chrbertsch
commented
3 months ago Sure we can discuss, but in the view of the FMI Project this is a perfect example of interoparability of MA standards!
- we re-use and reference artefacts from the Layerd standard such as .SSV files from the SSP standard, instead of re-defining them. (This can increase adoption of SSP standard artefacts. The SSP standard is not intended for using "all-or-nothing", but encourages use of individual artefacts
- if you include FMUs supporting FMI-LS-REF, by design of the SSP Standard you can reference the .SSV files included in the FMU extra directory
- we feel well aligned with the SSP Project, as core designers of SSP are also part of the FMI-LS-REF and vice versa.
I just took notice of the FMI group's work on a layered standard for related files and experiment setup. The examples include start/stop time for the experiment and references to parameter sets in SSV files. See https://modelica.github.io/fmi-ls-ref/main/.
To me there seems to be a great deal of overlap with SSP. And I wonder what the value of doing this twice is.
My question is: should we try to discuss the purpose with the FMI group, alternative raise the issue to the MA board which should be responsible for coordinating efforts done under the MA umbrella.