| Re: [railML3] Restricting aggregation of RailTopoModel [message #3531 is a reply to message #3258] |
Fri, 28 March 2025 11:10   |
Milan Wölke
Messages: 193
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Larissa and Christian,
I would strongly recommend to find a wording for these semantic constraints that can stand on its own. The figure currently referenced by the proposed wording is a good idea, but should be part of the general documentation and not used as a base for the semantic constraint. If the figure changes the semantic constraint would change. Also the word should is not suited to express the constraining characteristics of a semantic constraint. I would recommend the following wording:
IS:008
When aggregating net elements each net element of a lower level of aggregation shall only directly belong to a single net element of a higher level of aggregation.
IS:009
When aggregating net elements neither linear nor geometric coordinates given on a lower level of aggregation shall contradict the coordinates given for the aggregating net element on a higher level of aggregation
IS:011
Aggregation must not happen within the same level of aggregation. No net element of a certain level of aggregation shall be part of another net element on the same level of aggregation.
Best regards, Milan
Milan Wölke – Timetable scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
