Inconsistencies in Python Library and Example

[AndreasMeier12]

PSI used the minimal example for checking our validation logic in the API01 project.

@baffelli @Snowwpanda

I had a look at the generated manifest and I found the following issues:

1. base:name is of type rdf:Property instead of rdfs:Property
2. base:alice is of type Person, which resolves to schema:Person because of the RO-Crate context, instead of base:Person
3. owl:maxCardinality and owl:minCardinality are encoded as strings, they should be non-negative integers.

This is the manifest I received:

{
  "@context": "https://w3id.org/ro/crate/1.1/context",
  "@graph": [
    {
      "@id": "./",
      "@type": "Dataset",
      "datePublished": "2026-02-26T13:12:58+00:00",
      "description": "A minimal RO-Crate with one Person",
      "name": "Minimal Example"
    },
    {
      "@id": "ro-crate-metadata.json",
      "@type": "CreativeWork",
      "about": {
        "@id": "./"
      },
      "conformsTo": {
        "@id": "https://w3id.org/ro/crate/1.1"
      }
    },
    {
      "@id": "base:76fbfcfb-61b8-4ac5-b342-3d8e2ce5f644",
      "@type": "owl:Restriction",
      "owl:maxCardinality": "1",
      "owl:minCardinality": "1",
      "owl:onProperty": {
        "@id": "base:name"
      }
    },
    {
      "@id": "base:Person",
      "@type": "rdfs:Class",
      "owl:equivalentClass": {
        "@id": "schema:Person"
      },
      "owl:restriction": {
        "@id": "base:76fbfcfb-61b8-4ac5-b342-3d8e2ce5f644"
      },
      "rdfs:comment": "Person entity in the RO-Crate",
      "rdfs:label": "Person",
      "rdfs:subClassOf": {
        "@id": "schema:Thing"
      }
    },
    {
      "@id": "base:alice",
      "@type": "Person"
    },
    {
      "@id": "base:name",
      "@type": "rdf:Property",
      "owl:equivalentProperty": {
        "@id": "schema:name"
      },
      "rdfs:label": "Name",
      "schema:domainIncludes": {
        "@id": "base:Person"
      },
      "schema:rangeIncludes": {
        "@id": "xsd:string"
      }
    }
  ]
}

[baffelli]

Hello @AndreasMeier12 , thank you for reporting this. We will look into this ASAP. They seem like easy fixes and probably we should really keep using the SHACL schema as an executable spec.

[fpotier]

PSI used the minimal example for checking our validation logic in the API01 project.

@baffelli @Snowwpanda

I had a look at the generated manifest and I found the following issues:

1. `base:name` is of type `rdf:Property` instead of `rdfs:Property`

After looking at the reference I believe the error is in the specs rather than the library

[fpotier]

#11 will address number 3

[AndreasMeier12]

PSI used the minimal example for checking our validation logic in the API01 project.
@baffelli @Snowwpanda
I had a look at the generated manifest and I found the following issues:

1. `base:name` is of type `rdf:Property` instead of `rdfs:Property`

After looking at the reference I believe the error is in the specs rather than the library

We will work on fixing that.

[AndreasMeier12]

PSI used the minimal example for checking our validation logic in the API01 project.
@baffelli @Snowwpanda
I had a look at the generated manifest and I found the following issues:

1. `base:name` is of type `rdf:Property` instead of `rdfs:Property`

After looking at the reference I believe the error is in the specs rather than the library

I created a PR, if you want to have a look: #12