Harmonization of Catena-X Aspect Models

[thomas-henn]

Overview

All existing aspect models are checked for their data objects with regard to a uniform taxonomy and are potentially refined.

Adaption of the existing semantic aspect models to a Catena-X-wide uniform taxonomy.

Explain the topic in 2 sentences

Harmonise or refine the aspect models to make use of shared models and common taxonomy as much as possible.

What's the benefit?

• Using the common taxonomy
• Models are more refined using shared models

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

• Discussion for the standardised models maybe needed

Detailed explanation

Current implementation

Proposed improvements

Feature Team

Contributor

• @agg3fe
• @tunacicek
• @jSchuetz88

Committer

• @agg3fe
• @tunacicek

User Stories

• https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/sldt-semantic-models/issues/761

Acceptance Criteria

Test Cases

Expected Result

Architectural Relevance

The following items are ensured (answer: yes) after this issue is implemented:

• [ ] This feature aligns with our current architectural guidelines
  • Data Sovereignty: All data sharing activities across company boundaries follow the Catena-X Regulatory Framework, in particular the Data Exchange Governance, and the Dataspace Protocol via a compliant Connector (like the tractusx-edc or similar, see Connector KIT)
  • [ ] CX-0010 Business Partner Number
  • [ ] CX-0013 Identity of Member Companies
  • [ ] CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • [ ] CX-0049 DID Document Schema
  • [ ] CX-0050 Framework Agreement Credential
  • [ ] CX-0149 Verified Company Identity
  • Interoperability: Digital Twins are used (compliant to the Digital Twin KIT and the Industry Core KIT)
  • [ ] CX-0001 EDC Discovery API
  • [ ] CX-0002 Digital Twins in Catena-X
  • [ ] CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • Data Format:
  • [ ] The data model is based on a published Semantic Model
• [ ] The impact on the overall system architecture has been assessed. The Feature does not require changes to the architecture or any existing standard? Please have a look here on the overarching architecture
• [ ] Potential risks or conflicts with existing architecture has been assessed

Justification: (Fill this out, if at least one of the checkboxes above cannot be ticked. Contact the Architecture Management Committee to get an approval for the justification)

Additional information

• [ ] I am aware that my request may not be developed if no developer can be found for it. I'll try to contribute a developer (bring your own developer)

[stephanbcbauer]

Presented in the DRAFT Feature Freeze -> Committer is available

[stephanbcbauer]

@thomas-henn @agg3fe @tunacicek not sure about this feature. Is it planned to present it in tomorrow's planning? It was already presented in the DRAFT Feature Freeze, but the status is still Inbox. Did we miss something?

[stephanbcbauer]

Some hints from Release Management (@ther3sa) and Tractus-X Project Lead (@stephanbcbauer)

• Status currently in Inbox. ⇾ Only features with status backlog are considered in open planning
• Please add missing sections from the feature template, or fill them out

[tunacicek]

@thomas-henn @agg3fe @tunacicek not sure about this feature. Is it planned to present it in tomorrow's planning? It was already presented in the DRAFT Feature Freeze, but the status is still Inbox. Did we miss something?

Hi @stephanbcbauer, thanks for your hint. I change the status to backlog.