sebbader-sap

@alexgordtop assigning it to you already as you agreed in one of the api meetings to create such an example. Bad luck :-)

The original pattern from the constraint has the same problems with OpenAPI-based validators, as they usually translate the YAML into JSON Schema --> then using the same JSON Schema Validation...

@BirgitBoss I think we need a formal decision for all parts. Either way, the Part 2 Domain must go the same way as the Part 1 Domain & the schemas.

> Maybe we should change the Constraint [AASd-130](https://aas-core-works.github.io/aas-core-meta/v3/NonEmptyXmlSerializableString.html#constraint-AASd-130) in the following way: Update from the latest state of Part 1 V3.1.0: Description for AASd-130 is already extended: https://github.com/admin-shell-io/aas-specs/blob/c9d6c3beb85ee13680ac543f602fc1e96fc57f9c/documentation/IDTA-01001/modules/ROOT/pages/Spec/IDTA-01001_Metamodel_Constraints.adoc?plain=1#L73

Proposal from a meeting of us (@mristin, @g1zzm0, and myself): 1. AASd-130 shall be described using `^[\x09\x0A\x0D\x20-\uD7FF\uE000-\uFFFD\u00010000-\u0010FFFF]*$` --> no further change needed. 2. This pattern is mapped to `^([\\t\\n\\r -\ud7ff\ue000-\ufffd]|\\ud800[\\udc00-\\udfff]|[\\ud801-\\udbfe][\\udc00-\\udfff]|\\udbff[\\udc00-\\udfff])*$`...

Side-effect: Depending on the implementation technology, developers must replace the pattern with the technology-matching regex variant of this pattern. Example: `^([\\t\\n\\r -\ud7ff\ue000-\ufffd]|\\ud800[\\udc00-\\udfff]|[\\ud801-\\udbfe][\\udc00-\\udfff]|\\udbff[\\udc00-\\udfff])*$` is the pattern in the official JSON schema....

But independent of the engine, having for some unicode characters one backslash (e.g. "\ud7ff") but for the others two (e.g. "\\\\ud800") _in the same pattern_ seems pretty strange.

> @sebbader-sap @BirgitBoss should we move the JSON-LD here? Generally, it does make sense to put the context file also into the RDF schema folder. I can also create a...

> Where is the "WG Ontologies" and their improvement proposals? It's an IDTA-internal group, I don't think that there is a public space. Is Ontotext an IDTA member? If so,...

Finding from the discussion: The class SubmodelValue is wrong, has no justification, and will be removed. All references pointing to SubmodelValue will point to the ValueOnly class.