search

eclipse-esmf / esmf-semantic-aspect-meta-model

Formal and textual specification of the Semantic Aspect Meta Model (SAMM)
https://eclipse-esmf.github.io/samm-specification/snapshot/index.html
Mozilla Public License 2.0
47 stars 9 forks source link

[BUG] BAMM documentation, chapter "Aspects" common attributes #79

Open BirgitBoss opened 2 years ago

BirgitBoss commented 2 years ago

"Every model element (Aspects, Properties, Characteristics, Entities, Operations) has the following attributes:" (like name, preferred name, see etc.)

https://openmanufacturingplatform.github.io/sds-bamm-aspect-meta-model/bamm-specification/snapshot/modeling-guidelines.html#attributes-that-all-model-elements-have

Isn't this true also for Events?

atextor commented 2 years ago

This is correct, this also holds for Events. I'd consider this a bug. Edit: Feel free to change the [Task] into a [Bug]

atextor commented 2 years ago

This should be fixed as part of #104

janikps commented 2 years ago

Repeating my comment from #105. The attributes are defined as mandatory for every element, bur the table below in column "Required" declares them as optional.

atextor commented 2 years ago

Where are the attributes defined as mandatory? This would also be a bug. As far as I see it, this is consistent between the meta model elements overview (where it states 0..n) and the textual description.

janikps commented 2 years ago

Snippet: image The title "Attributes that all model elements have" and the statement in the note "Although both bamm:preferredName and bamm:description should be set at least once in every model element" brought me to the conclusion that they can be retrieved from any model element hence they are mandatory, which seems to be aligned with the reason why Birgit created this issue. In such a case they shall have the the green checkmark in the "Required" column of the table.

I agree with your argumentation that they do not need to be made mandatory, and "should" is to be understood as a recommendation. Possibly only the description/title need to be updated - if others in the Work Group agree as well.

I will also resolve the question asked by Birgit - if we conclude they are only recommended.

atextor commented 2 years ago

I see. This is obviously not described unambiguously enough. I'm in favor of updating it to make more clear.