| Re: Reference to PositioningSystem [message #1865 is a reply to message #1722] |
Wed, 04 July 2018 06:57   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
although there has not been an answer on that topic so far, we need to
find a solution for the problem, because it is essential for railML 3.1
and related "beta 2" version scheduled for end of August [2].
In particular, I already implemented the required RTM related change in
railML 3.1. The latest version of railML 3.1 is available in the railML3
SVN trunk [3]. An overview of all the changes is provided in [4].
In this overview, removing the redundant reference to PositioningSystem
from AssociatedPositioningSystem is marked as issue number 2.
[2]
https://www.railml.org/en/public-relations/news/reader/33rd- railml-conference-and-version-roadmap.html
[3] https://svn.railml.org/railML3/trunk
[4]
http://forum.railML.org/userfiles/2018-07-02_railml_railml3- induced-changes-to-rtm12.pdf
Best regards
Christian
Am 12.03.2018 um 17:55 schrieb Christian Rahmig:
> [...]
>
> In RTM every PositioningNetElement contains at least one
> AssociatedPositioningSystem. The AssociatedPositioningSystem references
> a PositioningSystem. In railML 3.1 the matching XML syntax looks like this:
>
> <netElement>.<associatedPositioningSystem>@positioningSystemRef
>
> Further, an AssociatedPositioningSystem contains at least one
> IntrinsicCoordinate, which is typically linked with a
> PositioningSystemCoordinate. Each PositioningSystemCoordinate itself
> references a PositioningSystem. In railML 3.1 the matching XML syntax
> looks like this:
>
> <associatedPositioningSystem>.<intrinsicCoordinate>.<*coordinate >@positioningSystemRef
>
>
> This way of modelling seems to result in some redundancy w.r.t.
> referenced positioning system. Therefore, my question I would like to
> answer together with you: Is it really necessary having the first
> reference
> (<netElement>.<associatedPositioningSystem>@positioningSystemRef) being
> mandatory? I think that the second reference
> (<associatedPositioningSystem>.<intrinsicCoordinate>.<*coordinate >@positioningSystemRef)
> is sufficient. Therefore, I suggest to either remove the first reference
> or make it optional in the model. What do you think?
>
> For the sake of completeness, please find here a complete example taken
> from the railML 3.1 Simple Example [1]:
>
> <netElement id="ne_a01">
> <relation ref="nr_a01a02"/>
> <relation ref="nr_a01a03"/>
> <associatedPositioningSystem id="ne_a01_aps01" positioningSystemRef="??">
> <intrinsicCoordinate id="ne_a01_aps01_ic01" intrinsicCoord="0">
> <linearCoordinate positioningSystemRef="lps01" measure="0.0"/>
> </intrinsicCoordinate>
> <intrinsicCoordinate id="ne_a01_aps01_ic02" intrinsicCoord="1">
> <linearCoordinate positioningSystemRef="lps01" measure="500.0"/>
> </intrinsicCoordinate>
> </associatedPositioningSystem>
> </netElement>
>
> [1] https://www.railml.org/en/user/exampledata.html
>
> 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
