Skip to content
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

Open
ChrisJMacdonald opened this issue Apr 19, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@ChrisJMacdonald
Copy link

In some recent changes, a few of the top-level header objects names had been updated:

  • TradeTransaction is now https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/SupplyChainTradeTransaction.
  • applicableTradeAgreement is now https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/applicableHeaderTradeAgreement
  • applicableTradeDelivery is now https://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.

@nissimsan
Copy link
Contributor

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 applicableTradeSettlement not applicableHeaderTradeSettlement and applicableLineTradeSettlement? When that distinction is made on the Agreement and Delivery.

This is either 1) reflecting the source model, or 2) a bug - might you have any indications of which?

@AP-G
Copy link

AP-G commented May 6, 2023

Hi,

I did not check if it was a bug to be honest, but I looked at the current publication:

The applicableHeaderTradeSettlement etc. exists in the CII, and the BSPContextCCL.

Please have a look here:
CII specifiedLineTradeSettlement
CII applicableHeaderTradeSettlement
CII specifiedLineTradeSettlement
BSP at Lines 17629, 47113 for *headerTradeSettlement and 21344, 46718 for *lineTradeSettlement

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants