101 domain model control over asset palette categorization

[kenmeacham]

No description provided.

[kenmeacham]

@mike1813 - I've put you as reviewer for this pull request, as you understand it the best. In the end, it is only a minor fix to the SPARQL query, an addition to the core model and a fix to the unit test. See issue #101 for screenshots of how it looks now, so no need to spin it up yourself. See also a question about the fix to the core model.

[mike1813]

@kenmeacham : I suggest two small changes before we merge this:

• Make core#PaletteType a subclass of #AtomicThing, which is the base class for core#Asset.
• Delete the lines that add typeLabel in the report generator, rather than commenting them.

The first change is just so core#PaletteType looks as similar to core#Asset as possible. The properties are the same for #CompositeThing and #AtomicThing so it should work as it is. The only reason to switch to #AtomicThing is so it will still work if we ever need to switch from core#Asset to core#PaletteType in some other query.

The second change is just to avoid retaining old code we don't really need. It doesn't look like we'll ever want to reinstate the commented lines, so keeping them in just detracts from the code readability.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[kenmeacham]

@kenmeacham : I suggest two small changes before we merge this:

* Make core#PaletteType a subclass of #AtomicThing, which is the base class for core#Asset.

* Delete the lines that add typeLabel in the report generator, rather than commenting them.

The first change is just so core#PaletteType looks as similar to core#Asset as possible. The properties are the same for #CompositeThing and #AtomicThing so it should work as it is. The only reason to switch to #AtomicThing is so it will still work if we ever need to switch from core#Asset to core#PaletteType in some other query.

The second change is just to avoid retaining old code we don't really need. It doesn't look like we'll ever want to reinstate the commented lines, so keeping them in just detracts from the code readability.

OK. I've made the suggested changes. All seems to still work as expected. You should be able to just approve this now, so I can do the merge.

[mike1813]

Looks good.