The difference is last "identification" in accountIdentification.identification.other.identification.
What is the reasoning behind that. I guess it would make sense, if the sibbling to it would be some accountIdentification.identification.other.schema which would describe identification scheme ("CZ-BBAN", "UK-FICID") etc.
But now it is just duplicate identification leaf with no sense. And in accountInfo object it is used directly in other element. Of course there is a servicer and other elements describing account more in detail.
Is it desirable to standardize those two object with its "identification" subobject? Or there is just some part missing in accountIdentification spec. eg. by specifying scheme or format sibbling?
I can prepare PR if I know which way it was meant to be designed.
I see accountIdentification object and another accounInfo object.
The difference is last "identification" in accountIdentification.identification.other.identification.
What is the reasoning behind that. I guess it would make sense, if the sibbling to it would be some accountIdentification.identification.other.schema which would describe identification scheme ("CZ-BBAN", "UK-FICID") etc.
But now it is just duplicate identification leaf with no sense. And in accountInfo object it is used directly in other element. Of course there is a servicer and other elements describing account more in detail.
Is it desirable to standardize those two object with its "identification" subobject? Or there is just some part missing in accountIdentification spec. eg. by specifying scheme or format sibbling?
I can prepare PR if I know which way it was meant to be designed.