-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
[Model Update]: Batch 2.0.1 #502
[Model Update]: Batch 2.0.1 #502
Conversation
Validation Report for io.catenax.batch/2.0.1/Batch.ttlInput model is valid |
samm:operations(); | ||
samm:events(). | ||
|
||
:catenaXId a samm:Property; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this property hard dependent on catenax? In future we are trying to make models catenax agnostic, which can be used for any dataspace. Do you think you can use some other property name here which is not bounded to catenax?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@agg3fe Since this property describes the id of a part in the network, we keep this naming until the semantic modeling group give us an suggestion how to handle with the catenaX-ID in future. This is not a decision we can made in our traceability modeling team.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
please check my comments
Validation Report for io.catenax.batch/2.0.1/Batch.ttlInput model is valid |
@agg3fe done! :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Validation Report for io.catenax.batch/2.0.1/Batch.ttlInput model is valid |
@agg3fe Would it be possible to skip the merge until the end of the week? We wanted to discuss our changes with our team/internal contacts one last time before we go live with this version? :-) |
@agg3fe Since there is no objections from our business side, this PR. Thanks! :-) |
@agg3fe please merge |
Nevermind, my fault. Date is correct. |
Description
Based on the results / definition of the Industry Core, the Batch aspect model needs to be extended by the part site information. The changes contain the integration of the new shared PartSiteInformationAsBuilt (#442) model as optional content.
Closes #487
MS2 Criteria
(to be filled out by PR reviewer)
DismantlerId
andDismantlerName
use an EntityDismantler
with the propertiesname
andid
or use a URN likeio.catenax.dismantler:0.0.1
)preferredName
anddescription
are not the samepreferredName
should be human readable and follow normal orthography (e.g., no camel case but normal word separation)MS3 Criteria
(to be filled out by semantic modeling team before merge to main-branch)