Home » railML newsgroups » railml.rollingstock » Version 0.93 - request for comment
Re: Version 0.93 - request for comment [message #1166 is a reply to message #1165] Wed, 07 April 2004 15:17 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Matthias Hengartner is currently offline  Matthias Hengartner
Messages: 57
Registered: August 2003
Member
Hello,

I'd prefer not to have <formations> as another direct child-element of the
<railml> root element. So I'm in favour of the second option.

But what about separating vehicle and train related data by means of two new
container elements? I mean something like this:

railml --- rollingstock --- vehicles --- rs <= vehicle related
|
-- formations --- formation <= train related

The naming of these container elements (<vehicles> and <formations>) would
have to be discussed probably (or shall we rename <rs> to <vehicle>?)

This version would be similar as we have it in the infrastructure (container
elements lines, tracks, operationControlPoints, etc.)


Other opinions?

Best regards,
Matthias Hengartner




"Joerg von Lingen" <jvl(at)bahntechnikde> wrote in message
news:GlwwHj9GEHA.1168@sifa...
> Hallo,
>
> as briefly described during meeting in Brunswick the latest version of
rollingstock scheme is 0.93
> with the major addition of train related data in <formation> branch.
However, it is still possible
> to discuss the best "mounting point" of this branch:
> 1. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
> |
> -- formations --- formation <= train related
> *or*
> 2. railml --- rollingstock --- rs <= vehicle related
> |
> -- formation <= train related
>
> Please give me your opinions.
>
> Best,
> Joerg von Lingen

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: formations of roolinfstocks
Next Topic: Version 0.94 - final request for comment
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu May 02 11:19:25 CEST 2024