Metamodel link renames by aschemmel-tech · Pull Request #621 · eclipse-score/process_description

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-26T07:59:10Z

Relates: #418

github-actions · 2026-03-26T08:02:15Z

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

masc2023

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-26T10:53:08Z

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

My understanding is that the metamodel picture shall reflect what is implemented (or to be implemented soon) in docs-as-code. This link is not implemented.
There is no mention of the usage of this link described in the requirements nor the architecture process.
When I thought of the correct naming of this link ("derived_from" I guess), I realized the above and removed this to reduce complexity of the pictures.

masc2023 · 2026-03-26T10:57:30Z

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

My understanding is that the metamodel picture shall reflect what is implemented (or to be implemented soon) in docs-as-code. This link is not implemented. There is no mention of the usage of this link described in the requirements nor the architecture process. When I thought of the correct naming of this link ("derived_from" I guess), I realized the above and removed this to reduce complexity of the pictures.

But it is marked as mandatory, so maybe it is forgotten? @RolandJentschETAS , can we discuss this, otherwise I am fine to remove it.

RolandJentschETAS · 2026-04-10T09:36:46Z

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

My understanding is that the metamodel picture shall reflect what is implemented (or to be implemented soon) in docs-as-code. This link is not implemented. There is no mention of the usage of this link described in the requirements nor the architecture process. When I thought of the correct naming of this link ("derived_from" I guess), I realized the above and removed this to reduce complexity of the pictures.

But it is marked as mandatory, so maybe it is forgotten? @RolandJentschETAS , can we discuss this, otherwise I am fine to remove it.

I would let that out. The lower level requirements shall consider the upper layer architecture, but this could also be done indirectly. comp_req -> feat -> feat_arc_sta, there is no direct link comp_req->feat_arc_sta necessary in my opinion.

masc2023 · 2026-04-10T09:42:03Z

@aschemmel-tech , ready to review and merge?

aschemmel-tech · 2026-04-10T09:52:07Z

@aschemmel-tech , ready to review and merge?

no, have to rework to cover the "non-mandatory component architecture views" topic

masc2023 · 2026-04-10T14:26:54Z

Please consider #646

masc2023 · 2026-04-10T14:27:07Z

Please consider #646

masc2023 · 2026-05-12T13:12:07Z

There is another building blocks image, you missed simplified version, on the bottom of the page

will update

masc2023 · 2026-05-12T13:17:34Z

If I am correct, now fulfils is replaced by satisfies, but in the traceability and building block model is still fulfils, so unclear for me?

no, will keep "fulfils" but change "belongs_to" to "satisfied_by" because we wanted to link the requirements to the architecture element (and not the view, which is also optional on component level).

masc2023 · 2026-05-12T13:22:16Z

         :status: <draft|valid>
         :tags: <process area or abbreviation>
-         :satisfies: <defined workflow:wf__<...>>, ..., <defined workflow:wf__<...>>
+         :derived_from: <defined workflow:wf__<...>>, ..., <defined workflow:wf__<...>>


That implies, that you change it in the complete process model, thus you need also to change the process meta model so. Is that intended? Will the change done in another PR or in this PR?

will remove this change

masc2023 · 2026-05-12T13:26:16Z

      .. gd_req:: <Title>
         :id: gd_req__<process>__<Title>
-         :satisfies: <link to guidance id>
+         :derived_from: <link to guidance id>


`see same comment as above for process management, why do we have this twice? I think this here shall be deleted, only process management should manage process meta model elements, requiesments engineering is only for the building block model

will remove the duplicate here

Relates: #418

masc2023 requested changes Mar 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames branch from e2de5ad to 881bfc3 Compare March 26, 2026 10:55

aschemmel-tech mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2026

rename relations for SysML compatibility #618

Open

masc2023 reviewed Apr 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread process/general_concepts/_assets/score_building_blocks_meta_model.drawio.svg

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Contributor

masc2023 Apr 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please consider #646

masc2023 reviewed Apr 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames branch from 881bfc3 to 2088ec9 Compare April 10, 2026 14:34

aschemmel-tech mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2026

Fix trace to external AoU for Components #654

Merged

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames branch 2 times, most recently from 7de606a to 6190616 Compare May 12, 2026 12:45

aschemmel-tech marked this pull request as ready for review May 12, 2026 12:52

aschemmel-tech requested review from PandaeDo and pahmann as code owners May 12, 2026 12:52

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames branch from 6190616 to 6a9be13 Compare May 12, 2026 12:55

aschemmel-tech mentioned this pull request May 12, 2026

docs: Align Relations in Metamodel to SysML #418

Open

5 tasks

masc2023 requested changes May 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Metamodel link renames

412eac8

Relates: #418

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames branch from 6a9be13 to 412eac8 Compare May 12, 2026 14:36

Conversation

aschemmel-tech commented Mar 26, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 26, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Mar 26, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 commented Mar 26, 2026

Uh oh!

RolandJentschETAS commented Apr 10, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 commented Apr 10, 2026

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Apr 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants