SYSML17 — Suggest primary/replica as alternative to master/slave terminology for Copy relationship

Suggest primary/replica as alternative to master/slave terminology for Copy relationship.

The term 'slave' appears on p.181:

The use of namespace containment to specify requirements hierarchies precludes reusing requirements in different contexts since a given model element can only exist in one namespace. Since the concept of requirements reuse is very important in many applications, SysML introduces the concept of a slave requirement. A slave requirement is a requirement whose text property is a read-only copy of the text property of a master requirement. The text property of the slave requirement is constrained to be the same as the text property of the related master requirement. The master/slave relationship is indicated by the use of the copy relationship.

And p.188:

getMaster () : AbstractRequirement [0..*]
bodyCondition: Copy.allInstances()->select(base_Abstraction.client=self).base_Abstraction.supplier

p.189

A Copy dependency created between two requirements maintains a master/slave relationship between the two elements for the purpose of requirements re-use in different contexts.

The change would also require changing all references to '/master' to '/primary'.

In 2014 Drupal CMS adopted the term primary/replica.

The terminology master/slave has recently been removed from the Python language.

There are some other options recently adopted by technology companies, but they do not play as nicely with the Copy relationship as 'primary/replica'.