First you inform to use the standard business name iso id for e.g. CBE enterprise identifier:
"enterpriseNumber is a standard business name for the CBE enterprise identifier, so it should be used instead of id:"
Then you use employerId iso "enterpriseNumber" here:
"|employerId|path-param|CBE enterprise number uniquely identifying the employer."
At last in the example,
emplyoerId=93017373=nnsoNbr
<> cbeNbr = 202239951
That doesn't seem to comply with saying the cbeNbr is used as identifier for the employers collection, as the Document containers a cbeNbr property with a different value.
Therefore it seems more logical / less confusing to change the description as proposed in the merge request.
Agreed, the employerId should indeed be the one from NSSO.
Note some examples throughout the guide do not use the right naming yet (e.g. cbeNbr should be enterpriseNumber); this will be reviewed during #19 .
First you inform to use the standard business name iso
id
for e.g. CBE enterprise identifier: "enterpriseNumber
is a standard business name for the CBE enterprise identifier, so it should be used instead ofid
:"Then you use employerId iso "enterpriseNumber" here: "|
employerId
|path-param|CBE enterprise number uniquely identifying the employer."At last in the example, emplyoerId=93017373=nnsoNbr <> cbeNbr = 202239951
"{ "self": "{API}/employers/93017373[/employers/93017373^]", "name": "Belgacom", "nssoNbr": 93017373, "company": { "cbeNbr": 202239951, "href": "{API}/companies/202239951[/companies/202239951^]" } }"
That doesn't seem to comply with saying the cbeNbr is used as identifier for the employers collection, as the Document containers a cbeNbr property with a different value. Therefore it seems more logical / less confusing to change the description as proposed in the merge request.