NeTEx-CEN/NeTEx

PassengerCapacity@id

Closed this issue · 7 comments

In relation to #471 I notice that the examples in prCEN-1 mention PassengerCapacity without an id attribute, while the table does suggest is is a required element.

image

image

In your opinion what is wrong here?

Aurige commented

In this specific case, the PassengerCapacity attribute has a type PassengerCapacityStructure and does not ref the PassengerCapacity element (this said, it can also be seen as an issue). So the example is Ok for now.

However, the element itself is defined as below, and the <xsd:attribute name="id" type="PassengerCapacityIdType" use="optional"> is not consistent with the documentation and should be fixed

<xsd:element name="PassengerCapacity">
		<xsd:annotation>
			<xsd:documentation>Capacity for a VEHICLE TYPE and Class.</xsd:documentation>
		</xsd:annotation>
		<xsd:complexType>
			<xsd:complexContent>
				<xsd:restriction base="PassengerCapacityStructure">
					<xsd:sequence>
						<xsd:sequence>
							<xsd:group ref="EntityInVersionGroup" minOccurs="0"/>
						</xsd:sequence>
						<xsd:sequence>
							<xsd:group ref="DataManagedObjectGroup"/>
						</xsd:sequence>
						<xsd:sequence>
							<xsd:group ref="PassengerCapacityGroup"/>
						</xsd:sequence>
					</xsd:sequence>
					<xsd:attribute name="id" type="PassengerCapacityIdType" use="optional">
						<xsd:annotation>
							<xsd:documentation>Identifier of PASSENGER CAPACITY.</xsd:documentation>
						</xsd:annotation>
					</xsd:attribute>
				</xsd:restriction>
			</xsd:complexContent>
		</xsd:complexType>
	</xsd:element>

@Aurige in your opinion, similar to AccessibilityAssessment should have its own id+version attributes while it is actually embedded within a versioned object?

Aurige commented

That's the group discussion we had during meeting #13 around #471 that didn't find a conclusion yet

@Aurige so either we fix the documentation xor the xsd? ;-)

Aurige commented

I guess we can fix the xsd here (set use="required")

Aurige commented

then we can remove the "need documentation" tag ;-)

fixed by #579