| Re: Mapping of availability periods of the infrastructure by TT:operatingPeriod [message #1854 is a reply to message #1849] |
Fri, 22 June 2018 13:09   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Christian,
dear railML community,
Am 19.06.2018 um 08:43 schrieb Christian Rößiger:
> Hello Christian,
>
> Am 18.06.2018 um 13:42 schrieb Christian Rahmig:
>> <timetable ...>
>> <timetablePeriods>
>> <timetablePeriod id="ttp01" startDate="2017-12-15"
>> endDate="2018-12-14"/>
>> </timetablePeriods>
>> <operatingPeriods>
>> <operatingPeriod id="opp01" startDate="2018-04-28"
>> endDate="2018-04-29" bitmask="0000011" timetablePeriodRef="ttp01"/>
>> </operatingPeriods>
>> </timetable>
>>
>> Is that correct?
>
> Almost ;-) But: The length of the bitmask must correspond to the length
> of the <timetablePeriod>, not that of the <operatingPeriod>.
>
> See: https://wiki.railml.org/index.php?title=TT:operatingPeriod, section
> "constraints", attribute "bitmask"
To be honest: this does not make any sense to me. Wouldn't it be better
to just leave out the timetablePeriod and the bitmask? Maybe it is a
better idea to model the time aspect for _infrastructure availability_
independent from the timetable related <operatingPeriod>. Otherwise I
see too many constraints that are not needed for the purpose of
describing the time of closing e.g. a <track>.
Any comments from the community?
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
