Allow extensive functions to be used in transition condition symbol

[CocoDico78]

IEC63131 states that, when defining a SFC transition condition symbol, we can either follow the basic format [Tag.no][Terminal][Comparator][Value] or "Use Note to describe extensive function"

However, the provided Norsok AML 0.0.9 library doesn't provide such a "Note" field in the SequenceElementLibrary/StandardSequenceElementClass/Condition class. Or are we supposed to actually use a Note object (DocumentElementClassLibrary/Note) linked to the Condition?

[alexandrevandamme]

Are we allowed to discuss/share information with the AutomationML team in Magdeburg?

[ipi-equinor]

The commitee do not agree on the development of this topic. And we see the weaknes in the example and unprice text in the standard. We will take this issue into the upcoming revison work of IEC63131. The commitee think that all logic should be identified as Elementary elements.

PS. It is Okay to discuss the IEC 63131 with anyone and use it basis for any further developement. We hope that any experiences will be shared back. But the the standard shall be credited as source.

[cdenisey]

AML Library version 0.0.10 allows for format [Tag.no][Terminal][Comparator][Value] to be used but not notes (because notes are not machine readable).
[Comparator] are understood to be >,<, =, <>, >=, <= which give binary result to be used in the Transition block.