owl:Datatype mistakenly used when rdfs:Datatype is intended

[ajnelson-nist]

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 concept owl: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:

@prefix ex: <http://example.org/> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

ex:ClassDatatype-1
    a
        owl:Class ,
        rdfs:Datatype
        ;
    .

owl.ttl currently (UCO 1.3.0) considers that conformant.

Coordination

• Tracking in Jira ticket OC-314
• Administrative review completed, proposal announced to Ontology Committees (OCs) on 2024-02-01
• Solution announced to OCs on 2024-02-01
• Solutions development phase completed.
• Backwards-compatible implementation merged into develop for the next release
• develop state with backwards-compatible implementation merged into develop-2.0.0
• Backwards-incompatible implementation merged into develop-2.0.0 (N/A)
• Milestone linked
• Documentation logged in pending release page
• Prerelease publication: CASE develop branch updated to track UCO's updated develop branch
• Prerelease publication: CASE develop-2.0.0 branch updated to track UCO's updated develop-2.0.0 branch

[ajnelson-nist]

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.

[ajnelson-nist]

No issues arose in testing. This Issue is proceeding as a bugfix proposal, with no committee action requested.