Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s?
Re: What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? [message #2066 is a reply to message #2060] Sun, 30 December 2018 05:26 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Joerg von Lingen is currently offline  Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011
Senior Member
Hi Thomas,

in the beginning <assetForIL> was single but as it contains engineering data of
interlockings one might consider different phases of evolution during
reconstruction of stations. Although explicit validity times are not yet
implemented this was the rationale for having more than one <assetForIL>.

Best regards,
Joerg v. Lingen

Rollingstock Coordinator

On 28.12.2018 23:00, Thomas Nygreen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I cannot find any documentation of what should determine
> which assets that go into which <assetForIL>. I assume that
> there is a reason why the schema allows multiple
> <assetsForIL>s, but I cannot find that reason in the drafted
> tutorial or in the forum.
>
> What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? If we
> look to the infrastructure domain, the closest relative to
> <assetForIL> is <functionalInfrastructure>, which does not
> multiply. So why not remove <assetsForILs> and have only one
> <assetsForIL>?
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas Nygreen

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [railML3] Flank protection
Next Topic: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Sat May 11 10:10:54 CEST 2024