Profile resolver: correct/complete oscal-version marking (spec and tool)

[wendellpiez]

User Story:

The current draft profile resolver in develop does not handle oscal-version correctly in metadata, emitting a "TODO" string.

However, the specification for the desired behavior is soft: see #1272.

We need to clarify the spec, then update the tool.

Goals:

Could be broken into the following work items:

• A workable spec for the desired behavior. (Spec-Conformant Profile Resolution Tools Should Use Patch OSCAL Version, not Only Minor #1272)
• Create a unit test to check for appropriate behavior (@wendellpiez) Implement SemVer-based comparison on oscal-version in XSLT Profile Resolver #1440
• Conformance to the processing specification in the XSLT and Java profile resolvers.
  • Implemented in XSLT profile resolver (@galtm) Implement SemVer-based comparison on oscal-version in XSLT Profile Resolver #1440
  • Implemented in Java profile resolver in https://github.com/usnistgov/liboscal-java (@david-waltermire-nist)

Dependencies:

#1272

Acceptance Criteria

• All OSCAL website and readme documentation affected by the changes in this issue have been updated. Changes to the OSCAL website can be made in the docs/content directory of your branch.
• A Pull Request (PR) is submitted that fully addresses the goals of this User Story. This issue is referenced in the PR.
• The CI-CD build process runs without any reported errors on the PR. This can be confirmed by reviewing that all checks have passed in the PR.

{The items above are general acceptance criteria for all User Stories. Please describe anything else that must be completed for this issue to be considered resolved.}

[wendellpiez]

Proposed language for spec is in #1272.

[david-waltermire]

@galtm This may relate to your work.

[galtm]

@galtm This may relate to your work.

If you clarify the spec, I can update the XSLT profile resolver (unless @wendellpiez prefers to do it).

[wendellpiez]

@galtm the spec under develop should be okay see PR #1386 thanks!

I also have to make functional tests for this....

[wendellpiez]

Next up:

• Add functional unit tests for this behavior in working branch
• Make a PR for that branch
• Continue prep for integration