I saw some manifest in Autosar which class name append with the word Design.
For example:
SoftwareClusterDesign
This meta-class represents the ability for the OEM to design the grouping of software uploadable to a specific target Machine.
vs
SoftwareCluster
This meta-class represents the ability to define an uploadable software-package, i.e. the SoftwareCluster shall contain all software and configuration for a given purpose.
or
ProcessDesign
This meta-class has the ability to stand in for a Process at the time when the Process does not yet exist. But its future existence already needs to be considered during design phase and for that a dedicated model element is required..
vs
Process
This meta-class provides information required to execute the referenced executable.
And Process contains a reference of ProcessDesign and a Executable.
ProcessDesign also contains a Executable. This make me confused that why make the information be duplicated?
Process
├─ ProcessDesign
│ └─ Executable
└─ Executable
What the different between the manifest class with Design and without Design?
I would recommend reading the TPS Manifest specification in addition to studying the comments attached to meta-model elements. Here's an excerpt that may provide clarification:
Just to be sure, the SoftwareClusterDesign is not intended to be uploaded to the target platform. It is just an early form of the final SoftwareCluster that indeed gets uploaded. The existence of the SoftwareClusterDesign is motivated from the methodological point of view.
These classes exist to solve the problem that you have to provide information in early stages, i.e. the design phase, that is needed in the later preparation of an actual manifest document. Please consider that the design model and the manifest creation may be done by different people or different organizations.
The organization the creates the manifest document (e.g. the SoftwareCluster) can then rely on information provided during the design (i.e. in the corresponding SoftwareClusterDesign).