| Re: New reflected thoughts towards railML 2.3 infrastructure extension proposal line sections [message #1666 is a reply to message #1624] |
Mon, 20 November 2017 16:05   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Torben,
Am 14.07.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Torben Brand:
> [...]
> To model the open section (or other line sections/segment) I
> suggest to keep the proposed element <lineSection>. I suggest to change
> the suggested <lineSection>@type:"path"
> to "openSection, as this seems to be a better term (but I
> am, as always, open for other suggestions. Also, I will
> receive guidance for English terms from Network Rail
> resources in August). Alternative if no common ground can
> be found for defining "open section" we suggest to use the
> national value: "NO:linjen".
did you already get guidance for English terms from Network Rail? I am
curious to hear/read whether they prefer "openSection" or "path".
>
> An alternative is to make a new
> <ocp/propOperational>@type:"openSection". But I would prefer
> the line section choice as an open section is not an ocp and
> the an open section "ocp" could contain multiple other ocps.
> What does the forum think?
I agree. An operational point is an operational point and the railway
line/track in between can be defined as line section.
Best regards
Christian
--
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
