rename relations for SysML compatibility by RSingh1511 · Pull Request #618 · eclipse-score/process_description

RSingh1511 · 2026-03-23T07:33:04Z

Summary

Renames SCORE relation attributes to align with Codebeamer conventions for future requirements/architecture import-export compatibility.

Related issue: #418

Changes

Old	New	Applies To
`:satisfies:`	`:derived_from:`	Requirements (`feat_req`, `comp_req`, `gd_req`, etc.)
`:fulfils:`	`:satisfies:`	Architectural elements (`feat_arc_sta`, `comp_arc_sta`, `logic_arc_int`, etc.)
`fulfils_back`	`satisfies_back`	Needtable filters

masc2023

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here
https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

RSingh1511 · 2026-03-23T07:56:18Z

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

Thanks @masc2023 ! This is driven by issue #418 (Codebeamer import/export compatibility).
Since #418 wasn't filed using the Change Request template, I'll create a proper CR and link it here.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-23T10:33:37Z

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

This change of link names is planned by issue #418 since quite some time (also discussed and approved in the process community).

masc2023 · 2026-03-23T10:44:51Z

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

This change of link names is planned by issue #418 since quite some time (also discussed and approved in the process community).

It is laying around since a year, this is not planned, otherwise it should have been discussed in some round
See also here, eclipse-score/docs-as-code#446 (comment), meanwhile we need to consider impact analysis, and that change have an impact and some effort. Metamodel must be updated, not done in this PR. So for me it is a modification with quite some effort

aschemmel-tech

See inline comments plus we need to update the "metamodel specification"

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-23T12:23:05Z

process/process_areas/architecture_design/guidance/architecture_modeling_example.rst

   :status: valid
   :includes: logic_arc_int__example_feature__archex_logical_interface_1, logic_arc_int__example_feature__archex_logical_interface_2, logic_arc_int__example_feature__archex_logical_interface_3
-   :fulfils: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req
+   :derived_from: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req


fulfils -> satisfies

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-23T12:23:12Z

process/process_areas/architecture_design/guidance/architecture_modeling_example.rst

   :safety: ASIL_B
   :status: valid
-   :fulfils: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req
+   :derived_from: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req


fulfils -> satisfies

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-23T12:23:21Z

process/process_areas/architecture_design/guidance/architecture_modeling_example.rst

   :safety: ASIL_B
   :status: valid
-   :fulfils: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req
+   :derived_from: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req


fulfils -> satisfies

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-23T12:23:29Z

process/process_areas/architecture_design/guidance/architecture_modeling_example.rst

   :safety: ASIL_B
   :status: valid
-   :fulfils: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req
+   :derived_from: feat_req__example_feature__archdes_example_req


fulfils -> satisfies

github-actions · 2026-03-24T04:33:59Z

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

RSingh1511 · 2026-03-24T04:40:54Z

See inline comments plus we need to update the "metamodel specification"

I have already updated the metamodel in this PR(eclipse-score/docs-as-code#446)

masc2023 · 2026-03-24T05:02:15Z

See inline comments plus we need to update the "metamodel specification"

I have already updated the metamodel in this PR(eclipse-score/docs-as-code#446)

Metamodel is here, is it in sync with that https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html ?

Furthermore, this PR is not planned, no link to any issue, which milestone? etc.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-03-25T14:29:48Z

See inline comments plus we need to update the "metamodel specification"

I have already updated the metamodel in this PR(eclipse-score/docs-as-code#446)

Metamodel is here, is it in sync with that https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html ?

Furthermore, this PR is not planned, no link to any issue, which milestone? etc.

