| Re: train parts [message #677 is a reply to message #676] |
Wed, 09 July 2008 14:21   |
Joachim Rubröder railML
Messages: 0
Registered: November 2019
|
|
|
|
Hi Susanne,
I agree, that the distinction between "operational view" and "commercial
view" is an important missing point of the timetable schema.
Your trainParts would cover this problem, but there are some points I'd
like to discuss about them:
* You are creating a new sub structure called "trainParts" but I'm not
sure that this is the atomic part of a train. Maybe there will be the
need for trainPartParts next time.
* The "train" can by now be further grouped to a trainGroup or an
intervalGroup. For some users the "intervalGroup" is what he calls a
train, for others it is the "trainPart"
* A simple railML user (without operatingPeriods and formations) knows
about its "trains" but doesn't want to have to deal with "trainParts"
because there is no reason for him.
I therefore suggest to identfy the most basic structure of a train as
"train". Changing formations will of course be forbidden for this new
"train".
In addition to this "train" structure, there could be several different
groupings or high level understandings of a train like "commercialTrain",
"operationalTrain" or "intervalTrain".
We will have to discuss if attributes like "trainNumber" or "trainKind"
belong to the basic "train" or to the "operationalTrain"
What do you think about this approch? - Please comment!
Kind regards...
Joachim
--
Joachim Rubröder
Schema Coordinator: railML.timetable
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
