[QUESTION] What is a cannonical way to model SMC reuse within the scope of a SMT?

[empwilli]

Consider the case where a Submodel Template (SMT) contains a SubmodelElementCollection (SMC). The SMC should be used in several different parts of the SMT, for example "Section" in TechnicalData 2.0. What is the cannonical way to model the SMT?

Assuming that all definitions of the SMC have the same semantic id, I see three options:

1. Always specifying the full SMC including all its sub elements.
2. Specifying the SMC with its sub elements once, eliding the sub elements for all subsequent definitions. (This is done for TechnicalData 2.0, for example)
3. Specifying the SMC with dropin definition supplemental semantic id, and all subsequent definitions without sub elements but with dropin use supplemental semantic id.

Option 1 has the downside that it is error-prone, implementers must take care that the SMC definitions don't conflict (in content). Options 2 and 3 are similar, whereas option 3 makes the intend more explicit.

[StenGruener]

I believe it is 1)/2). AAS itself is just a "transport container", so all the "implementers take care parts" should be outsourced to tools/SDK? I'd always urge (but its my private opinion) to make AAS as comfortable as possible to consume.

[SAidta]

Discussion on 17.11.2025 in WS BMP: drop-in concept is only used across SMT. Within one SMT the specification of the full SME will be the safest. Reuse is also possible if idShort and semanticID is really the same structure