Template:List/Dev:SemanticConstraints: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{Switch/Dev:SemanticConstraints|TT:004}} | {{Switch/Dev:SemanticConstraints|TT:004}} | ||
{{Switch/Dev:SemanticConstraints|TT:005}} | {{Switch/Dev:SemanticConstraints|TT:005}} | ||
{{Switch/Dev:SemanticConstraints|TT:006}} | |||
{{Switch/Dev:SemanticConstraints|TT:007}} | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:57, 19 May 2025
| ID | Text | Status | Proposed | Approved | Deprecated | Forum | Instances |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IS:001 | Starting time stamp (e.g. "from") shall be lower or equal any ending time stamp (e.g. "to") if both are given. Must not overlap with other validity periods within the same enclosing element. | approved | 2024-01-15 | 2024-04-15 | FIXME Forum missing | ||
| IS:005 | @height and @positionAtTrack should not be used with @type=virtual. | approved | 2021-02-26 | 2025-02-03 | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=975&start=0& | ||
| IS:007 | If the attribute @isOpenEnd="true" then the value of @type shall be set to "area". | proposed | 2021-02-26 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=955&start=0& | ||
| IS:008 | Aggregation of net elements should follow the tree data structure. See figure below. This means that no two (mesoscopic) net elements can aggregate same (microscopic) net element. In other words, (microscopic) net element can be aggregated by at most one (mesoscopic) net element. | proposed | 2021-02-26 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=948&start=0& | ||
| IS:009 | Linear (geometric) coordinates (explicit or implicit, e.g. calculated as a sum of the coordinate of beginning and the length of the net element) of the same place represented at different levels of aggregation should have the same value. In the figure below (linear) coordinate the coordinate of e.g. end of ne1 should be same as one of ne1.2. | proposed | 2021-02-26 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=948&start=0& | ||
| IS:010 | Difference of linear coordinates if the beginning and end of net elements, represented by intrinsic coordinates 0 and 1 correspondingly, should equal the the @length of net element if all are present in the data. | proposed | 2021-02-26 | Not yet approved | #xxx | ||
| IS:011 | Aggregation must not happen within the same level of detail. In the figure below, element 1.1 must not aggregate element 1.2. This means that aggregating and aggregated net elements must not be referred from the same <level> | proposed | 2024-02-29 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=948&start=0& | ||
| IS:012 | @pos should have only positive values because its a distance, thus -1 is not a valid value – Compare #567 | proposed | 2024-03-04 | Not yet approved | #xxx | ||
| IS:015 | There must be no "inverse" net relations in the topology, i.e. if "nr1 elemeneA ne1", "nr1 elementB ne2" and "nr2 elemeneA ne2", "nr2 elementB ne1" then topology is not valid. See invalid code below – Compare #xxx | proposed | 2021-04-22 | Not yet approved | #xxx | ||
| IS:017 | Users can refer to the train protection system using the attribute @trainProtectionSystem that shall link to the codelist (link to the railML® website) TrainProtectionSystems.xml, section trainProtectionSystemsAtTrack. Only if this list does not contain the specific train protection system to be modelled, it shall be described in its functionality using attributes @medium and @monitoring. | approved | 2009-10-17 | 2009-10-17 | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=3600&#msg_3600 | ||
| IS:018 | 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>. | proposed | 2024-08-26 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=3286 | ||
| IS:019 | When calculating which <infrastructureState> of an <infrastructure> is valid on a particular time always a maximum of one active <infrastructureState> shall be the result. | proposed | 2024-09-03 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=1033&start=0& | ||
| IS:021 | The element <baliseGroup> shall always use the railML option <spotLocation> to define the balise group location on the topology. | proposed | 2025-04-30 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=980&start=0& | ||
| IS:022 | The element <balise> shall always use the railML option <spotLocation> to define the balise location on the topology. | proposed | 2025-04-30 | Not yet approved | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=980&start=0& | ||
| TT:001 | The next attribute shall reference an <operationalTrainSectionPart> that is not referenced by any other next-reference. In other words: Within the chain of <operationalTrainSectionPart>s linked by the attribute next, there can be no element that has more than one predecessor. The @next reference must establish a one to one relationship between two <operationalTrainSectionPart>s. | approved | 2022-09-15 | 2022-10-13 | FIXME Forum missing | ||
| TT:002 | When calculating which <operationalTrainVariant> of an <operationalTrain> is valid on a particular day always a maximum of one active <operationalTrainVariant> shall be the result. If the result is more than one <operationalTrainVariant>, all except one shall be marked as <isCancelled> or <isOnRequest>. Please see the invalid code below. | approved | 2023-01-12 | 2023-04-06 | FIXME Forum missing | ||
| TT:003 | When calculating which <commercialTrainVariant> of a <commercialTrain> is valid on a particular day always a maximum of one active <commercialTrainVariant> shall be the result. If the result is more than one <commercialTrainVariant>, all except one shall be marked as <isCancelled> or <isOnRequest>. | approved | 2023-01-12 | 2023-04-06 | FIXME Forum missing | ||
| TT:004 | The itinerary sections of an <operationalTrainVariant>, defined by the <operationalTrainSection>s and their respective <range>s, that are not <isCancelled> and not marked as <isOnRequest>, must be pairwise disjoint, except for their respective first and last <baseItineraryPoint>s. | approved | 2023-01-12 | 2023-03-09 | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=894&start=0& | ||
| TT:005 | The first(last) <baseItineraryPoint> of each <operationalTrainSection> within an <operationalTrainVariant> must either be the referenced <itinerary>'s first(last) <baseItineraryPoint>, or coincide with another section's last(first) <baseItineraryPoint>. | approved | 2023-01-12 | 2023-03-09 | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=894&start=0& | ||
| TT:006 | The itinerary sections of a <commercialTrainVariant>, defined by the <commercialTrainSection>s and their respective <range>s, that are not <isCancelled> and not marked as <isOnRequest>, must be pairwise disjoint, except for their respective first and last <baseItineraryPoint>s. | approved | 2023-01-12 | 2023-03-09 | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=894&start=0& | ||
| TT:007 | The first(last) <baseItineraryPoint> of each <commercialTrainSection> within a <commercialTrainVariant> must either be the referenced <itinerary>'s first(last) <baseItineraryPoint>, or coincide with another section's last(first) <baseItineraryPoint>. | approved | 2023-01-12 | 2023-03-09 | https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=894&start=0& |