Change minCount from 1 to 0 on multiple properties on Investigation object

[eoghanscasey]

This is proposed as a FastTrack change

Background

Most properties in CASE are optional. Setting minCount = 1 is enforced by SHACL makes a property required. This constraint will create problems in use cases in which a property is known to have existed but the value is not available.

Requirements

Requirement 1

Allow adopters to create an object when the existence of an object is known but an associated property is not known.

Risk / Benefit analysis

The proposed change allows adopters to decide which property is needed, except when it is ontologically necessary.

Benefits

Allow adopters to decide which property is needed.

Risks

The submitter is unaware of risks associated with this change.

Competencies demonstrated

Adopter creates an object when the existence of an object is known but an associated property is not known.

Solution suggestion

Change minCount to 0 from 1 on the following Investigation properties:

• authorizationType
• authorizationIdentifier
• authorizationForm

Coordination

• Tracking in Jira ticket ONT-482
• [x] Administrative review completed
• [x] Solutions Approval to be discussed in OC meeting, date 2022-08-16
• [x] Solutions Approval vote occurred, not passing, on 2022-08-16
• [x] Solutions development phase completed.
• [x] Implementation merged into develop
• [x] Milestone linked
• [x] Documentation logged in pending release page

[plbt5]

@eoghanscasey Is it possible that you intended to change investigationForm as opposed to authorizationForm? I cannot find the latter, while the former is present in investigation.ttl. Please clarify; I've already changed the other two.

[eoghanscasey]

@plbt5 Yes, I did mean investigationForm. Thank you for this correction.

[plbt5]

@ajnelson-nist : Running make check throwed an error. Following your comment on rtf-toolkit here, I was able to correct my local UCO clone as well. Thanks for providing that solution.

However, running the (now corrected) make check results in 2 passed, 1 xfailed. Does that imply:

1. that one verification failed, or
2. that one falsification succeeded, i.e., success for all three?

[ajnelson-nist]

@plbt5 : I suppose the extra comment on rdf-toolkit is worth a more careful make clean rule to catch this issue.

xfail is considered a success - it is a test eXpected to Fail in a specific way, via targeted inducement.