[BUG] BNF, example mismtach (in progess version)

[Martin187187]

Describe the bug
FILTER FRAGMENT field mismatch in examples and BNF (in progress version)

Where

• https://industrialdigitaltwin.io/aas-specifications/IDTA-01004/v3.1/annex/json-access-rule-examples.html#_example_with_filter_statement FILTER FRAGMENT uses $aasdesc
• https://industrialdigitaltwin.io/aas-specifications/IDTA-01004/v3.1/access-rule-model.html#explanation-access-rule-model BNF only allows FragmentObject, which only allows $sme

Screenshots
Example:

BNF:

[Martin187187]

FragmentObject in the Query Language Specification looks correct:
https://industrialdigitaltwin.io/aas-specifications/IDTA-01002/v3.2/query-language.html#query-grammar

In contrast to the Security Specification:
https://industrialdigitaltwin.io/aas-specifications/IDTA-01004/v3.1/access-rule-model.html#explanation-access-rule-model

[aorzelskiGH]

The grammar in the security specification is the latest one: https://industrialdigitaltwin.io/aas-specifications/IDTA-01004/v3.1/access-rule-model.html#_grammar_for_access_rule_model
It includes the more detailed definitions and not just string. These changes must be taken over to the API grammar.

It was overseen, that FRAGMENT is also used in case of descriptors.
Is FRAGMENT really needed here and may deleting it in the access rule be an easy possible solution?
( "FILTER:" ( | ) )?

[Martin187187]

If deleting FragmentObject in FILTER works for $aasdesc and the other FieldIdentifiers, that would be fine. Alternatively, instead of using FragmentObject, we could use FieldIdentifierString or parts of it.