Add a property to quality attributes to indicate if it is a NFR or FR, by default I suggest treating them as NFR (this is not backwards compatible but IMO it makes more sense)

[Rezenders]

Add a property to quality attributes to indicate if it is a NFR or FR, by default I suggest treating them as NFR (this is not backwards compatible but IMO it makes more sense)
Related to: meta-control/mc_mros_reasoner#141

[Rezenders]

Done at e39a043

[Rezenders]

This change is not necessary. I reverted it.
598f746

[Rezenders]

I am re-opening this issue.
This was reverted before because in the current version of TOMASys/Metacontrol we need to write a SWRL rule for each QA type we use. And when writing the rules we need to either set the objective status to be IN_ERROR_FR or IN_ERROR_NFR (see meta-control/mc_mros_reasoner#141), thus this was unnecessary.

I suggest adding a qa_critical property to QualittyAttributeType to indicate whether it is a functional (critical) or non-functional QA.

With this we have the possibility to have more general rules.

Related to #9, and meta-control/mc_mros_reasoner#141.

Example:

tomasys:Objective(?o) ^ tomasys:QAvalue(?nfr) ^ tomasys:QAvalue(?qa) ^ tomasys:hasNFR(?o, ?nfr) ^ tomasys:FunctionGrounding(?fg) ^ tomasys:solvesO(?fg, ?o) ^ tomasys:hasQAvalue(?fg, ?qa) ^ tomasys:isQAtype(?qa, mros:safety) ^ tomasys:isQAtype(?nfr, mros:safety) ^ tomasys:hasValue(?nfr, ?nfrv) ^ tomasys:hasValue(?qa, ?qav) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?qav, ?nfrv) -> tomasys:o_status(?o, "IN_ERROR_FR")

[Rezenders]

I think we can change the status names IN_ERROR_FR and IN_ERROR_NFR to IN_ERROR, and add an extra rule that check the qa_critical property and decide to add it to fd_error_log or not

[Rezenders]

Done at: 7eba2b2
I added the qa_critical property, with a Boolean range.

[Rezenders]

FYI @chcorbato

[chcorbato]

This needs to be analyzed in detail considering engineering practices and terminology, and analyzed from a modeling perspective in your KB papers 😊