Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » Extension suggestion for <upTime> (uptime, railML 2.4nor, railML2.5, railML3 development)
Re: Semantic constraints for <upTime> [message #2688 is a reply to message #2344] Thu, 25 March 2021 15:39 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Vasco Paul Kolmorgen
Messages: 55
Registered: November 2004
Member
Dear all!

Am 25.02.2020 um 10:46 schrieb Torben Brand:
> Excellent! This explains a lot! Could you post the
> definitions to the wiki?

As the semantic constraints IS:008, IS:009 and IS:010 are in the
railML's wiki (https://wiki2.railml.org/index.php?title=IS:uptime) since
more than a year without objection I suggest to set the status of these
to "accepted".

Please let us know up to April 15th, if this is not okay for you.

Best regards,
--
Vasco Paul Kolmorgen - Governance Coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Suggested extension for operating rules
Next Topic: Re: [railML3]: special infrastructure in IL - bascule bridge, tunnel gates
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Tue Apr 30 02:38:57 CEST 2024