revise `role` vs `hasOrganisationRole`

[VladimirAlexiev]

This pattern is unclear to me:

era:hasOrganisationRole rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
                        rdfs:domain era:OrganisationRole ;
                        rdfs:range <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> ;
                        rdfs:comment "The role of the body"@en ;
                        rdfs:label "has organisation role"@en .
era:role rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
         rdfs:domain era:Body ;
         rdfs:range era:OrganisationRole ;
         rdfs:label "role"@en .

• the comment "The role of the body" is wrong because the domain is not Body
• The prop name era:hasOrganisationRole is wrong because it should be incoming to OrganisationRole not outgoing from it
• Is OrganisationRole supposed to be specific to a Body, eg would it have time validity information?
  • If so, document it and add these extra props to OrganisationRole
  • If not, then isn't it enough to have an OrganisationRole ConceptScheme (rather than class) and keep only one of these 2 props?

Note: none of these props and class have any instances on https://virtuoso.ecdp.tech.ec.europa.eu/sparql/ yet.

[gatemezing]

Thanks @VladimirAlexiev ! We'll check those suggestions. At the moment, the data in the SPARQL is still based on the previous version. Once we have this release "official" after the reviewing period (and thanks again for your input), we'll update the KG accordingly, as well as the mappings and the SHACL rules

[Interoperable-data]

Yes, this is a generic pattern for ORG and will contain time validity information, and more properties, like certificates in some cases.

[VladimirAlexiev]

@Interoperable-data can you summarize what you did? Paste the turtle blocks relevant to this issue. thanks!!