Implement Check Phase Ruleset

[EttoreM]

This PR addresses #45

Implemented rules

#	Rule	sh:severity
1	RootDataEntity --> mentions SHOULD reference the CheckValue entity	sh:Warning
2	The CheckValue entity MUST have additionalType with @id of https://w3id.org/shp#CheckValue (i)	sh:Violation
3	CheckValue entity MUST be of type AssessAction	sh: Violation
4	The name of the CheckValue entity MUST provide a human-readable summary of the review and result (ii)	sh:Violation
5	CheckValue --> object SHOULD point to the root of the RO-Crate.	sh:Warning
6	CheckValue --> instrument SHOULD point to an entity typed schema:DefinedTerm	sh:Warning
7	CheckValue entity MAY have startTime property if action began	sh:Info
8	CheckValue --> startTime MUST follows the RFC 3339 standard.	sh:Violation
9	CheckValue entity SHOULD have endTime property if action ended	sh:Warning
10	CheckValue --> endTime MUST follows the RFC 3339 standard.	sh:Violation
11	CheckValue entity SHOULD have actionStatus property	sh:Warning
12	CheckValue --> actionStatus MUST have one of the allowed values	sh:Violation
13	CheckValue --> agent SHOULD reference the agent who initiated the check (iii)	sh:Warning

(i) Rule 2 is not an actual rule, but rather a definition of what constitutess a CheckPhase object. Hence it is not possible to code it, given its axiomatic nature.
(ii) This cannot be entirely done without a manual check. Here we only check that the name property of the Check Phase object is a string of at least 20 characters.
(iii) All we are enforcing / testing here is that checkValue has a property agent which points to an IRI.

---

Rules not implemented (they need some clarification)

#	Rule	sh:severity
1	Submitted crate SHOULD be checked for integrity and completeness against the BagIt payload manifest and tag manifest, considering at least the SHA-512 algorithm.	sh:Warning
2	This phase MAY also check any cryptographic signatures.	sh:Info

[douglowe]

here as well I think we tackle the outstanding rules in another PR

[douglowe]

It's looking good - just a couple of changes to make I think.

[douglowe]

I don't like the requirement for a minimum length for the name string. I think we should only automate checking the existence of such a string, and leave the user to determine if it is human readable or not.

[douglowe]

I don't think we should have this test, as we shouldn't be defining how long the name string should be.

[douglowe]

This test is ambiguous, as we are not explicitly setting the data type here. Can we set the type of this object as well as providing a non-string value?

Alternatively, we replace it with a test which just checks for the existence of a name object.

[EttoreM]

Replaced 123 with "123"^^xsd:integer.

[douglowe]

I think we should point to an rocrate:RootDataEntity here, rather than checking for an object that has a <./> value. Just in case the definition of the root data entity changes later.

See this code for how I did this for the Sign-Off phase:

rocrate-validator/rocrate_validator/profiles/five-safes-crate/should/4_sign_off.ttl

Lines 107 to 125 in a7c7165

	sh:sparql [
	a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
	sh:description "Check if the Sign Off phase lists the workflow as an object" ;
	sh:select """
	PREFIX schema: <http://schema.org/>
	PREFIX rocrate: <https://github.com/crs4/rocrate-validator/profiles/ro-crate/>
	SELECT $this
	WHERE {
	?root a schema:Dataset ;
	schema:mainEntity ?mainEntity ;
	rdf:type rocrate:RootDataEntity .
	FILTER NOT EXISTS {
	$this schema:object ?mainEntity .
	}
	}
	""" ;
	sh:severity sh:Warning ;
	sh:message "The Sign-Off Phase SHOULD list the workflow (mainEntity) as an object" ;
	];