NC instances carry attributes/associations not exchangeable per any published NCP profile (checked at 5413a6d)

[Haigutus]

Context

We roundtrip every NC cimxml instance (35 files at 5413a6d9, branch
cgmes-3.0_ncp-2.4_tc-1.1) through a serializer derived from the NCP release RDFS
(checked against ncp-v2-4-1, ncp-v2-4-2 and the main 2.5 draft of
entsoe/application-profiles-library). Statements that no published profile can
express are flagged. The 2026-07-15 restructure already fixed most earlier findings
(draft-only attributes in Belgovia_RA/Espheim_ER/Svedala_AE, cim:IdentifiedObject
objects in the Jotunheim SAR) — thanks. Four cases remain:

1. Instance/Belgovia/NetworkCode/cimxml/Belgovia_RA.xml — attributes in no profile version

nc:CountertradeRemedialAction.method and nc:CountertradeRemedialAction.powerShiftKey
do not exist in the RemedialAction profile RDFS of ncp-v2-4-1, ncp-v2-4-2, or the
main 2.5 draft. (They look like successors of the previously used
gLSKStrategy/shiftMethod, which the restructure removed — presumably from an
unpublished draft.)

2. Instance/Belgovia/NetworkCode/cimxml/Belgovia_SIS.xml — attribute in no profile version

nc:PowerBidDependency.delay (2 occurrences) is not defined in the
StateInstructionSchedule profile RDFS of any published version (2.4.1 / 2.4.2 / 2.5 draft).

3. Instance/Svedala/NetworkCode/cimxml/Svedala_RA.xml — non-exchanged association direction

nc:RemedialAction.ContingencyWithRemedialAction is serialized once, but the profile
declares this direction <cims:AssociationUsed>No</cims:AssociationUsed> in all
versions (2.4.1 / 2.4.2 / 2.5 draft) — the exchanged direction is
ContingencyWithRemedialAction.RemedialAction.

4. Question — Instance/Belgovia/NetworkCode/cimxml/Belgovia_ER.xml referencing style

Equipment references now use concrete EQ classes:

<cim:ACLineSegment rdf:about="#_ffbabc27-...">
  <nc:Equipment.Circuit rdf:resource="#_cef9011e-..."/>
</cim:ACLineSegment>

while the EquipmentReliability profile RDFS defines only cim:Equipment with
<cims:stereotype>Description</cims:stereotype> (the previous revision of this file
used <cim:Equipment rdf:about>). Is referencing externally-defined objects via
concrete subclasses (cim:ACLineSegment, cim:PowerTransformer) the intended
serialization, or should the profile's Description class name be used? If subclasses
are intended, should the profiles enumerate them (or mark the pattern in the RDFS) so
schema-driven tooling can accept them?

[benceszirbik]

Point 1 and Point 2 are fixed in b9284f0
in PR #343

[griddigit-ci]

@benceszirbik @BenedekFodor can you check points 3 and 4? I think point 3 was also considered in what Beni is fixing