Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

RestrictedServiceFacilityRef in ServiceJourney/facilities with a restriction in an AvailabilityCondition and From/To in Calls an StopPointsInJourneyPattern. and fixed missing CallRef #731

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: next
Choose a base branch
from
Open

RestrictedServiceFacilityRef in ServiceJourney/facilities with a restriction in an AvailabilityCondition and From/To in Calls an StopPointsInJourneyPattern. and fixed missing CallRef #731

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

ue71603
Copy link
Contributor

@ue71603 ue71603 commented May 10, 2024

@ue71603 ue71603 added enhancement non semantic enhacement: technical enhancement, etc. needs documentation update The NeTEx document needs to be updated labels May 10, 2024
@ue71603 ue71603 added this to the netex_2.0 milestone May 10, 2024
@ue71603 ue71603 mentioned this pull request May 10, 2024
Closed
@skinkie
Copy link
Contributor

skinkie commented May 10, 2024

Please change the tile, I don't think this is what we are reviewing.

@ue71603 ue71603 changed the title Facility extended with AvailabilityCondition GroupOfFacilities added. Can be referenced froma FacilitySet (at therefore gets an Availabilitycondition there). May 11, 2024
trurlurl
trurlurl previously approved these changes May 15, 2024
View reviewed changes
@nick-knowles
Copy link
Contributor

A FACILIRY SET is meant to be a GROUP OF FACILITIES
Why do we need this?

The whole point of a facility is that it just an name ie enum value and not a first class object.
So there is no such thing as FacilityRef

Is what you are after the ability to nest FACILITY SETs?

@ue71603 ue71603 self-assigned this Jun 5, 2024
@ue71603
rebuilt for RestrictedFacilitySetRef and fixed missing CallRef
3ae8d48 
* CallRef was missing. Is now added
* facilities can contain a RestrictedFacilitySetRef in ServiceJourney. restriction in  From/To and AvailabilityCondition
@ue71603 ue71603 changed the title GroupOfFacilities added. Can be referenced froma FacilitySet (at therefore gets an Availabilitycondition there). RestrictedServiceFacilityRef in ServiceJourney/facilities with a restriction in an AvailabilityCondition and From/To in Calls an StopPointsInJourneyPattern. and fixed missing CallRef Jun 5, 2024
Aurige
Aurige reviewed Jun 7, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@Aurige Aurige left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok with the principle, but probably needs some tuning

xsd/netex_framework/netex_reusableComponents/netex_facility_support.xsd
<xsd:element name="ToStopPointInJourneyPattern" type="StopPointInJourneyPatternRefStructure"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:choice>
<xsd:element ref="AvailabilityConditionRef" minOccurs="0">
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This AvailabilityCondition overrides the one from the referenced ServiceFacilitySet (if it has one), right ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why would we use a StopPointInJourneyPattern here, while we use Stop directly in the JourneyPart?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it overrides it (should add this in the description. Because I thought that the StopPointInSP is the equivalent to the call.

xsd/netex_framework/netex_reusableComponents/netex_facility_support.xsd Outdated
@@ -826,6 +830,18 @@ Rail transport, Roads and Road transport
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="facilitiesRefs_RelStructure">
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess that we can now delete this facilitiesRefs_RelStructure ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes

xsd/netex_framework/netex_reusableComponents/netex_facility_support.xsd
Comment on lines +6 to +7
<xsd:include schemaLocation="../../netex_part_1/part1_tacticalPlanning/netex_servicePattern_support.xsd"/>
<xsd:include schemaLocation="../../netex_part_2/part2_journeyTimes/netex_call_support.xsd"/>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This ( with the link to Calls) creates a reference from Part 1 to Part 2 of NeTEx (and also a circular reference)
But that's not easy to solve (it would require to have the RestrictedServiceFacilitySetRef here, a specialisation with From/To to SPinJP in the netex_servicePattern_version.xsd and another one refering the Calls in netex_call_version.xsd

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I already thought that this would come up. Will think about it.

Copy link
Contributor

@Aurige Aurige Jul 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure of the best way to go from here (to avoid forward references): may be create a dedicated file, only including the changes from this file : something like netex_journey_facility.xsd and to put somewhere in ../../netex_part_2 ?

@ue71603
Copy link
Contributor Author

ue71603 commented Jun 7, 2024

@David-Steiner was not yet happy. He really would Like that I model the FAcilitySetsRefs like the Notices. Will again have a look at it.

@skinkie
Copy link
Contributor

skinkie commented Jun 8, 2024

@David-Steiner was not yet happy. He really would Like that I model the FAcilitySetsRefs like the Notices. Will again have a look at it.

How would you envision this, if part of a ServiceJourney?

@Aurige
Copy link
Contributor

Aurige commented Jun 26, 2024

@ue71603 : can you provide more details about what is blocking ?

@ue71603
Copy link
Contributor Author

ue71603 commented Jul 5, 2024

@Aurige I think what @David-Steiner wants is:

  • Like Notice he wants a validtyCondition for FacilitySet
  • He also likes the AssignmentGroup:

image
However, I think I have to discuss it with him again. Because for Notices one also has serioous duplicaiton as one Notice per AvailabilitCondition is needed.

Aurige
Aurige requested changes Jul 30, 2024
View reviewed changes
xsd/netex_framework/netex_reusableComponents/netex_facility_support.xsd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
xsd/netex_framework/netex_reusableComponents/netex_facility_support.xsd
Comment on lines +6 to +7
<xsd:include schemaLocation="../../netex_part_1/part1_tacticalPlanning/netex_servicePattern_support.xsd"/>
<xsd:include schemaLocation="../../netex_part_2/part2_journeyTimes/netex_call_support.xsd"/>
Copy link
Contributor

@Aurige Aurige Jul 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure of the best way to go from here (to avoid forward references): may be create a dedicated file, only including the changes from this file : something like netex_journey_facility.xsd and to put somewhere in ../../netex_part_2 ?

@Aurige
Copy link
Contributor

Aurige commented Sep 4, 2024

To be finalised between @ue71603 and @Aurige

@Aurige Aurige added the UML update needed Update UML physical model needed label Sep 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@skinkie skinkie skinkie left review comments

@Aurige Aurige Aurige requested changes

@trurlurl trurlurl trurlurl left review comments

@nick-knowles nick-knowles Awaiting requested review from nick-knowles

@duexw duexw Awaiting requested review from duexw

@klement-MENTZ klement-MENTZ Awaiting requested review from klement-MENTZ

@David-Steiner David-Steiner Awaiting requested review from David-Steiner

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@ue71603 ue71603

Labels
enhancement non semantic enhacement: technical enhancement, etc. needs documentation update The NeTEx document needs to be updated UML update needed Update UML physical model needed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
netex_2.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@ue71603 @skinkie @nick-knowles @Aurige @trurlurl