| Re: Visualization: Proposal to move to a separate subschema [message #2552 is a reply to message #2531] |
Fri, 09 October 2020 16:09  |
Thomas Nygreen
Messages: 66
Registered: March 2008
|
Member |
|
|
Dear Thomas,
Apologies for my late reply!
Are there other specific use cases than TVD sections for such a generalisation of infrastructureVisualizations (which is not really a subschema, the railML3 terminology is View)?
The purpose of infrastructureVisualizations is to project the location of physical entities in Infrastructure into a space. Apart from the optional reference to a symbol, it does not describe how to draw the entities, just where they are. In railML3, TVD sections are not considered physical entities (a view I sometimes struggle with, but accept), they are rather considered logical entities that point to physical demarcating entities in the infrastructure. As such, they are easy to place by placing the referenced physical entities. If there are logical entities in Interlocking missing a physical counterpart that can be placed, these should maybe be created in Infrastructure.
If there is need for an elliptic projection, is there perhaps also a need for more general projections? E.g. paths that may have both straight and curved sections (like an SVG path) or volumes in three dimensions?
Best regards,
Thomas
Thomas Nygreen – Common Schema Coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
