Talk:Dev:Train Coupling And Sharing: Difference between revisions
(Discussion moved from wiki page) |
Dirk Bräuer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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. |
Revision as of 17:15, 16 December 2014
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.