24 OCT 2019
The possibility to specify the availability of a complete Route is introduced in the model, as a complement to the existing possibility to specify the availability of each individual RouteSegment.
Rationale for change
There are frequent situations where all segments of a route published by an ANSP have the same conditions of usage (availability).
The current model does not support the coding of the availability for a whole route, only at the level of each RouteSegment. This requires an unnecessary duplication of the data from the ANSP point of view (ICAO AIP Dataset). Therefore, a new association is proposed to be introduced in the model allowing to indicate that RouteAvailability is applicable directly to a Route.
Reminder about “Route direction” information: A Route is composed of several RouteSegments, each one described as “starting” from a SignificantPoint and “ending” at another SignificantPoint. This gives implicitly a “direction” to the whole route, even if the RouteSegments are communicated in random order, and assuming they describe the complete route part published by the ANSP: the order of the segments can be resolved automatically and as a consequence, the Route direction can be deduced from a “global” starting point to a “global” ending point.
[FWD_MAP_1:1] Data mapping is possible and no data loss occurs when data is exchanged from a system (A) that uses AIXM 5.1.1 for output towards a system (B) that uses AIXM 5.2 for input.
[BWD_MAP_LOSS] Data mapping is possible, but some data would be lost (or converted into Notes) when data is exchanged from a system (B) that uses AIXM 5.2 for output towards a system (A) that uses AIXM 5.1.1 for input.
Change Proposal details
In the UML model, add a new composition relation from the Route feature type to the RouteAvailability object type, as follows:
- Route isActiveBy Availability
- 0..* on the Availability side with “availability” role name, definition = “The operational availability of the Route.”
The new association is shown in the UML class diagram to the right.
Mapping AIXM 5.1.1 to AIXM 5.2 (forward)
Mapping AIXM 5.2 to AIXM 5.1.1 (backward)
[MAPC-03] From the three options discussed for this mapping case, the first two (drop the data or use an extension) are straight-forward and are not detailed here. Only the third option (mapping into a note) is detailed here::
- For each occurrence of RouteAvailability with values:
- Remove the RouteAvailability
- Add an annotation.Note associated with the <<feature>>Route
- translatedNote.LinguisticNote.note=”availability.RouteAvailability.direction: <value of RouteAvailability.direction>; availability.RouteAvailability.cardinalDirection: <value of RouteAvailability.cardinalDirection >; availability.RouteAvailability.status: <value of RouteAvailability.status>
Mapping example to be added...
(Note: for mapping test data see:)
|AIXM 5.2||AIXM 5.1(.1)|