RCP-040 - Data Dictionary 2.0 Endorsement

[darnjo]

This PR covers the changes discussed so far for the Data Dictionary 2.0 specification.

This includes the following:

• LookupValue and StandardLookupValue Enforcement - StandardLookupValue items were added starting with Data Dictionary 1.7 reference sheet to provide a specification for those using OData Edm.EnumType enumerations. These items have been carried over to the Data Dictionary 2.0 reference sheet as well. Systems will be checked using a number of techniques, including edit distance matching, to ensure that they're using the standard values, when appropriate. For those using Edm.String values with the Lookup resource, the LookupValue and StandardLookupValue fields will be checked as well.
• Resource and Field Name Enforcement - Similarity metrics and other heuristics will also be used to ensure that standard names are being used for resources and fields.
• Data Validation Against Server Metadata - The Data Dictionary 1.7 Specification didn't include strict checking of data available on a given server against its advertised metadata. In Data Dictionary 2.0, these two items MUST match. This means that providers will fail testing if resources, fields, or enumerations appear in the data set that weren't advertised on the server. Similar is true in cases where fields, such as Edm.String, exceed their advertised data length, or any other similar data anomalies.
• Reference Spreadsheet Structure - Previously there were individual sheets for each resource. They have been merged into a single sheet called "Fields," which also matches the format of the new Field metadata resource. The resource that each field belongs to will be indicated in the Field entry. Enumerations will be in a separate Lookups sheet.

See the Summary of Changes in the specification for more information.

[codygustafson]

The Lookup resource MUST support querying by ModificationTimestamp and MUST provide enough granularity in its timestamps to be able to successfully page through and consume each of the records.

I thought we concluded that we could NOT have this language about granularity in the change. Is that accurate?

[darnjo]

@codygustafson - the requested changes have been made to this specification, with some clarification added. If this looks good I'll backfill it into #14 and #15.

[darnjo]

Motion to move out of DRAFT PR:

• Rick Herrera
• Steven Mayhue

Yes: 8, No: 0

[darnjo]

This item depends on the following issue in the RESO Commander repository: https://github.com/RESOStandards/web-api-commander/issues/104

Once the code has been completed and tested on a couple of different providers, we will move this PR forward in the workgroups for final approval and merge it into the main repository.