Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » Schema version 1.00 RC1 released
Re: Schema version 1.00 RC1 released [message #102 is a reply to message #98] Wed, 29 September 2004 18:10 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Volker Knollmann is currently offline  Volker Knollmann
Messages: 32
Registered: October 2003
Member
Hi again,

I have a few remarks regarding the concept of the "generalElements".
First of all: I really appreciate the idea of that element.

As I explained in Berlin, we have to store various kinds of data and the
scope of that data is (currently) beyond the scope of railML. It is a
good concept to have a kind of "allround-element" / "dustbin" /
"whatever-you-like-to-call-it" to store non-railML data while still
being conformitive with the standard.

I would suggest to extend the concept of "generalElements" to other
branches of <track>. I can imagine a <generalOCSElements>-container
(child of <ocsElements>) and a <generalTrackData>-container (child of
<track>).

I give you an example:
I need to store the information, from which station / interlocking
(ocpID) a switch is controlled. One method would be to introduce an
additional attribute for <switch> (e. g. ocpRefID). Doing so, my
xml-file could never again be validated against the official scheme.

The second method would be to have an item called <generalTrackData>,
which stores arbitrary data. I would introduce a child
<switchOcpMappings> and store my information in some childs like
<switchOcpMapping switchRefID="42" ocpID="88"/>. No application except
our laboratory would care about that, the file remains valid,
everybody's happy.


Of course I see the danger that everybody stores information in the
general container instead of the "real" railML-tree. But we should try;
and maybe we can move some data structures which proove to be well
designed and accepted to the official tree in a later release.


We talked about that topic shortly in Berlin and there seemed to be some
acceptance. Since my suggestion is only a minor change to the schema
(but with major improvements), we can get an agreement on that topic
before the final freeze of V1.0.


Looking forward to your comments,
Volker Knollmann
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Schema version V0.95-02 released
Next Topic: V1.00 RC1: overview of open discussion points
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Jul 06 12:29:33 CEST 2024