| Infrastructure element datamodel quality and input-data source [message #3208] |
Wed, 13 March 2024 11:44  |
Torben Brand
Messages: 158
Registered: March 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
With partial reference to [1]
Bane NOR (and the Norwegian Railway Directorate) needs to describe the quality of the (railML) models. The used source for the input data to generate the model (that is transferred via railML) is important to define the quality. I have 3 questions here:
1. We currently use the free text string in railML2: state@remarks for this. But what is the equivalent in railML3? Is it maybe: elementState<name>@name or @description? Feels a bit strange to use <name> here. But @name is mandatory and @description is optional.
Example of a free text format we suggest to use in the Norwegian railway sector is:"Quality:gold; based on USO-15-S-00102_03B; 27.3.2023" So this could then be divided in <name language="en" name="quality:gold" description="based on USO-15-S-00102_03B; source document revision date 27.3.2023">? What goes into @name and what into @description? Or do you just use a dummy name and put the whole description in @description?
2. The infrastructure/element-State@value is important for the definition of the quality. We set elementState@value="operational"/"planned"/"conceptual" on specific elements. But we also set it on the planning/project area of the planned infrastructure that uses <genericArea> (with projectArea@ref to genericArea@id). Note it is currently undefined if the elements within that area inherit the state value (unless specific referenced from elementState@refersToElement).
The question is: can <elementState@refersToElement refer to genericArea@id?
3. There is a desire to model the source and quality descriptions of individual elements or elements grouped in an area (question 2 above) more unambiguously than in free text (as discussed in question 1) using uniform attributes. It would also have been nice to include this in railML3.3. Would this be possible? I have some modelling ideas...
[1]: https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=726& goto=2455&#msg_2455
[2] https://railoscope.com/tickets/TcBEfyVmiJTWLZm8?branchId=60a fb99b29ddd44671acafc8&modelId=6074970baba15e47fca2626c&a mp;selectId=5584-3
Update - now with an example of a project area with a state in a project specific branch (a snap shot relevant to the planned project) in Railoscope [2]:
The project area "Rånåsfoss stasjon, forlenget kryssingsspor" has a status "planned" with remark "according to document "KVB-15-C-10000_00B". Elements marked with the status "conceptual" in the project area are based on a model for a 2-track station on a single-track line with ETCS (doc. no.: 202100192-11), adjusted to 740m effective train length for the Kongsvinger line in accordance with effect package 14." PS. Translated from the norwegian description in Railoscope (which is not transferred in railML3.2 as it is ambiguous see question 1).
The elements have different states according to the planning (some examples):
- Switch "1" has state "planned" as it is part of the plan referenced in the project area.
- Switch "2" has state "operational" as it is planned not to be changed as part of the plan referenced in the project area.
- All signals in the station have state "conceptual" as they are not part of the plan as this does not cover signalling. They are designed based on a template as described in the remark of the project area.
[Updated on: Mon, 18 March 2024 14:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
