[Industry Core KIT] doc: added new unique id push notification illustration

[johannsvarela]

Description

Enhancement of the existing documentation for the unique id push notifications with a new illustration to describe the functionality of the notifications in a visual way. For detailed information have a look at the changelog.

Pre-review checks

Please ensure to do as many of the following checks as possible, before asking for committer review:

• DEPENDENCIES are up-to-date. Dash license tool. Committers can open IP issues for restricted libs.
• Copyright and license header are present on all affected files

[eckardg]

Thanks!

[stephanbcbauer]

@johannsvarela THX for this contribution ⇾ one question related to the picture. Is this just an exported SVG? Or could it also directly be adapted? Question ⇾ where are the sources, if someone from the open-source community want to adapt the picture.

[tom-rm-meyer-ISST]

As @stephanbcbauer mentioned,

• please provide the "raw" file like the drawio
• please add a dedicated license file for the svg and raw file (TRG 7.08) -> same location and same name and append .license (content as mentioned in the trg with your companies that created the image OR just the contributors to the ef)

Sidequestion to the image: Does it make sense to state the direction in terms of the bom (bom, usage) as we're trying to build / update that semantic model?

[eckardg]

@tom-rm-meyer-ISST: Question to your sidequestion: do you want to add an information where the singlelevelbom (=at customer) and where the singlelevelusage (=at supplier) is maintained? Or do you have something else in mind?

[johannsvarela]

Sidequestion to the image: Does it make sense to state the direction in terms of the bom (bom, usage) as we're trying to build / update that semantic model?

@stephanbcbauer @tom-rm-meyer-ISST unlike png files, this svg file of the image can be inserted and adapted directly into tools such as drwa.io. I would therefore not add an additional raw file.

If you still insist, I'm happy to add that, but this file would never be used in KIT, but would only remain in the asset folder as an additional file.

[johannsvarela]

As @stephanbcbauer mentioned,

• please provide the "raw" file like the drawio
• please add a dedicated license file for the svg and raw file (TRG 7.08) -> same location and same name and append .license (content as mentioned in the trg with your companies that created the image OR just the contributors to the ef)

Sidequestion to the image: Does it make sense to state the direction in terms of the bom (bom, usage) as we're trying to build / update that semantic model?

@tom-rm-meyer-ISST i'm not sure if i get your point of your sidequest? 😅

[stephanbcbauer]

Sidequestion to the image: Does it make sense to state the direction in terms of the bom (bom, usage) as we're trying to build / update that semantic model?

@stephanbcbauer @tom-rm-meyer-ISST unlike png files, this svg file of the image can be inserted and adapted directly into tools such as drwa.io. I would therefore not add an additional raw file.

If you still insist, I'm happy to add that, but this file would never be used in KIT, but would only remain in the asset folder as an additional file.

Ah cool, sorry didnt test it if it is possible to open in draw.io -> it works (my concern was, not all SVG are editable in drawio

and its also mentioned in the svg file

<!-- Do not edit this file with editors other than draw.io -->

thx for adding the license file

[tom-rm-meyer-ISST]

As @stephanbcbauer mentioned,

• please provide the "raw" file like the drawio
• please add a dedicated license file for the svg and raw file (TRG 7.08) -> same location and same name and append .license (content as mentioned in the trg with your companies that created the image OR just the contributors to the ef)

Sidequestion to the image: Does it make sense to state the direction in terms of the bom (bom, usage) as we're trying to build / update that semantic model?

@tom-rm-meyer-ISST i'm not sure if i get your point of your sidequest? 😅

@johannsvarela & @eckardg: my sidequestion was partially stupid as the information is partially available (after downloading the svg I can zoom :D ). When I recently read the IC KIT and this feature, I tried to think "OK which Connect-to-X do I need to for the bom and which for the usage direction?". For the usage you already state it in the middle of Connect-to-Child. To be more consistent I propose to update the upper middle text to something like "New DT has been created for a part and is available. The customer can update the singleLevelBillOfMaterial." (Note: I made it here an active tense sentence as they are easier to read concerning the "who does what" - you can also go for current passive tense as the actor is clear :) )

For me personaly I would also think about highlighting the model names (e.g. make them bold).

Nevertheless, I added one comment regarding the license year (might be even wrong). Just ping me for the approval afterwards (I'll be available till monday mid of the day).

[johannsvarela]

As @stephanbcbauer mentioned,

• please provide the "raw" file like the drawio
• please add a dedicated license file for the svg and raw file (TRG 7.08) -> same location and same name and append .license (content as mentioned in the trg with your companies that created the image OR just the contributors to the ef)

Sidequestion to the image: Does it make sense to state the direction in terms of the bom (bom, usage) as we're trying to build / update that semantic model?

@tom-rm-meyer-ISST i'm not sure if i get your point of your sidequest? 😅

@johannsvarela & @eckardg: my sidequestion was partially stupid as the information is partially available (after downloading the svg I can zoom :D ). When I recently read the IC KIT and this feature, I tried to think "OK which Connect-to-X do I need to for the bom and which for the usage direction?". For the usage you already state it in the middle of Connect-to-Child. To be more consistent I propose to update the upper middle text to something like "New DT has been created for a part and is available. The customer can update the singleLevelBillOfMaterial." (Note: I made it here an active tense sentence as they are easier to read concerning the "who does what" - you can also go for current passive tense as the actor is clear :) )

For me personaly I would also think about highlighting the model names (e.g. make them bold).

Nevertheless, I added one comment regarding the license year (might be even wrong). Just ping me for the approval afterwards (I'll be available till monday mid of the day).

@tom-rm-meyer-ISST done as suggested! 😄

[tom-rm-meyer-ISST]

LGTM! Let me know, if I should trigger the merge :)

[stephanbcbauer]

LGTM, thx

[eckardg]

LGTM