Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » blockPart mission="other:..." (A consumer can't handle inspection, instead suggests "other:...")
Re: blockPart mission="other:..." [message #2373 is a reply to message #2371] Mon, 09 March 2020 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Dear Stefan,

I would say it depends on what exactly would be the "other:..." value and what would be semantically behind it.

In general, it is right that using an extension (including "other:...") for something which is already defined in railML is not the meaning of a standard, leads to incompatibility and therefore should not be certified.

However, there may be a reasonable semantic difference between mission="inspection" and what your customer/consumer needs. If so, they should give an explanation why the usage of mission="inspection" would be misleading. railML can naturally not foresee everything which occurs but railML wants to define a standard for compatibility in general.

But in this certain case, since mission="inspection" has no much fixed meaning/definition by railML, I can hardly imagine that.

Best regards,
Dirk.

P.S.: To avoid misunderstandings: This is an opinion of a member who is called "senior" by the railML system (which hurts me a bit); it is no official statement concerning certification, where I have no entitlement.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message icon5.gif
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: forgotten attribute <operatingPeriod> @dayOffset and its future
Next Topic: Extension of Enum @trainUsage of <category>
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Mon May 13 10:57:52 CEST 2024