FlexibleOperation why not FlexibleModeOfOperation?

Question

FlexibleOperation why not FlexibleModeOfOperation?

skinkie opened this issue a year ago · 8 comments

skinkie commented a year ago

Aurige commented 9 months ago

discussed

Answer 1 · 2023-09-07T13:30:13.000Z

and it is a FlexibleModeOfOperation_ValueStructure ... has to be fixed (harmless for compatibility here)

Answer 2 · 2023-12-12T10:42:11.000Z

Element names are as as per spec . Structure names are as per convention of using noun (xxxxModeOfOperation) of superclass. SUgegst we leave as is

This is Transmodel UML

This is NeTEx UML

Answer 3 · 2023-12-12T17:55:23.000Z

@Aurige @skinkie I think Nick is right. We close it?

Answer 4 · 2023-12-12T17:57:15.000Z

No, I don't understand it.

Answer 5 · 2023-12-12T18:36:20.000Z

TM alignment

Answer 6 · 2023-12-12T18:37:42.000Z

It feels like it is it is not consistent with the other NeTEx concepts.

Answer 7 · 2023-12-12T23:55:03.000Z

It is consistent - although we generally add qualifiers to the superclass name to arrive at the subclass name (POINT, TIMING POINT) , in a number of places we specialise either because the noun phrase gets too much of a mouthful (FLEXIBLE CONVENTIONAL MODE OF OPERATION aagh ) , or because the semantics become more focused
Consider the site hierarchy
GROUP OF POINTS
ZONE
PLACE
SITE ELEMENT,
SITE,
STOP PLACE,
POINT OF INTEREST
PARLING
SITE COMPONENT
STOP PLACE COMPONENT
etc etc