Add simulation connections

[schwarzatoffis]

Description of the issue

To describe a simulation scenario, the connections between different simulation components have to be defined.

Ideas of solution

Simulation Connection Port: A simulation connection port is a quality of a simulation component that describes a utilized data in- or output interface in a given simulation scenario.

To describe the data flows between the simulation components in a scenario, we propose the term simulation connection: A Connection is a relational quality that describes how information is exchanged between simulation connection ports within a simulation. (Axioms: between input and output, min 1 input port, min 1 output or min 1 message modification)

Message Modification: A message modification is a function that transforms an message attribute in another type of message attribute.

Message Schema: A message schema is a data format specification that describes the content of messages.

Message Attribute: A message attribute is a data format specification that describes the content of a data item within a messages.

The discussion is visualized in the conceptboard (password NFDI4Energy#).

Screenshot of conceptboard:

Workflow checklist

• I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[schwarzatoffis]

Discussion in oeo dev meeting 109:

• simulation connection port
  • rename to interface instead of port? (think about software interface (software interface should be restructured #2134))
  • not really a "quality", revisit this definition (should be some generically dependant continuant)
• On compatibility: (Plugs, sockets, connectors and compatibility CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies#236)
  "At first, Relational Quality seems like a good place for compatibility, but it seems like a very generic term that could either be narrowed or include new subclasses. Since one of the examples of relational quality is compatibility, it might be often mistaken for compatibility of personality. Perhaps 'Mechanical Compatibility' would be better. The other option is to say that there is a measurement, and that compatibility holds between two connectors which have been measured to be complimentary, though this starts to really get in the weeds, and one may have to start listing a large number of common connector types and which other types they are compatible with... which feeds into my opinion that the full representation of this idea should be in a domain extension (but I am open to other opinions)."
• For message modification a software / adapter is needed and should be modeled as action specification, which contains the message modification functions.