refactor(schema): categorize proof of participation VC under proof

[ccamel]

Self explanatory.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation

  • Updated context URL for proof of participation credential
  • Modified namespace prefix for proof of participation ontology

• Chores

  • Simplified GitHub workflow linting configuration by removing proto file check
  • Renamed linting step to focus on documentation files

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request encompasses modifications to a GitHub Actions workflow configuration and updates to credential-related schema files. The primary changes involve renaming a linting workflow step to focus solely on documentation files and adjusting the namespace and context URLs for proof of participation credentials. These alterations suggest a refinement of the project's ontological structure and documentation verification process.

Changes

File	Change Summary
.github/workflows/lint.yml	Renamed linting step from "Check Git diff in generated files (proto + docs)" to "Check Git diff in generated files (docs)"
src/example/proof/katai-proof-participation.jsonld	Updated context URL to reflect new ontology schema path
src/schema/proof/credential-proof-participation.ttl	Modified namespace prefix to use a new URL structure

Possibly related PRs

• Refactor/credential governance declaration #310: Updates to governance credential schemas
• Feat/vc proof of participation #324: Introduction of a new schema for proof of participation credentials

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 612ef77 and a4daf3e.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• docs/schemas/credential-proof-participation.md is excluded by !docs/**/*.md

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
• src/example/proof/katai-proof-participation.jsonld (1 hunks)
• src/schema/proof/credential-proof-participation.ttl (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• src/schema/proof/credential-proof-participation.ttl

🔇 Additional comments (4)

src/example/proof/katai-proof-participation.jsonld (2)

4-4: Excellent restructuring of the context URL!

The change from proof-of-participation to proof/participation demonstrates good ontological organization by properly categorizing the participation proof under the broader proof category. This hierarchical structure will make the schema more maintainable and extensible.

---

Line range hint 1-24: Verify the credential structure against the W3C specification.

The credential structure appears well-formed, but let's verify it against the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification.

✅ Verification successful

✓ The credential structure correctly follows the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification

The implementation demonstrates excellent adherence to standards with all required fields present and properly formatted. The schema context URL appropriately implements versioning using the $major variable.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Validate the JSON-LD document against W3C VC Data Model

# Check if the document contains all required properties for a valid VC
rg -A 2 '"@context".*\[.*"https://www\.w3\.org/2018/credentials/v1"' && \
rg '"type".*\[.*"VerifiableCredential"' && \
rg '"credentialSubject"' && \
rg '"issuer"' && \
rg '"issuanceDate"'

# Check if the document uses the latest version of the W3C context
curl -s https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v1 | grep -i "latest version"

Length of output: 146

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find and verify the katai proof participation file
fd katai-proof-participation.jsonld --exec cat {} \; | \
jq -r '
  # Check required fields
  if (.["@context"] | index("https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v1")) and
     (.type | index("VerifiableCredential")) and
     .credentialSubject and
     .issuer and
     .issuanceDate
  then "Valid VC structure: All required fields present"
  else "Invalid VC structure: Missing required fields"
  end,
  # Extract schema version for validation
  .["@context"][] | select(contains("axone/ontology/v")) | capture("v(?<major>\\d+)")
'

# Check if the schema context follows versioning pattern
fd katai-proof-participation.jsonld --exec grep -o 'https://w3id.org/axone/ontology/v\$major/schema/credential/proof/participation/' {} \;

Length of output: 753

.github/workflows/lint.yml (2)

Line range hint 1-180: Exemplary comprehensive linting setup!

The workflow demonstrates excellent practices in code quality assurance:

• Separate jobs for different types of linting (commits, markdown, yaml, ontology)
• Conditional execution based on file changes
• Proper dependency management with Poetry
• Thorough Python code analysis with flake8 and mypy

---

Line range hint 96-102: Verify the removal of proto file checks.

The step has been renamed to remove proto file checking. Let's verify if this aligns with the project's current state and ensure no proto files are being used.

✅ Verification successful

Removal of proto file checks is appropriate

The codebase shows no usage of Protocol Buffers (.proto files) or related build configurations. The workflow modification correctly reflects the project's current state as a semantic web ontology project.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for proto file usage in the project

# Search for proto files
echo "Searching for .proto files..."
fd -e proto

# Search for proto-related build configurations
echo "Searching for proto-related configurations..."
rg -i "proto" -g "!.github/**/*"

Length of output: 9336

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.