circulations should be optional [message #912] |
Wed, 02 January 2013 10:29 |
Andreas Tanner
Messages: 52 Registered: March 2012
|
Member |
|
|
Dear group,
currently blocks can be defined only when also at least one circulation
is present: the type rRostering has mandatory child elements blockParts,
blocks and circulations. We use blocks to describe vehicle duties within
a day, and circulations to concatenate them within a multiple day schedule.
Now we have a case where there are no circulations present (as they are
defined only in a later planning stage). I think this should be valid,
and therefore I propose to relax the standard in that point. One way
would be to allow a <blocks> element directly below the <timetable>. I
think this would be more correctly model the situation than just to
allow rosterings without circulations because without circulations,
assigning a block to a rostering would be somewhat arbitrary.
So my suggestion is: insert <blocks> with minOccurs=0 into the sequence
of the <timetable> element.
Best, Andreas.
|
|
|
Re: circulations should be optional [message #923 is a reply to message #912] |
Tue, 12 February 2013 16:55 |
Joachim Rubröder railML
Messages: 0 Registered: November 2019
|
|
|
|
Dear Andreas,
there seem to be no objections against this issue. I therefore opened a
ticket:
https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/221
But for an implementation in version 2.2, I definitely prefer the solution
with optional <circulations>. Your suggestion with additional <blocks>
below <timetable> would result in two different possible locations which
is not desirable
Kind regards,
Joachim
-------------------------------------
Joachim Rubröder
Schema Coordinator: railML.timetable
--
----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
|
|
|
|
Re: circulations should be optional [message #933 is a reply to message #924] |
Tue, 12 March 2013 18:25 |
Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 313 Registered: August 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Andreas and Joachim,
I also see no objections against optional circulations (i. e. rosterings
with blocks but without circulations) and would prefer this against
additional blocks at <timetable> but outside <rosterings>. Concerning the
latter, it seams to me that we could skip that redundancy.
Best regards,
Dirk.
|
|
|