search

bic-org-uk / bic-lcf

BIC Library Communication Framework
https://bic-org-uk.github.io/bic-lcf
Other
7 stars 4 forks source link

Numeric entity codes values versus alpha values in lcf-entity-list-response #28

Closed mdovey closed 8 years ago

mdovey commented 8 years ago

As far as I can tell the only place the numeric code values for ENT code is used is in the entity-type element of the lcf-entity-list-response (as the REST urls use plural versions of the alpha values).

For consistency, would it be better to specify that the entity-type used the alpha value?

If we do use the alpha value should this be the singular or plural form?

(I'm loath to suggest implementations can use either as this added additional complexity)

anthonywhitford commented 8 years ago

I agree that would make the REST api more intuitive. +1 On 17 Jan 2016 13:42, "mdovey" notifications@github.com wrote:

As far as I can tell the only place the numeric code values for ENT code is used is in the entity-type element of the lcf-entity-list-response (as the REST urls use plural versions of the alpha values).

For consistency, would it be better to specify that the entity-type used the alpha value?

If we do use the alpha value should this be the singular or plural form?

(I'm loath to suggest implementations can use either as this added additional complexity)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/anthonywhitford/bic-lcf/issues/28.

franciscave commented 8 years ago

I agree with this. I've added a clarification to the LCF REST Web Service spec.

mdovey commented 8 years ago

OK, what I've done in my copy of the XSD is to

rename the xs:enumeration entityType to entityTypeNumeric created a new xs:enumeration called entityTypeAlpha

changed the type of entity-type under lcf-entity-list-response and entity-type under property to entityTypeAlpha.

I'll push this change if you are happy with this.

p.s. was the dropping of ENT12 from the 1.0.1 code list and also the schema enumerations intentional?

anthonywhitford commented 8 years ago

Why leave both enumerations in place? (both alpha and numeric ones). Isn't that redundant now? On 19 Jan 2016 22:55, "mdovey" notifications@github.com wrote:

OK, what I've done in my copy of the XSD is to

rename the xs:enumeration entityType to entityTypeNumeric created a new xs:enumeration called entityTypeAlpha

changed the type of entity-type under lcf-entity-list-response and entity-type under property to entityTypeAlpha.

I'll push this change if you are happy with this.

p.s. was the dropping of ENT12 from the 1.0.1 code list and also the schema enumerations intentional?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/anthonywhitford/bic-lcf/issues/28#issuecomment-173014845 .

mdovey commented 8 years ago

Yep, you're right.

so schema will have xs:enumeration entityType using the alpha values (which is used by lcf-entity-list-response and property)

mdovey commented 8 years ago

New xml schema pushed

franciscave commented 8 years ago

The dropping of ENT12 from the code list was done provisionally on the basis of earlier discussion in which we appeared to be concluding that entity E12 Selection Criterion would not in practice be used. However, E12 remains in all the other documentation, so either we need to reinstate ENT12 or remove E12 from all documentation. I think there's an open issue already on this, but will re-open if necessary.