don't use uncommon abbreviations in prop names

[VladimirAlexiev]

(https://github.com/Interoperable-data/ERA-Ontology-3.1.0/issues/57 asks for labels to be pretty short. This is a "converse" issue).

Class and prop names should use only a limited number of well-known abbreviations. To express the semantics more clearly, they should use words (while not being overly long). Eg:

Suggest to change these as follows:

• demonstrationINF -> demonstrationInfrastructureSubsysemCompliance
• demonstrationSRT-> demonstrationTunnelCompliance
• demonstrationENE -> demonstrationEnergySubsysemCompliance

There are also a number of props that haven't been deciphered from their relational source names (converting a name to conform to the naming convention, eg dNvovtrp, is not enough). These should be renamed to something more meaningful, eg see first line:

• D_NVOVTRP -> maximumDistanceForOverridingTrip
• D_NVPOTRP
• D_NVROLL
• M_NVCONTACT
• Q_NVEMRRLS
• Q_NVDRIVER_ADHES
• Q_NVSBTSMPERM
• T_NVCONTACT
• T_NVOVTRP

Or let's take this example (closely related to https://github.com/Interoperable-data/ERA-Ontology-3.1.0/issues/62):

era:etcsMVersion rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ,
                 rdfs:range <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> ;
                 era:inSkosConceptScheme <http://data.europa.eu/949/concepts/etcs-m-versions/ETCSMVersions> ;
                 era:XMLName "CPE_MVersion" ;
                 dcterms:requires "Only applicable when selected value for 1.1.1.3.2.1 (ETCS present)."@en ;
                 rdfs:comment "ETCS M_version according to SRS 7.5.1.9."@en ;
                 rdfs:seeAlso <https://www.era.europa.eu/domains/technical-specifications-interoperability/control-command-and-signalling-tsi_en#oe-content-paragraph-1632> ;

It's impossible to figure out what is "M":

• https://data-interop.era.europa.eu/era-vocabulary/skos/era-skos-ETCSMVersions.ttl provides no explanation, since it merely collects the values 1.0, 1.1 etc
• "selected value for 1.1.1.3.2.1 (ETCS present)" is an applicability condition and doesn't explain what is M
• "SRS 7.5.1.9" is probably a reference to some specification that's probably part of some contract, but not public
• "CPE_MVersion" is part of an XML scheme but is also not public.

[Interoperable-data]

Dear @VladimirAlexiev , sometimes acronyms are understood by the railway experts. Many references to the documentations are all public available in the legislative text (as provided by the property dcterms:source or rdfs:seeAlso. We will try to make a balance regarding this suggestion, but we do not guarantee to fully implement this suggestion.

[VladimirAlexiev]

I agree with you! eg ETCS is very commonly used and it would be onerous to spell it in full. But please consider my other examples