Created a "metamodel specification" update PR (#621) which also changes the wording in process_description tracker.

aschemmel-tech

my comments fixed

masc2023 · 2026-04-07T16:47:32Z

process/general_concepts/score_review_concept.rst

   :tags: prio_2_automation, general
   :complies: std_req__iso26262__support_6433, std_req__iso26262__software_7414, std_req__iso26262__software_942
-   :satisfies: wf__monitor_verify_requirements, wf__mr_vy_arch
+   :derived_from: wf__monitor_verify_requirements, wf__mr_vy_arch


Again you change something w/o changing the relevant meta model, https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/introduction/index.html

masc2023 · 2026-04-07T16:48:11Z

process/folder_templates/modules/module_name/component_name/docs/requirements/index.rst

 Component Requirements
 ----------------------

-.. code-block:: rst


using of directive for the development meta-model in process is not allowed, thus there are code_blocks, why removing them?

masc2023 · 2026-04-08T14:34:39Z

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

This change of link names is planned by issue #418 since quite some time (also discussed and approved in the process community).

Again some concerns, the issues says compatibility to SysML, can we already target SysML 2.0, but would that not mean rather using "refine" as derived_from.

RSingh1511 · 2026-04-09T08:11:20Z

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

This change of link names is planned by issue #418 since quite some time (also discussed and approved in the process community).

Again some concerns, the issues says compatibility to SysML, can we already target SysML 2.0, but would that not mean rather using "refine" as derived_from.

Good point on SysML versioning. The naming follows SysML 1.x, not SysML 2.0 — as specified in issue #418. In SysML 1.x, «derive» / derived_from is the correct relation for requirements deriving from other requirements, and «satisfy» / satisfies is for architectural elements satisfying requirements. SysML 2.0's refine has different semantics and is out of scope for now, as current tooling (Codebeamer etc.) is based on SysML 1.x.

masc2023

Still Process Meta Model is not changed. This contribution cannot be accepted. Please first do an official change request before you start working on breaking changes, which are not discussed and agreed in our process community

masc2023 · 2026-04-09T09:19:28Z

MODULE.bazel

    module_name = "score_docs_as_code",
-    commit = "21640ab325b3aae147ba4e3e8b5e7ab89fc2e8f5",
-    remote = "https://github.com/etas-contrib/score_docs-as-code.git",
+    # TODO: revert to main once https://github.com/RSingh1511/docs-as-code/pull/new/rs/rename-relations-codebeamer is merged


Thanks for contribution, but it seems your change request are due to special tool requirements. This is not in scope with our concept. We discussed that already with @aschemmel-tech Please get in contact

My understanding was that we are fine if SysML 2.0 use of the terms is still the same:

In my understanding "derived" relationship for requirements is still part of SysML 2.0: see https://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/2.0/Language/PDF section "9.6 Requirement Derivation Domain Library" or Figure 70 description. "Refinement" seems not to be requirement specific.
Also see https://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/2.0/Transformation/PDF : 7.8.8.3.1 DeriveReqt_Mapping "A SysML::Requirements::DeriveReqt relationship is mapped to a SysML v2 DerivationConnections::Derivation model library element."

"Satisfy" relationship also still part of SysML 2.0: See e.g. 7.21.1 Requirements Overview: "A design solution must satisfy the requirement and all of its member requirements and constraints to be a valid solution." or 7.21.4 Satisfy Requirement Usages
Also see https://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/2.0/Transformation/PDF : 7.8.8.3.22 Satisfy_Mapping "A SysML::Requirements::Satisfy relationship is mapped to a SysML v2 SatisfyRequirementUsage."

It is not a special tool requirement, it is just how we have configured our tooling (codebeamer and trlc) by using requirement attributes which conform to UML 1.x

masc2023 · 2026-04-09T09:20:35Z

process/process_areas/architecture_design/architecture_concept.rst


-The first viewpoint is named as *feature architecture*. It displays the SW Components within the SW modules (= dependable elements) which are required to realize the feature including their interactions. Also the *logical interfaces* and the interaction between the feature and the user are included in this view. On this architectural level the feature requirements shall be allocated. A full rendered example for the static architecture is maintained in the
-`module template documentation <https://eclipse-score.github.io/module_template/main/>`__.
+The first viewpoint is named as *feature architecture*. It displays the SW Components within the SW modules (= dependable elements) which are required to realize the feature including their interactions. Also the *logical interfaces* and the interaction between the feature and the user are included in this view. On this architectural level the feature requirements shall be allocated. An example for the static architecture is shown here:


