FMI type definitions in SSP

[DagBruck]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

• FMI has type definitions.
• SSP does not have type definitions.
• This means you cannot create a system connector with the same type as an FMU element's connector (if the FMU uses a type definition).

That seems like a hole in the definition. But I'm not sure it is essential to fill it.

[pmai]

F2F WS 2025-12-10: As type definitions are not inherently shareable between FMUs, they only ever serve a very limit purpose in terms of FMUs - mostly they may result in shortening the model description by reusing attribute values in a short-hand fashion, but rarely serve a coordinating purpose that one might want to see. Given that, if SSP is to grow better support for e.g. top-down architecting and reuse of interface definitions, it will likely rather be based on e.g .reusable terminal definitions or something along these lines. There is very limited benefit in mirroring the FMI type concept in SSP, so currently no real interest in doing so.