One example for an overlapping definition between ERA-3.1.0 and CCS/TMS data model is the gradient profile.
On the one hand it is:
era:gradientProfile rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ;
rdfs:domain era:InfraSubsystem ;
rdfs:range xsd:string ;
rdfs:comment "Sequence of gradient values and locations of change in gradient."@en ;
It can be assigned to era:Junction, era:Switch, era:Signal, era:Platform, era:Tunnel, era:Bridge, era:LevelCrossing, era:Track. This allows to define contradicting profiles, e.g. an era:Platform could contain a different gradientProfile than a era:Track going along this platform.
On the other hand, in CCS/TMS model the gradientProfile is defined for each TrackEdge (=LinearElement without children) as a list of objects <position, slope> with exact specification of the way to calculate position, and to use slopes.
Question: how to combine the two approaches in ERA.vocabulary >= 3.1.0?
One example for an overlapping definition between ERA-3.1.0 and CCS/TMS data model is the gradient profile. On the one hand it is: era:gradientProfile rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ; rdfs:domain era:InfraSubsystem ; rdfs:range xsd:string ; rdfs:comment "Sequence of gradient values and locations of change in gradient."@en ;
It can be assigned to era:Junction, era:Switch, era:Signal, era:Platform, era:Tunnel, era:Bridge, era:LevelCrossing, era:Track. This allows to define contradicting profiles, e.g. an era:Platform could contain a different gradientProfile than a era:Track going along this platform.
On the other hand, in CCS/TMS model the gradientProfile is defined for each TrackEdge (=LinearElement without children) as a list of objects <position, slope> with exact specification of the way to calculate position, and to use slopes.
Question: how to combine the two approaches in ERA.vocabulary >= 3.1.0?