Talk:Dev:Train Coupling And Sharing: Difference between revisions
(Discussion moved from wiki page) |
m (Ferri Leberl moved page Talk:TT:Train Coupling And Sharing to Talk:Dev:Train Coupling And Sharing: Vereinheitlichung) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Example 3 - code Attribute for trainPart == | |||
[[Benutzer:Philip Wobst|Philip Wobst]] 08:31, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET): I find it very helpful that the intended rules are described with a generic example and appreciate the documentation. However, the code is intended to be an identifier for an element and the description given here adds a very specific limitation for one specific use case only (''"... all elements <trainPart> which define a through connection shall have the same code."''). | [[Benutzer:Philip Wobst|Philip Wobst]] 08:31, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET): I find it very helpful that the intended rules are described with a generic example and appreciate the documentation. However, the code is intended to be an identifier for an element and the description given here adds a very specific limitation for one specific use case only (''"... all elements <trainPart> which define a through connection shall have the same code."''). | ||
If this is a specific example then ''"The following "rules" give an indication and a recommendation..."'' should not be used. | If this is a specific example then ''"The following "rules" give an indication and a recommendation..."'' should not be used. | ||
--[[Benutzer:Vasco Paul Kolmorgen|Vasco Paul Kolmorgen]] 09:24, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET) | --[[Benutzer:Vasco Paul Kolmorgen|Vasco Paul Kolmorgen]] 09:24, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET) | ||
[[Benutzer:Dirk Bräuer|Dirk Bräuer]] 16:08, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET): As discussed for a long time, with the current railML 2.0..2.2 structures for <train>s and <trainPart>s, it is hard to identify a through connection of <trainPart>s through several <train>s if you have "train coupling and sharing" and additional coaches as well and in the same <trainPartSequences>. This is one of the reasons for "refactoring" of <trainPart>s. However, currently there is a need for at least one "identifying" attribute for a trough connection. My suggestion is: Use "code". If you could define another suggestion which '''works''' with all this ("train coupling and sharing" and additional coaches in the same <trainPartSequences>), please do and let's discuss it. | |||
With this background, it is not a specific but a very general problem. | |||
==Outdated-brick== | |||
I set the template [[{{PAGENAME}}#On trains and train parts in general|here]], because it seems, that the paragraph (or even further parts of the page?) seem to refer to version 2.0.<br>Yours, [[Benutzer:Ferri Leberl|Ferri Leberl]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:Ferri Leberl|Diskussion]]) 14:25, 29. Jun. 2016 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:46, 1 February 2018
Example 3 - code Attribute for trainPart
Philip Wobst 08:31, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET): I find it very helpful that the intended rules are described with a generic example and appreciate the documentation. However, the code is intended to be an identifier for an element and the description given here adds a very specific limitation for one specific use case only ("... all elements <trainPart> which define a through connection shall have the same code.").
If this is a specific example then "The following "rules" give an indication and a recommendation..." should not be used. --Vasco Paul Kolmorgen 09:24, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET)
Dirk Bräuer 16:08, 16. Dez. 2014 (CET): As discussed for a long time, with the current railML 2.0..2.2 structures for <train>s and <trainPart>s, it is hard to identify a through connection of <trainPart>s through several <train>s if you have "train coupling and sharing" and additional coaches as well and in the same <trainPartSequences>. This is one of the reasons for "refactoring" of <trainPart>s. However, currently there is a need for at least one "identifying" attribute for a trough connection. My suggestion is: Use "code". If you could define another suggestion which works with all this ("train coupling and sharing" and additional coaches in the same <trainPartSequences>), please do and let's discuss it.
With this background, it is not a specific but a very general problem.
Outdated-brick
I set the template here, because it seems, that the paragraph (or even further parts of the page?) seem to refer to version 2.0.
Yours, Ferri Leberl (Diskussion) 14:25, 29. Jun. 2016 (CEST)