Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Detailed Comparision of Elements with SensIDL

This table compares / matches vorto meta model entities with entities of the sensIDL meta model:

VORTO SensIDL comments
FunctionBlock SensorInterface Container to handle the sensor description
Configuration not yet cover in SensIDL addressed in a later version
Status  ? Semantical difference to Event?
Event SensorDataDescription + DataSet Describes Data sent by the sensor
Operation not yet covered in SensIDL addressed in a later version
Fault  ? semantical difference to Event? Just a special kind of Event?
Property <--MeasurementData) Separation in Data and MetaInformation in Vorto not covered, SensIDL additionally includes a reference to units, which are not covered by VORTO on the meta-model level.
PropertyType -
ObjectPropertyType DataSet as subDataSet Include Vorto Elements Type, Entity and Enum
PrimitivePropertyType Enum in Data
Presence not yet covered mandatory/optional is planned to be covered in a next version
EnumLiteral not available Fixed Datatype enums, required to prevent dependencies between SensIDL instance and generators. Generators should depend only on the SensIDL meta-model
Constraint DataRange SensIDL only allows to define upper and lower bound
Operation (+ Param, RefParam, PrimitiveParam, ReturnType, ReturnObjectType, ReturnPrimitiveType) not yet covered is there a reason for not reusing the Property and related elements?
- LinearDataConversion, LineraDataConversionWithInterval automatic adjustments for data transfer e.g. mapping a byte 0..255 to the value range of 0..1 is not in the focus of VORTO
- EncodingSettings not covered in Vorto, since data transfer is not in the focus of VORTO

Back to the top