| [railML3] Usage of <ownsPlatform> vs <ownsInfrastructureElement> [message #3286] |
Tue, 27 August 2024 12:38  |
Larissa Zhuchyi
Messages: 49
Registered: November 2022
|
Member |
|
|
Dear all,
railML.org suggests to add in railML3 a semantic constraint IS:018 [1] (see text below). Please let us know if:
1) it is understandable;
2) you have anything against;
3) anything is missed in the wording.
Any functional infrastructure element that belongs to an <operationalPoint> may be listed as its equipment. This may be done by adding it to a specific container, such as <ownsPlatform>, <ownsTrack> and <ownsSignal> or it may be added to the generic container <ownsInfrastructureElement>. Any such added infrastructure element must be added to the most specific container available. No element shall be part of two such containers. If no specific container for the functional infrastructure element exists, it shall be listed in the generic container. Example: a <signalIS> must not be added to <ownsInfrastructureElement>. It shall be added to <ownsSignal>. As there is no container for levelCrossings a <levelCrossingIS> belonging to an <operationalPoint> shall be added to <ownsInfrastructureElement>.
See the list of all semantic constraints at [2].
[1] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/IS:opEquipment
[2] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/Dev:Semantic_Constraints
Thanks in advance!
Sincerely,
Larissa Zhuchyi – Ontology Researcher
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
[Updated on: Wed, 28 August 2024 13:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] Usage of <ownsPlatform> vs <ownsInfrastructureElement> [message #3296 is a reply to message #3286] |
Tue, 03 September 2024 15:57  |
Larissa Zhuchyi
Messages: 49
Registered: November 2022
|
Member |
|
|
Dear all
The alternative is to remove the specific containers (like <ownsTrack>) and only keep <ownsInfrastructureElement>. This removes the need for the Semantic constraint IS:018, but requires the reader to look up the reference to determine the type.
Which option you prefer?
1) leave the current model as it is + IS:018;
2) to remove the specific containers (like <ownsTrack>) and only keep <ownsInfrastructureElement>.
Please let us know till the end of this week!
Sincerely,
Larissa Zhuchyi – Ontology Researcher
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
