Menu ▾ ▴

#18 Considering State Information in Custom-XML / Schematron

10.0 TUT21-02
open
Stefan Schlichting
None
2021-02-05
2021-02-03
Martin
No

There are parts of our model that are not described in the MdDescription, however, in the MdState. For example the optional element pm:PhysicalConnector.

Currently, we only consider the descriptive part.

Thus, the question arises whether we shall include constraints towards state elements in our machine interpretable format?

Discussion

  • Martin

    Martin - 2021-02-03

    My suggestion is to omit the state part and describe the constraints using requirements.

    @b-andersen @schlich09 @kathrin @d-gregorczyk What do you think?

     

    Last edit: Martin 2021-02-03

  • Martin

    Martin - 2021-02-03
    • Description has changed:

    Diff:

    --- old
+++ new
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
 There are parts of our model that are not described in the MdDescription, however, in the MdState. For example the optional element pm:PhysicalConnector.

+Currently, we only consider the descriptive part.
+
 Thus, the question arises whether we shall include constraints towards state elements in our machine interpretable format?
     

  • Björn Andersen

    Björn Andersen - 2021-02-05
    • assigned_to: Björn Andersen --> Stefan Schlichting
     

  • Björn Andersen

    Björn Andersen - 2021-02-05

    I second Martin's proposal.

     

Log in to post a comment.

Auth0 Logo