Harmonization of Catena-X Aspect Models - Part 2

[agg3fe]

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

Many aspect models use different object/property namings, but their meaning is similar. Intension is to Harmonise or refine the aspect models to make use of common taxonomy as much as possible.

What's the benefit?

• Using the common taxonomy to avoid any confusion about namings

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

• Discussion for the standardised models maybe needed

Detailed explanation

Current implementation

Proposed improvements

Feature Team

Contributor

• @agg3fe
• @jSchuetz88

Committer

• @agg3fe

User Stories

• Harmonization across Aspect Models sldt-semantic-models#875

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]

Tractus-X 26.06: Release Planning

Important

Information from Release Management
If you have any questions, please contact @ther3sa and/or @stephanbcbauer.

---

Note

The following feature was NOT presented during the open planning session on the 26 of February for Tractus-X 26.06 release.
@agg3fe -> Can you tell something about the current state?

[agg3fe]

Tractus-X 26.06: Release Planning

Important

Information from Release Management If you have any questions, please contact @ther3sa and/or @stephanbcbauer.

Note

The following feature was NOT presented during the open planning session on the 26 of February for Tractus-X 26.06 release. @agg3fe -> Can you tell something about the current state?

H @stephanbcbauer , this ticket is for the refinement of CatenaX models present in the semantic modeling repository. We already had previously one ticket for the refinement of the models. That was mainly focused on creating the shared models and that goal is already achieved. This ticket is the next advanced version of same ticket, which focuses on renaming of Objects in aspect models, so that they are aligned with each other and does not create any confusion for different object names where they have same definitions. Github issue is linked with this ticket.
Target is for 26.06.
Please let me know if more information is required on this.