Realigning with EVR vocabulary as in ERA 5.0.0

[Certiman]

• There was a </p> without <p>
• The correct Permission for C2T in EVA is the VehicleAuthorisation, not the VehicleTypeAuthorisation. Examples we re updated.

[Certiman]

I propose to move the EVA and EVR related classes to the ERA Vocabulary itself:

• they are legally speaking ERA resources and their properties are within that vocabulary.
• when keeping them here, the VP ontology is artificially "contaminated" with ERA process data concepts

[Certiman]

Example to support the moving of ERA classes

The EVR regulation requires a :VehicleRegistration to have: (era:evrIndex)

• (2.1) era:inCountry
• (3.1) a resulting areaOfUse, which must be the combined era:areaOfUse of all the underlying era:AuthorisationCases. These must therefore be linked to the VehicleRegistration as well.
• (5.3) the link with the above mentioned era:AuthorisationCase contains also exactly one vehicle type, which is the 'ERATV reference' of the Vehicle registration.
• (4.1) era:additionalConditionsApplicableVehicle (already prepared by UPM)

We can have instances of era:Vehicle link to this registration data. The Vehicle instances themselves must have:

• (5.1) era:manufacturingSerialNumber
• (5.2) era:manufacturingYear.

Other properties of VehicleRegistration are as well strongly linked to the ERA Vocabulary, hence the proposition to place them all there (in version 5.0.0 and 5.1.0 of the ERA Vocabulary).

[gatemezing]

Dear @Certiman, can we have a workshop to update the ontology and Widoco? next week?