[New Model]: Shared PartSiteInformationAsBuilt 1.0.0

[johannsvarela]

Based on the results / definition of the Industry Core, the part site information is also needed in the DTasBuilt context. Therefore a new aspect model was created, which contain the information of the sites of a part. The new model will be implemented as shared aspect model who will be integrated into the existing models SerialPart, Batch and JiS in further steps.

Closes #442

MS2 Criteria

(to be filled out by PR reviewer)

• [x] the model validates with the SAMM SDS SDK in the version specified in the Readme.md of this repository by the time of the MS2 check (e.g., 'java -jar samm-cli.jar aspect \<path-to-aspect-model> validate ). The SAMM CLI is available here and in GitHub
• [x] use Camel-Case (e.g., "MyModelElement" or "TimeDifferenceGmtId", when in doubt follow https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case)
• [x] the identifiers for all model elements start with a capital letter except for properties
• [x] the identifier for properties starts with a small letter
• [x] all model elements at least contain the fields "preferred name" and "description" in English language. The description must be comprehensible. It is not required to write full sentences but style should be consistent over the whole model
• [x] Property and the referenced Characteristic should not have the same name
• [x] the versioning in the URN follows semantic versioning, where minor version bumps are backwards compatible and major version bumps are not backwards compatible.
• [x] use abbreviations only when necessary and if these are sufficiently common
• [x] avoid redundant prefixes in property names (consider adding properties to an enclosing Entity or even adapt the namespace of the model elements, e.g., instead of having two properties DismantlerId and DismantlerName use an Entity Dismantler with the properties name and id or use a URN like io.catenax.dismantler:0.0.1)
• [x] fields preferredName and description are not the same
• [x] preferredName should be human readable and follow normal orthography (e.g., no camel case but normal word separation)
• [x] name of aspect is singular except if it only has one property which is a Collection, List or Set. In theses cases, the aspect name is plural.
• [x] units are referenced from the SAMM unit catalog whenever possible
• [x] use constraints to make known constraints from the use case explicit in the aspect model
• [x] when relying on external standards, they are referenced through a "see" element
• [x] all properties with an simple type have an example value
• [x] metadata.json exists with status "release"
• [x] generated json schema validates against example json payload
• [x] file RELEASE_NOTES.md exists and contains entries for proposed model changes
• [x] all contributors to this model are mentioned in copyright header of model file

MS3 Criteria

(to be filled out by semantic modeling team before merge to main-branch)

• [x] All required reviewers have approved this PR (see reviewers section)
• [x] The new aspect (version) will be implemented by at least one data provider
• [x] The new aspect (version) will be consumed by at least one data consumer
• [x] There exists valid test data
• [x] In case of a new (incompatible) major version to an existing version, a migration strategy has been developed
• [x] The model has at least version '1.0.0'
• [x] If a previous model exists, model deprecation has been checked for previous model
• [x] The release date in the Release Note is set to the date of the MS3 approval

[github-actions[bot]]

Validation Report for io.catenax.shared.part_site_information/1.0.0/PartSiteInformation.ttl

Input model is valid

[johannsvarela]

FYI @jonbckr @BenediktMuellerIML @jacewski-bosch

[agg3fe]

@johannsvarela do you want to add 'PartSiteInformationAsPlanned.ttl' also? If yes, then you have to create a separate Pull Request for this. we can have only one model (.ttl) file in one PR for new model.

[johannsvarela]

@johannsvarela do you want to add 'PartSiteInformationAsPlanned.ttl' also? If yes, then you have to create a separate Pull Request for this. we can have only one model (.ttl) file in one PR for new model.

@agg3fe The second ttl-File (PartSiteInformationAsPlanned) contain the migration from BAMM to SAMM for the model. Since the PartSiteInformationAsPlanned will be set to 'deprecate', i don't know if its necessary to migrate to SAMM?

Otherwise i will integrate the SAMM-migration to the existing deprecation PR #454. Would it be fine for you?

[agg3fe]

@johannsvarela do you want to add 'PartSiteInformationAsPlanned.ttl' also? If yes, then you have to create a separate Pull Request for this. we can have only one model (.ttl) file in one PR for new model.

@agg3fe The second ttl-File (PartSiteInformationAsPlanned) contain the migration from BAMM to SAMM for the model. Since the PartSiteInformationAsPlanned will be set to 'deprecate', i don't know if its necessary to migrate to SAMM?

Otherwise i will integrate the SAMM-migration to the existing deprecation PR #454. Would it be fine for you?

If it is deprecated, then you don't need to migrate it from BAMM to SAMM. The separate PR is fine for me to set it to deprecate. you can remove the file from PR.

[github-actions[bot]]

Validation Report for io.catenax.shared.part_site_information_as_built/1.0.0/PartSiteInformationAsBuilt.ttl

Input model is valid

[github-actions[bot]]

Validation Report for io.catenax.shared.part_site_information_as_built/1.0.0/PartSiteInformationAsBuilt.ttl

Input model is valid

[johannsvarela]

Please check my comments

@agg3fe The changes were implemented as you suggested! :-)

[github-actions[bot]]

Validation Report for io.catenax.shared.part_site_information_as_built/1.0.0/PartSiteInformationAsBuilt.ttl

Input model is valid

[johannsvarela]

modeling_team

[johannsvarela]

@agg3fe Jira-Issue to generate the testdata set for this model was created: https://jira.catena-x.net/browse/TDG-35