| Re: What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s? [message #2630 is a reply to message #2060] |
Wed, 13 January 2021 05:41  |
Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
about two years ago the question for multiple <assetsForIL>s was raised. Subsequently the superior container was removed
for railML3.1. However, in-between the need for having more than one asset list became apperant. So for railMl3.2 the
superior container was re-introduced.
In the definition of the generic types of a specificInfrastructurManager there is the reference to the asset lists
belonging to this infrastructure manager. It is also conceivable to have several asset lists covering different stages
of a project although a status attribute is not yet included.
Finally, it means there can be several asset lists belonging to one infrastructure manager but any asset list belongs
only to a single infrastructure manager.
--
Regards,
Jörg von Lingen - Rollingstock Coordinator
Thomas Nygreen wrote on 28.12.2018 23:00:
> 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
>
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
