uco-core:Bundle should not to be used

[fabrizio-turchi]

• It is better not to use the uco-core:Bundle class to indicate the UCO/CASE version and the general description of the JSON-LD file. New properties will be introduced in next releases. Alternatively a generic ObservableObject with rdf:comments can be used inside the uco-core:object property array:
• Example:

  
  {
  "@id": "kb:cbd39ad4-ab25-452d-b03e-10364c7fd40e",
  "@type": "uco-observable:ObservableObject",
  "rdfs:comment": "name: D.F. Expert",
  "rdfs:comment": "version: CASE 1.0.0",
  "rdfs:comment": "description: Device example complied with UCO/CASE 1.0.0"
  }

[ajnelson-nist]

(Note I do use JSON and JSON-LD distinctly below.)

The current usage of Bundle is as the root JSON object, which ends up housing the JSON-LD context dictionary.

In CASE example graphs, the root JSON object instead houses a "graph" JSON-LD structure - keys @graph and @context.

Bundle currently gives a way to list all of the involved objects being conveyed in a transit bundle, and this still has semantic relevance worth preserving. But it makes storing non-UcoObjects (e.g. types:Hash) in the graph awkward because there is a need to track whether the object has been inlined somewhere already.

If Bundle is to be removed from its current role, I think a "Graph" class (not ontological---a JSON-LD structural maintenance item) should be added to base.py, and some method added to handle adding any UcoThing to it.