Rename ToolConfigurationFacet from ToolConfigurationTypeFacet in Update tool.ttl (v2)

[ajnelson-nist]

(Chair note: This Pull Request supersedes PR 452, which had branching issues that could not be resolved through the Github interface.)

This pull request relates to Issue #451, and the updating of the turtle file tool.ttl

Renaming of old Facet ToolConfigurationTypeFacet to ToolConfigurationFacet, which required changes to four (4) lines to within the turtle file tool.ttl.

The changes made are:

1. Remove the text "Type" from the facet "ToolConfigurationTypeFacet", so that it becomes "ToolConfigurationFacet" (changes on lines 359, 365, 379), and
2. Update the comment by replacing "A tool configuration type facet...." with "A tool configuration facet...." (line 366).

The change is expected to be low risk

Coordination

• Pull Request is against correct branch
• Pull Request is in, or reverted to, Draft status before Solutions Approval vote has passed.
• CI passes in UCO feature branch
• CI passes in UCO current unstable branch (merge-commit)
• CI passes in CASE current unstable branch tracking UCO's unstable as submodule (merge-commit)
• Impact on SHACL validation reviewed for CASE-Examples
• Impact on SHACL validation remediated for CASE-Examples
• Impact on SHACL validation reviewed for casework.github.io
• Impact on SHACL validation remediated for casework.github.io
• Milestone linked
• Solutions Approval vote logged on corresponding Issue (once logged, can be taken out of Draft PR status)

[ajnelson-nist]

Converting to Draft until Solutions Approval vote is logged.

[gwebb-case]

Hi @ajnelson-nist, is this all in-hand, or do you want me to redo the changes and create a new pull request targeting the develop branch?
I have deleted my previous master commit as the pull request was closed, and re-forked the full UCO repository, and can now target the changes within the develop branch - but will put it on hold until you say to proceed.
To make sure I don't don't mess up this time or in the future, when committing changes should I select

1. Commit directly to the develop branch; or
2. Create a new branch for this commit and start a pull request.

guessing option (2) but may be wrong.

[ajnelson-nist]

@gwebb-case - no further effort is needed from you on this. This had to be done with a new Pull Request because PRs are tied to the submitting branch name. But, it's done enough now, and ready for committee review.

[sbarnum]

These changes look appropriate and are limited to the proposed changes agreed to in the Requirements review approval.

[ajnelson-nist]

Oh. Whoops. This PR is obviated by the concept being absorbed into the configuration namespace as part of resolving Issue 432. When I resolved the merge conflict, the whole chunk @gwebb-case modified disappeared. It migrated here.

I'm going to close the PR to avoid confusion in the Git history. Thanks for your help in any case, @gwebb-case !