Extended dated vehicle journey+replace pr368 and pr411#518
Conversation
Update of examples to use OperatingDayRef in dated jouneys (keep the old UIC Periods commented with an explicit mention of the deprecation). UicOperatingPeriod deletion is now replaced by a simple deprecation (clearly stated in comments) for backward compatibility reasons.
|
@Aurige you make a reference to an OperatingDay, is this defined in the file? |
no, it is most likely that OpertatingDays can be shared across multiple such files and therefore exchanged separately in a calendar frame. |
|
Lets not go into the direction that we share examples that do not validate on their own. |
I checked validation with XML Spy (and external Ref are OK ...) |
| <LuggageCarriageFacilityList>cyclesAllowedWithReservation</LuggageCarriageFacilityList> | ||
| </ServiceFacilitySet> | ||
| </facilities> | ||
| <OperatingDayRef ref="tap:OperatingDay:2009-03-21"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not an external ref, and is missing a version.
Addition of VersionRef to OperatingDayRef in order to clearly state that they refer to OperatingDay defined in another dataset
…github.com/Aurige/NeTEx into Extended-DatedVehicleJourney+Replace-PR368
| </ServiceFacilitySet> | ||
| </facilities> | ||
| <OperatingDayRef ref="tap:OperatingDay:2009-03-21"/> | ||
| <OperatingDayRef ref="tap:OperatingDay:2009-03-21" versionRef="1"/> <!-- reference to an OperationalDay defined in another dataset --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just no. There is no reason not to include it in this example.
EU-Agency-for-Railways
left a comment
EU-Agency-for-Railways
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reviewed the changes on the examples and the restriction to one operational day makes them useless for the purpose to explain the usage of NeTEx to replace the existing EDIFACT messages for the timetable data exchange for rail. Rail timetables are usually not planned for a specific operation day. So there is always a validity period plus a bitmask explaining the operating days. I would suggest to redraft the examples with a more suitable element (e.g. ServiceJourney).
|
thanks @EU-Agency-for-Railways
Also I would like to separate the XSD from the XML example updates, so it this is Ok for you, I'm going to remove the examples from this PR and create a new separate one for their update. |
Reverting changes on UIC&ERA Examples A dedicated PR/Issue willl be created for these examples
…ttps://github.com/Aurige/NeTEx into Extended-DatedVehicleJourney+Replace-PR368" This reverts commit c99cf02, reversing changes made to e1f6372.
|
@skinkie I reverted all changes to examples but had issues with other commits that were automatically brought back by Github and that were also modifying and breaking this PR... I had to revert it, but now it's a total mess ... I'm not sure what happened, but I'm afraid that I need to recreate this PR once more !! |
|
@Aurige if you have a lot of free time, I have more interesting things to discuss ;-) |
|
replaced by #520 |
3 participants
Update of the Pr411 (that was merged and rolled back due to issues with examples uising UIC periods).
This new version integrates the decisions from the Meeting #13 on October 5th: