-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inconsistent Naming with Header Objects, and alignment with the UNCEFACT JSON Schema #176
Comments
Hi @ChrisJMacdonald, Yes, most of the NDR changes since the draft version are concerned with those prefixes. This probably came from #139. Your question is why is This is either 1) reflecting the source model, or 2) a bug - might you have any indications of which? |
Hi, I did not check if it was a bug to be honest, but I looked at the current publication: The Please have a look here: Please be aware that I am not sure if the current JSON-LD vocab takes all (Sub-)RDMs into account. Please have a look here again => uncefact/spec-JSONschema#4 |
In some recent changes, a few of the top-level header objects names had been updated:
TradeTransaction
is nowhttps://vocabulary.uncefact.org/SupplyChainTradeTransaction
.applicableTradeAgreement
is nowhttps://vocabulary.uncefact.org/applicableHeaderTradeAgreement
applicableTradeDelivery
is nowhttps://vocabulary.uncefact.org/applicableHeaderTradeDelivery
However,
applicableTradeSettlement
is still the same (of type HeaderTradeSettlement), so odd how it hasn't received the same treatment.As a Developer, I would want to use JSON LD Vocabulary in combination with the JSON Schema Project to guide me in creating JSON payloads.
There are currently a fair few differences as outlined in this GitHub Issue: uncefact/spec-JSONschema#4
Thus far from my looking, the fields are still mostly equivalent, but the naming from the JSON Schema team is much more verbose (Which can be a good and bad thing). But my main question is about considerations of compatibility between the two.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: