Comments for O3_OSTA Operational State

[parkaneric]

The discussion addresses the proposal for an Operational State VP:
[devdoc/Operational Domain/Operational State Viewpoint.md](../blob/main/src/devdoc/Operational Domain/Operational State Viewpoint.md)

1. I suggest to choose the VP name "O3_OSTA" as it refers to the operational domain. In the moment the proposal is "O3_SSTA" which is a typo or copy-paste mistake I guess?
2. OPresultingInOSE could be implemented as Transition Effect?
3. OPprovidedInOSE could be implemented as Entry, Execution or Exit Behaviour of an operational state?

[haarer]

1-> Will be changed, was copy and paste error
2 and 3 ->
We're going to change the wording and implementation to a concept similar to the System Use Case, the wording is pre and post condition and the implementation will be tagged values of the stereotype SAF_OperationalProcess.
The stereotype SAF_SystemState and the Conceptuel Model will be changed accordingly.

[parkaneric]

After reviewing https://saf.gfse.org/version/testing/devdoc/Functional%20Domain/System%20State%20Viewpoint.html I am wondering if the concept element System Function is suitable as proposed to define pre and post states. As SAF propagates System Processes which are decomposed to System Functions, they (System Processes) should have pre and post states in the first place? The System Processes again are dictating the states for the needed System Functions?

[haarer]

After discussion, we decided that both should have pre and post states.