Convention to describe additional device control states
The PPOS devices can be rather controlled "by Hand", "via FESA Property" and "via Timing Event". (I suppose same for all air pressured movable devices)
If the device is moved via Timing Event, it is forbidden to be moved by Hand. (Because that could delay the movement, which is done via Timing). So the "control" item pretty much sounds like the correct place to manage who has currently control over the HW-device.
However, Anne/Ben made clear, that they only would like to see additional enum-option on "control" if they are agreed on generally as part of the FESA Guideline.
So for PPOS we went for an additional Property "SettingMovementMode" which has an enum field "movementMode" with the possible values "TIMING_TRIGGERED" and "DIRECT".
Accoring to Anne/Ben, the same problem exists for the "MotorSlit" class and "PowerSupply" (Don't remember the concrete use-case there)
Link the related PPOS decision: https://git.acc.gsi.de/Cosylab/UnilacUpgradeIssues/issues/27#issuecomment-21902