Moving properties `epo:isWithdrawn`, `epo:hasWithdrawalDate`, `epo:hasWithdrawalReason` and `epo:hasReviewRequestFee` from `epo:ReviewRequest` to`epo:ReviewDecision`

[csnyulas]

According to the eForms team's response to this issue OP-TED/eForms-SDK#1187, the properties epo:isWithdrawn, epo:hasWithdrawalDate, epo:hasWithdrawalReason and epo:hasReviewRequestFee should be on the class epo:ReviewDecision , NOT on the epo:ReviewRequest class.

If the ePO WG agrees with this modelling, we can update the mappings of fields BT-795-Review , BT-796-Review, BT-797-Review and BT-798-Review, which will resolve the SPARQL validation problems described in this issue OP-TED/ted-rdf-mapping-eforms#99, but will not resolve the related SHACL violations (in ePO 4.0.0).
If this is fixed in ePO 5.0.0, then in the future, when we will map to ePO 5.0.0, the SHACL violations will disappear as well.

[andreea-pasare]

As of ePO 5.0.0, the above mentioned attributes are moved from epo:ReviewRequest to epo:ReviewDecision:

[csnyulas]

Apparently in ePO 5 only three of the four properties have been moved to epo:ReviewDecision from epo:ReviewRequest:

• epo:isWithdrawn
• epo:hasWithdrawalDate
• epo:hasWithdrawalReason

Unfortunately epo:hasReviewRequestFee is still on epo:ReviewRequest, which, according to the definition of the field BT-795-Review in the eForms SDK and the issue OP-TED/eForms-SDK#1187, is wrong.