Skip to content

Conversation

@haeckerbaer
Copy link
Collaborator

Pain point to solve:
On PtSituationElement level one can define multiple ValidityPeriods (onbound). However, on Consequence or PassengerInformationAction level one cannot distinguish between these periods! On Consequence level this is solved by providing a corresponding element "Period" that overwrites the top level periods if one has to distinguish. However, on action level no such element exists.

  • Alternatively, extend ValidityPeriod element on PtSituationElement level by an “id” so that each period may be referenced on action level.
  • Multiple ValidityPeriods might for example be necessary in case of road works that only affects pt objects periodically during the night.
  • Also, similar to how Interval on PushedActionStructure level supposedly works, a period (reference) on action level would enable a producer to publish some textual content via journey planner (Perspective ‘whilePlanningTrip’) before the situation actually affects the pt objects. This is not possible with PublicationWindow alone (which is independent from the ValidityPeriods). The only option here is to extend the ValidityPeriod which is certainly not desired for other Perspectives than 'whilePlanningTrip'.

A similar proposal was already discussed extensively within the SG7 group, but multiple counter proposals were suggested instead. These were all discussed within the UmS group (german speaking SX profile VDV736 that conceived the PassengerInformationActionStructure) but unfortunately were not able to solve the issues at hand.

@haeckerbaer haeckerbaer added this to the v2.3 milestone Nov 7, 2025
@haeckerbaer haeckerbaer self-assigned this Nov 7, 2025
@haeckerbaer haeckerbaer added enhancement New feature or request SX For everything SIRI-SX Needs CEN documentation Update These require CEN documentation update to match XSD & examples labels Nov 7, 2025
@TuThoThai
Copy link
Collaborator

@haeckerbaer, I think it would be good to discuss this one further to reach a consensus. It would help for most of us to make a better use of SIRI-SX.

Copy link
Collaborator

@SteffenSuhr SteffenSuhr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really necessary even for sending preliminary messages

@TuThoThai
Copy link
Collaborator

Since the consensus on this one only comes from stakeholders using the same implementation of SIRI SX, I would suggest to wait until consensus is found at the group level before merging.

Copy link
Collaborator

@TuThoThai TuThoThai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Requesting a meeting to address all changes needed for ActionData, Affects & Consequences in SIRI-SX

@haeckerbaer haeckerbaer changed the base branch from integration to 2.3 December 19, 2025 11:33
@TuThoThai
Copy link
Collaborator

As per the meeting of 19 December 2025: Agreement to have ActionPeriod as an optional field, but there is the need to:

  • improve the description in the XSD to make it clearer when to use it
  • provide a couple of XML examples of how the messages will look like with several temporal elements in Actions related to the same Situation / Consequence
  • work on clean documentation with illustrations to be included in the next CEN documentation

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request Needs CEN documentation Update These require CEN documentation update to match XSD & examples SX For everything SIRI-SX

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants