| Re: roles [message #1145 is a reply to message #1143] |
Tue, 12 February 2013 10:16   |
Susanne Wunsch railML
Messages: 0
Registered: January 2020
|
|
|
|
Hi Joachim, Andreas and others,
coord(at)timetablerailmlorg (Joachim Rubroeder) writes:
> let me summarize the current discussion.
Thanks for summarizing the already long thread. :-)
> You are suggesting a subelement below <trainPart>:
>
> <timetable...>
> ..
> <trainPart...>
> ..
> <organizationalUnitBinding>
> <railwayUndertaking ref="ru1"/>
> <contractor ref="cr1"/>
> <concessionaire ref="cc1"/>
> <vehicleOperator ref="vo1"/>
> <operator ref="op1"/>
> <infrastructureManager ref="im1"/>
> <other:somethingElse ref="se1"/>
> </organizationalUnitBinding>
> </trainPart>
> ..
> </timetable>
> </railml>
One question, that came to my mind regarding this list is:
Do we really need an "infrastructureManager", a "vehicleManufacturer"
and a "vehicleOperator" binding in a "trainPart" as just implemented
[1] and partly proposed by myself [2]?
I mean - no.
* The "infrastructureManager" binding should be defined in the
Infrastructure sub-schema for each "track" and/or "line".
It anyway may differ for one "trainPart".
* The "vehicleManufacturer" and "vehicleOperator" binding should be
defined in the Rollingstock sub-schema for each "vehicle".
It anyway may differ for one "trainPart".
That would leave the following contract bindings for the "trainPart":
* customer
* railwayUndertaking
* operationalUndertaking
* concessionaire
* contractor (general usage)
* any (extensions)
Any comments appreciated.
[1] http://trac.assembla.com/railML/changeset/543
[2] http://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/178#comment:4
Kind regards...
Susanne
--
Susanne Wunsch
Schema Coordinator: railML.common
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
