Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review answers to conceptdescription #110

Open
JoergNeidig opened this issue Mar 5, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Review answers to conceptdescription #110

JoergNeidig opened this issue Mar 5, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@JoergNeidig
Copy link

I have the feeling that some answers concerning conceptDescriptions, isCaseOf, etc. are older and do not reflect v3.0 properly. E.g. the answers of the two following questions appear to be in conflict:

@StenGruener
Copy link
Collaborator

Update 2024 with the v3 meta-model:

  • isCaseOf: should be used when the concept description is "slightly modified", e.g., using a different unit contrary to ECLASS defintion or a different value domain, e.g., string instead of boolean. In this case the supplied concept descriptions should have a different semantic ID as the ECLASS IRDI.

  • supplementarySemanticID: should be used by "exactly same" semantic meaning, as in the use-case of 3 semantic id in the first example: ECLASS, CDD, and TechnicalData submodel template. In this case the supplied concept descriptions should have a same semantic ID as one of the referenced IRDI/semanticIds.

@BirgitBoss would you sign this off?

Proposal - remove both questions and provide this one as a new answer.

@BirgitBoss
Copy link
Collaborator

@StenGruener @JoergNeidig thanks for pointing this out. (The new) supplementalSemanticIds belong to elements having semantics (inheriting from hasSemantics), isCase of belongs to concept descriptions (not inheriting from HasSemantics). This is useful if maintenance of concept description repositories is not coupled to maintenance of submodel templates or submodels.
I personally would say that all isCaseOf values could also be entered as supplementalSemanticIds although I would not recommend to do it.
We need a more in depth discussion on the usage of the two attributes. But I would agree to remove these two answers from the FAQ or explicitly state that the answers are valid for V2.0 only until we provide answers valid for V3.x.

@BirgitBoss
Copy link
Collaborator

BirgitBoss commented Apr 20, 2024

@StenGruener StenGruener self-assigned this Sep 16, 2024
@StenGruener
Copy link
Collaborator

I will mark both questsions deprecated as proposed by Birgit
@BirgitBoss any news on this topics?

StenGruener added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2024
#110 related - calling 2 answerd deprecated
@BirgitBoss
Copy link
Collaborator

admin-shell-io/aas-specs#479 deals with supplementalSemanticId
In general matching strategies for semantic IDs might be relevant, see also admin-shell-io/aas-specs#471

But I agree: mark answers as valid for V2.x only.

StenGruener added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2024
* Update README.md

#110 related - calling 2 answerd deprecated

* typo fix

* typo

* Update README.md
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants