Investigate method for negative ID vs Positive ID

[Chris-Turner-NIST]

User Story:

How can we handle identifying that something is NOT an impact within the scenario?

Ex:
Scenario 1 is crash and NOT Read or Write
Scenario 2 is Read but NOT crash

Being able to clearly assert something is not an impact for the scenario is valuable syntax that participants may want to leverage for clarity's sake.

This can be done through sibling relationships (where appropriate).
Ex: hasLogicalImpact//lackLogicalImpact

Goals:

Identify clean and scalable way to establish a negative relationship within the model.
Supporting this would force a few other rules to need making.

• What is asserted is known vs what is not asserted is unknown.
• Certain Objects would need additional rules around them to enforce whether or not a positive assertion vs a negative assertion is mandatory.

Dependencies:

N/A

Acceptance Criteria

• All readme documentation affected by the changes in this issue have been updated.
• A Pull Request (PR) is submitted that addresses the goals of this User Story. This issue is referenced in the PR. If the PR only partially addresses a given User Story, the specific goals addressed are identified in the PR.
• All current graphs, visuals and figures are updated to reflect changes to objects, properties and relationships.

[Chris-Turner-NIST]

After discussion of a carnality problem encountered with having as a property of the impacts, it was determined that a more effective location for this would be to have a second relationship between Action and Impact instead.

resultsIn // doesNotResultIn

This accomplishes the same goal with a cleaner approach due to relationship cardinality