Implement the STIX 2.1 Pattern Type vocabulary

[rhohimer]

[uscholdm]

@rhohimer
Case mismatch between IRIs and labels: Here are two of several:

gist:_PatternType_Snort
	a gist:PatternType ;
	skos:definition """STIX 2.1 description:
Specifies the SNORT language [SNORT]."""^^xsd:string ;
	skos:prefLabel "snort"^^xsd:string ;
	.

gist:_PatternType_Stix
	a gist:PatternType ;
	skos:definition """STIX 2.1 description:
Specifies the STIX pattern language defined in section 9 of the specification."""^^xsd:string ;
	skos:prefLabel "stix"^^xsd:string ;
	.

[rhohimer]

@uscholdm Yes, there are many of these mismatched cases between IRIs and labels. I think that one issue to review all the vocabularies would be a good idea. Additionally, a convention for asserting skos:altLabel and rdfs:label would be good to apply while we're there.

[rhohimer]

@uscholdm What is our opinion on closing this issue now that we have corrected many of the mismatched cases?

[brett-heffelfinger]

We can move the discussion on mismatched IRIs and Labels to #97 as it's directly related to the subject and close this, if that works for everyone.

[uscholdm]

We can move the discussion on mismatched IRIs and Labels to #97 as it's directly related to the subject and close this, if that works for everyone.

It should be closed because the pattern type vocabulary has been implemented (not sure which PR). It is unrelated to #97 ehich is about region, not pattern type,

[brett-heffelfinger]

Sure, I'll close this then.