[Open-transport] Open Transport Data tools / webservices
Stefan de Konink
stefan at konink.de
Tue Jul 16 10:27:45 UTC 2013
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Andrew Byrd wrote:
> What is a "call-based format"?
It is our plane old stop times, duplicated for every trip.
<ServiceJourney version="any"
id="mygtfsxm:ServiceJourney:STBA">
<calls>
<Call order="1">
<ScheduledStopPointRef
ref="mygtfsxm:ScheduledStopPoint:STAGECOACH"/>
<Arrival>
<Time>06:00:00</Time>
<ForAlighting>false</ForAlighting>
</Arrival>
<Departure>
<Time>06:00:00</Time>
</Departure>
<DestinationDisplayView>
<Name>Nye CountyAirport</Name>
</DestinationDisplayView>
</Call>
<Call order="2">
<ScheduledStopPointRef
ref="mygtfsxm:ScheduledStopPoint:BEATTY_AIRPORT"/>
<OnwardServiceLinkView>
<Distance>5</Distance>
</OnwardServiceLinkView>
<Arrival>
<Time>06:20:00</Time>
</Arrival>
<Departure>
<Time>06:20:00</Time>
<ForBoarding>false</ForBoarding>
<IsFlexible>true</IsFlexible>
</Departure>
</Call>
</calls>
</ServiceJourney>
> So you want your conversion tools to increase entropy? Can you give a
> concrete example of this and why it's desirable?
The exchange of normalised datasources is desirable, many conversion such
as GTFS require denormalisation. It seems that every big transit standard
has support for an efficient normalised exchange. A conversion tool should
do the work to end up in the most compact representation of the timetable.
The Call based format of NeTEx is yet another "do not care" matter to make
it easy to exchange in a CEN standard, but ignore that the hole point was
to standardise TRANSMODEL.
> I'm not sure anyone's specifically praising NeTEx, I think we just find
> it has a few concepts that GTFS doesn't and sometimes need to use those
> concepts.
...the grass is always greener at the other side.
Stefan
More information about the open-transport
mailing list