Metamodel link renames

[aschemmel-tech]

Relates: #418

[github-actions]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@aschemmel-tech , ready to review and merge?

[aschemmel-tech]

@aschemmel-tech , ready to review and merge?

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

[masc2023]

Please consider #646

[masc2023]

Please consider #646