remove `AP` from `voc, con` file/folder names

[VladimirAlexiev]

@Sveino @griddigit-ci

NC has 3 sets of files:

• vocabulary (ontology), eg https://github.com/Sveino/Inst4CIM-KG/blob/develop/source/CGMES-NC/r2.3/ap-voc/rdf/AssessedElement-AP-Voc-RDFS2020.rdf
• constraints (SHACL), eg https://github.com/Sveino/Inst4CIM-KG/blob/develop/source/CGMES-NC/r2.3/ap-con/ttl/AssessedElement-AP-Con-Complex-SHACL.ttl
• application profiles, eg https://github.com/Sveino/Inst4CIM-KG/blob/develop/source/CGMES-NC/r2.3/ap/rdf/AssessedElement-AP-RDFS2020.rdf

Why all folders and filenames mention AP and not only the last one?

After all, the commit says

Add AP, VOC and CON for NC Profiles release 2.3.1

It doesn't say

Add AP, AP-VOC and AP-CON

I suggest to simplify them like this

• vocabulary (ontology), eg https://github.com/Sveino/Inst4CIM-KG/blob/develop/source/CGMES-NC/r2.3/voc/rdf/AssessedElement-Voc-RDFS2020.rdf
• constraints (SHACL), eg https://github.com/Sveino/Inst4CIM-KG/blob/develop/source/CGMES-NC/r2.3/con/ttl/AssessedElement-Con-Complex-SHACL.ttl

[Sveino]

I generally agree. However, vocabulary (ontology) is not really the vocabulary (yet). It include the subset. We should discuss if we should make it the reusable vocabulary. I want that. For SHACL it is similar problem. We have created it as the constraint of the profile, not as re-usable contains of the vocabulary as we should. My suggestion is that we must address this as part of duplication. If we handle each profile separately we would not have any duplication and no need to split up to reusable vocabulary and constraints. However, do we handle it as one ontology we must do the separation.

[VladimirAlexiev]

We discussed wider-ranging ideas about modularity and reuse:

• voc are reusable ontologies
• con add constraints to restrict vocabularies for particular use cases
• "profiles" (eg EQ) reuse a bunch of vocabularies and constraints, to fully describe a use case or domain