivalent to the IVU subcontractor
(Fremdunternehmer), so the binding would be to the timetable subschema.
[2] news://news.railml.org:119/k7t9ju$cbe$1(at)sifaivifhgde
The usage in the rolling stock schema also makes sense to me.
Best, Andreas.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