As previous comment, we do not use directives from the development meta model in process description, examples are now in module_template

currently there is no example in the module_template, but I agree we should leave this untouched because it is already how it should be in the future.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-04-09T12:43:28Z

Still Process Meta Model is not changed. This contribution cannot be accepted. Please first do an official change request before you start working on breaking changes, which are not discussed and agreed in our process community

As stated above a "metamodel specification" update PR (#621) was already created, but is stalled due to the "not mandatory component architecture" issue which impacts this.

masc2023 · 2026-04-09T13:09:40Z

Still Process Meta Model is not changed. This contribution cannot be accepted. Please first do an official change request before you start working on breaking changes, which are not discussed and agreed in our process community

As stated above a "metamodel specification" update PR (#621) was already created, but is stalled due to the "not mandatory component architecture" issue which impacts this.

Meanwhile there are also changes to the process meta model, here, https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/introduction/index.html, this is not covered with that, and why should we to that, process requirements are not really derived

aschemmel-tech · 2026-04-09T14:23:55Z

Still Process Meta Model is not changed. This contribution cannot be accepted. Please first do an official change request before you start working on breaking changes, which are not discussed and agreed in our process community

As stated above a "metamodel specification" update PR (#621) was already created, but is stalled due to the "not mandatory component architecture" issue which impacts this.

Meanwhile there are also changes to the process meta model, here, https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/introduction/index.html, this is not covered with that, and why should we to that, process requirements are not really derived

Ah, sorry now I understand: it is about the PROCESS metamodel, i.e. the links from e.g. gd_req to workflows. This is not covered by the original issue and we should remove it from this PR. According to SysML 2.0 the relationship between gd_req to wf_ would be rather called "allocated to". We should discuss if we want this PROCESS model change in the process_community and then (if agreed) create a seperate PR.

aschemmel-tech

Should remove the changes on gd_req links and also all other amendments to process description apart from linkages.

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/rename-relations-codebeamer branch from c6b1b9f to b86cf94 Compare March 23, 2026 07:37

masc2023 requested changes Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech changed the title ~~rename relations for Codebeamer compatibility~~ rename relations for SysML compatibility Mar 23, 2026

aschemmel-tech requested changes Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/rename-relations-codebeamer branch from b86cf94 to 4fc7422 Compare March 24, 2026 04:31

RSingh1511 mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2026

docs: Align Relations in Metamodel to SysML #418

Open

5 tasks

RSingh1511 requested a review from rmaddikery March 24, 2026 12:24

aschemmel-tech previously approved these changes Mar 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

RSingh1511 requested a review from masc2023 March 25, 2026 16:20

RSingh1511 marked this pull request as ready for review March 25, 2026 16:20

RSingh1511 requested review from PandaeDo and pahmann as code owners March 25, 2026 16:20

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/rename-relations-codebeamer branch from 4fc7422 to 34fe64b Compare April 7, 2026 11:38

RSingh1511 dismissed aschemmel-tech’s stale review via b4a304a April 7, 2026 16:43

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/rename-relations-codebeamer branch from 34fe64b to b4a304a Compare April 7, 2026 16:43

masc2023 requested changes Apr 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/rename-relations-codebeamer branch from b4a304a to 6140539 Compare April 8, 2026 04:58

rename relations for Codebeamer compatibility

3283cae

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/rename-relations-codebeamer branch from 6140539 to 3283cae Compare April 8, 2026 08:35

RSingh1511 requested review from aschemmel-tech and masc2023 April 9, 2026 09:15

masc2023 requested changes Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech requested changes Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

RSingh1511 commented Mar 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Changes

Uh oh!

masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RSingh1511 commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 commented Mar 23, 2026

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

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!

github-actions bot commented Mar 24, 2026

Uh oh!

RSingh1511 commented Mar 24, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 commented Mar 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Mar 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

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!

masc2023 commented Apr 8, 2026

Uh oh!

RSingh1511 commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

aschemmel-tech commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

masc2023 commented Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

RSingh1511 commented Mar 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

masc2023 commented Mar 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aschemmel-tech commented Mar 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aschemmel-tech Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

masc2023 commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading