[MODEL_UPDATE] PCF for CX Rel. 24.08

[SMaierTSI]

Update of the PCF data model in context of CX Rel. 24.08

Description

-->

Closes #717

MS2 Criteria

(to be filled out by PR reviewer)

• the model validates with the SAMM SDS SDK in the version specified in the Readme.md of this repository by the time of the MS2 check (e.g., 'java -jar samm-cli.jar aspect <path-to-aspect-model> validate ). The SAMM CLI is available here and in GitHub
• use Camel-Case (e.g., "MyModelElement" or "TimeDifferenceGmtId", when in doubt follow https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case)
• the identifiers for all model elements start with a capital letter except for properties
• the identifier for properties starts with a small letter
• all model elements at least contain the fields "preferred name" and "description" in English language. The description must be comprehensible. It is not required to write full sentences but style should be consistent over the whole model
• Property and the referenced Characteristic should not have the same name
• the versioning in the URN follows semantic versioning, where minor version bumps are backwards compatible and major version bumps are not backwards compatible.
• use abbreviations only when necessary and if these are sufficiently common
• avoid redundant prefixes in property names (consider adding properties to an enclosing Entity or even adapt the namespace of the model elements, e.g., instead of having two properties DismantlerId and DismantlerName use an Entity Dismantler with the properties name and id or use a URN like io.catenax.dismantler:0.0.1)
• fields preferredName and description are not the same
• preferredName should be human readable and follow normal orthography (e.g., no camel case but normal word separation)
• name of aspect is singular except if it only has one property which is a Collection, List or Set. In theses cases, the aspect name is plural.
• units are referenced from the SAMM unit catalog whenever possible
• use constraints to make known constraints from the use case explicit in the aspect model
• when relying on external standards, they are referenced through a "see" element
• all properties with an simple type have an example value
• metadata.json exists with status "release"
• generated json schema validates against example json payload
• file RELEASE_NOTES.md exists and contains entries for proposed model changes
• all contributors to this model are mentioned in copyright header of model file

MS3 Criteria

(to be filled out by semantic modeling team before merge to main-branch)

• All required reviewers have approved this PR (see reviewers section)
• The new aspect (version) will be implemented by at least one data provider
• The new aspect (version) will be consumed by at least one data consumer
• There exists valid test data
• In case of a new (incompatible) major version to an existing version, a migration strategy has been developed
• The model has at least version '1.0.0'
• If a previous model exists, model deprecation has been checked for previous model
• The release date in the Release Note is set to the date of the MS3 approval

[github-actions]

Validation Report for io.catenax.pcf/7.0.0/Pcf.ttl

Input model is valid

[github-actions]

Validation Report for io.catenax.pcf/7.0.0/Pcf.ttl

Input model is valid

[SMaierTSI]

@agg3fe : the update reflects the latest change requests as aligned with the PCF Use Case team and all relevant stakeholders, please consult the documentation in Confluence for details. Please review

[github-actions]

Validation Report for io.catenax.pcf/7.0.0/Pcf.ttl

Input model is valid

[jSchuetz88]

@agg3fe : the update reflects the latest change requests as aligned with the PCF Use Case team and all relevant stakeholders, please consult the documentation in Confluence for details. Please review

@SMaierTSI Does that mean, the Update complies to the Rulebook v3.0? In that case, maybe the descriptions and links should refer to v3.0 too, instead of v2.0? and also, shouldn't the references refer to the Catena-X Rulebook instead to the WBCSD?

[github-actions]

Validation Report for io.catenax.pcf/7.0.0/Pcf.ttl

Input model is valid

[github-actions]

Validation Report for io.catenax.pcf/7.0.0/Pcf.ttl

Input model is valid

[SMaierTSI]

@agg3fe : the update reflects the latest change requests as aligned with the PCF Use Case team and all relevant stakeholders, please consult the documentation in Confluence for details. Please review

@SMaierTSI Does that mean, the Update complies to the Rulebook v3.0? In that case, maybe the descriptions and links should refer to v3.0 too, instead of v2.0? and also, shouldn't the references refer to the Catena-X Rulebook instead to the WBCSD?

@jSchuetz88 Descriptions have been updated and refer to the PCF-Rulebook V3.0.0 now. Both Catena-X PCF-Rulebook and WBCSD specification are closely aligned, no need to change other references.

[agg3fe]

LGTM

[jSchuetz88]

Thank you for addressing the minor remarks, looks good to me.