Update diagram with new SpdxOrganization individual

[bact]

• Add /Core/Individuals/SpdxOrganization #880 added SpdxOrganization as a named individual to the model
• This PR updates the diagrams to reflect that change
• See also the change log at [CHANGELOG] Add changes in buildType and SpdxOrganization #881

[bact]

@sbarnum Since this is about diagram, if you have few mins please take a look at the SpdxOrganization individual added.

It is in the "Individuals" box in two diagrams:

• Core: the box is at the bottom-right corner
• Core+Software: the box is near the top-right corner

Thank you for your help.

[sbarnum]

I see two problems, none of which are directly caused by the diagram changes but rather by the changes to SPDXOrganization that led to the diagram changes.

1. The currently defined IRI for SPDXOrganization is inconsistent with other IRIs for named individuals. As a named Individual, the IRI identifier for the SPDXOrganization should at least be "https://spdx.org/rdf/SPDXOrganization". It is currently missing the "rdf" portion which aligns to all of the other named Individuals. It is fine leaving out the release version portion of the IRI path as this individual spans versions but it should at least have the rdf portion. To be even more consistent it should actually probably be "https://spdx.org/rdf/Core/SPDXOrganization" given that it is defined as part of Core.
2. In the SPDXOrganization.md file, under metadata it lists only the IRI prefix under "IRI". This metadata field should assert the full IRI (as specified above) for the named individual. This is something I have long suggested should be done for all named individuals.

These issues should be addressed then updated in the diagrams.

BTW, there is also a remaining typo in buildType.md. There is an occurence of "builtType" rather than "buildType"

[bact]

Thank you @sbarnum for the typos, please see PR #885

[goneall]

The currently defined IRI for SPDXOrganization is inconsistent with other IRIs for named individuals. As a named Individual, the IRI identifier for the SPDXOrganization should at least be "https://spdx.org/rdf/SPDXOrganization". It is currently missing the "rdf" portion which aligns to all of the other named Individuals. It is fine leaving out the release version portion of the IRI path as this individual spans versions but it should at least have the rdf portion. To be even more consistent it should actually probably be "https://spdx.org/rdf/Core/SPDXOrganization" given that it is defined as part of Core.

@sbarnum see different but related discussion at #880 (comment)

@zvr - thoughts? I'm OK with either URI

[bact]

fyi, these are named individuals we currently have, together with their IRIs:

1. SpdxOrganization - Markdown
   • Standard IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Core/SpdxOrganization
   • Custom IRI: https://spdx.org/ (defined in Markdown file and generated into owl:sameAs, to be shown in spec diagram with this PR)
2. NoAssertionElement - Markdown
   • Standard IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Core/NoAssertionElement
   • Custom IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Core/NoAssertion (displayed in spec diagrams, but not actually defined in Markdown file and thus not generated into the RDF)
3. NoneElement - Markdown
   • Standard IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Core/NoneElement
   • Custom IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Core/None (displayed in spec diagrams, but not actually defined in Markdown file and thus not generated into the RDF)
4. NoAssertionLicense - Markdown
   • Standard IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/ExpandedLicensing/NoAssertionLicense
   • Custom IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Licensing/NoAssertion (both defined in Markdown file and displayed in spec diagram)
5. NoneLicense - Markdown
   • Standard IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/ExpandedLicensing/NoneLicense
   • Custom IRI: https://spdx.org/rdf/3.0.1/terms/Licensing/None (both defined in Markdown file and displayed in spec diagram)

(#883 is proposed to fix inconsistencies in (2) and (3))

[zvr]

Thinking more about it, I am not even sure the Individuals should appear on the diagram...

I mean, we will also publish hundreds more Individuals -- the licenses and exceptions of the License List. Why show some and not all?