`observable:AlternateDataStream` is not a subclass of `FileSystemObject`, but `File` and `ReparsePoint` are

[ajnelson-nist]

Bug description

These lines in UCO 1.3.0 designate AlternateDataStream as a "top-level" class under ObservableObject. However, the rdfs:comment definition scopes the concept to being specific to NTFS files (and hence NTFS file systems).

It seems AlternateDataStream should be moved under observable:FileSystemObject.

Steps to reproduce

See disparity between AlternateDataStream and, e.g., ReparsePoint, another NTFS-specific file system object.

Coordination

• Tracking in Jira ticket OCUCO-316
• [x] Administrative review completed, proposal announced to Ontology Committees (OCs) on 2024-02-08
• [x] Requirements development phase skipped - proposal fast-tracked.
• [x] Solution form to be discussed in OC meeting, 2024-02-15
• [x] Solution announced to OCs on 2024-05-10
• [x] Solutions Approval to be discussed in OC meeting, 2024-05-30
• [x] Solutions Approval vote occurred, passing, on 2024-05-30
• [x] Solutions development phase completed.
• [x] Backwards-compatible implementation merged into develop for the next release
• [x] develop state with backwards-compatible implementation merged into develop-2.0.0
• [x] Backwards-incompatible implementation merged into develop-2.0.0
• [x] Milestone linked
• [x] Documentation logged in pending release page
• [x] Prerelease publication: CASE develop branch updated to track UCO's updated develop branch
• [x] Prerelease publication: CASE develop-2.0.0 branch updated to track UCO's updated develop-2.0.0 branch

[ajnelson-nist]

I think the right thing to do here is:

• In UCO 2.0.0, change the superclass.
• In UCO 1.4.0, issue a SHACL warning if an AlternateDataStream object is not multi-typed as a FileSystemObject (i.e., a "soft" notice that the class hierarchy is changing in UCO 2.0.0).

[sbarnum]

I concur with this proposal and the suggested approach for 2.0.0 and 1.4.0 in the above comment.

[ajnelson-nist]

I intend to handle this as a fast-track proposal. The ultimate change for UCO 2.0.0 is a 1-liner in the ontology, but we haven't held any votes yet on the "pre-2.0.0 soft warning" style of subclass hierarchy rearrangement that I've put into PR #604 .

[ajnelson-nist]

Noting for the sake of review: I tested (for another proposal) whether the documentation build system would render the anonymous shape on the generated class page, when linked by rdfs:seeAlso. It does.

[ajnelson-nist]

Noting for today's vote:

Unit tests have been updated, and CI passes, on both attached Pull Requests.

The PRs have not yet run through the review checklist that has often been done before holding a Solutions Approval vote.

The review checklists are in place to catch when there would be effects on any of the examples posted across CASE's example repositories. At the moment, per this data-driven list of ontology concepts used in CASE's examples, there are no instances of uco-observable:AlternateDataStream. So, the review checklist is unlikely to raise any issues.