| Re: Suggested refined definitions and extension to organizationalUnits [message #2604 is a reply to message #2601] |
Thu, 26 November 2020 16:29   |
Christian Rößiger
Messages: 60
Registered: March 2015
|
Member |
|
|
Hello everyone,
in general, I agree that there is currently no possibility in railML to
indicate an owner of the vehicles of a <trainPart> and would therefore
support an extension.
Am 26.11.2020 um 06:46 schrieb Thomas Nygreen:
> Dear all,
>
> We have a new trac ticket for this request:
> https://trac.railml.org/ticket/435
>
> In addition to adding the <vehicleOwner> elements requested
> by Norway, it would be natural to add an <owner> child of
> the rolling stock vehicle <classification> element.
I would rather implement only one of the <vehicleOwner> references below
<trainPart> or <vehicle> and instead of both.
The reference to a <vehicleOwner> from a <trainPart> has the problem
that a <trainPart> may consist of vehicles with different owners, but
only one <vehicleOwner> can be specified per <trainPart>. In this case
separate <trainPart>s would have to be created for each owner. This is
not a new problem, however, but applies analogously to the existing
<vehicleOperator> reference of the <trainPart>.
Defining the <owner> directly at the <vehicle> avoids this problem, but
separate <vehicle>s would have to be defined for all owners of a vehicle
class. In order not to specify too much redundant data, the physical
data of the vehicle and the <owner> or <operator> assignments could be
defined as separate <vehicle>s and mutually referenced with the
attribute 'vehicleFamilyRef' (see example below).
I would prefer the second variant because it seems to be more flexible.
In this case one could consider to declare the <vehicleOperator> element
of the <trainPart>s as deprecated.
Best Regards
Christian Rößiger
--- Example ---
<vehicle id='veh_1' description='This is the physical vehicle class'
speed='160', length='22.50'>
<classification>
<manufacturer vehicleManufacturerRef='vm_1' manufacturerType='XX.XX' />
</classification>
</vehicle>
<vehicle id='veh_2' description='first owner, first operator'
vehicleFamilyRef='veh_1'>
<classification>
<operator vehicleOperatorRef='vop_1' operatorClass='YY.YY' />
<owner ownerRef='vow_1' />
</classification>
</vehicle>
<vehicle id='veh_3' description='second owner, second operator'
vehicleFamilyRef='veh_1'>
<classification>
<operator vehicleOperatorRef='vop_2' operatorClass='ZZ.ZZ' />
<owner ownerRef='vow_2' />
</classification>
</vehicle>
Comment: 2nd and 3rd <vehicle> do reference the 1st one which contains
the physical data. 2nd and 3rd <vehicle> serve only as assignment of a
certain <operator> and <owner> to a physical vehicle class.
--
iRFP e. K. · Institut für Regional- und Fernverkehrsplanung
Hochschulstr. 45, 01069 Dresden
Tel. +49 351 4706819 · Fax. +49 351 4768190 · www.irfp.de
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Dresden, HRA 9347
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
