Closed ajnelson-nist closed 2 months ago
It is possible to spell the affected shapes and similar shapes using other SHACL constructs aside from SPARQL, which would enable Issue 488's testing to catch this kind of error. But, I intend to handle that with a proposal requiring at least one committee vote. If there's a nontrivial testing impact from this bugfix proposal, this issue might morph to become that syntax change proposal too.
No issues arose in testing. This Issue is proceeding as a bugfix proposal, with no committee action requested.
Bug description
OWL does not have a concept
owl:Datatype
, but it appears in one of the SHACL reviewing shapes of OWL syntax. (OWL does have a conceptowl:DatatypeProperty
, which may have contributed to masking this oversight.)https://github.com/ucoProject/UCO/blob/1.3.0/ontology/owl/owl.ttl#L147-L162
This was not caught by the "upstream" design-vocabulary tests (IRI typo checkers for RDF, RDFS, and OWL) in Issue 488 because the concept reference occurred in a SPARQL query, which is not reviewed by the concept typo-checking function.
This is a straightforward fix, and will be handled with the bug-fix workflow, not requiring a committee vote. The fix will still receive testing through the CASE example repositories.
Steps to reproduce
This should be flagged as an error:
owl.ttl
currently (UCO 1.3.0) considers that conformant.Coordination
develop
for the next releasedevelop
state with backwards-compatible implementation merged intodevelop-2.0.0
develop-2.0.0
(N/A)develop
branch updated to track UCO's updateddevelop
branchdevelop-2.0.0
branch updated to track UCO's updateddevelop-2.0.0
branch