Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » [railML3] Suggestion for sub-use cases of use case "ETCS Track Net" (Suggestion to consider sub-use cases in the use case "ETCS Track Net")
[railML3] Suggestion for sub-use cases of use case "ETCS Track Net" [message #3029] Tue, 19 July 2022 08:16 Go to previous message
Karl-Friedemann Jerosch is currently offline  Karl-Friedemann Jerosch
Messages: 11
Registered: May 2020
Junior Member
During the certification process, it became apparent that the use case "ETCS Track Net" is too general.
The different ways how infrastructure managers work can result in the following approach to introduce sub-use cases.

That's why we propose the railML sub-use cases within the "ETCS Track Net" use case:

  1. Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to signaling supplier for decentralized ETCS solution (without balise group locations): ETCS Level 1
  2. Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to signaling supplier for decentralized ETCS solution (with balise group locations): ETCS Level 1
  3. Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to the signaling supplier for central ETCS solution (without balise group locations): ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 1+2
  4. Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to the signaling supplier for central ETCS solution (with balise group locations): ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 1+2
  5. Data transfer from Signaling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager only with infrastructure data (control data set)
  6. Data transfer from Signaling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager with infrastructure data including the railML subschema "interlocking" with ETCS data (based on sub-use case 2)
  7. Data transfer from Signaling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager with infrastructure data including the railML subschema "interlocking" with ETCS data (based on sub-use case 4)
Note:
The schema version railML 3.2 currently contains the generally required information for an ETCS trackside project.
In individual cases, required but not yet available information in railML 3.3 must be supplemented or transferred in a traditional way outside railML (applies in particular to sub-use cases 1 and 2).

We are looking forward to your opinions.
Thank you and best regards from Karl & Martin.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [railML 2] IS:005 - ocp/@parentOcpRef Semantic Constraint
Next Topic: [railML3] Need to specify "Stock rail joint" as position point for switch
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Apr 26 03:00:49 CEST 2024