Open davidB opened 9 months ago
Thanks @davidB.
I've been thinking about this a bit more - one of the reasons for having a subject.type
was that a certain subject could be re-used across events. However we opted instead to refer to other subjects via their source
+ id
, so this reason is not valid anymore.
We already have content planned for v0.4, so I tentatively marked this for v0.5. I will bring this up during the working today, if folks are ok with it you could start working on it as soon as it's convenient for you.
Why should we remove
subject.type
?subject.type
seems useless, and to create more trouble (for SDK creator, user) that is solve:context.type
,subject.type
alone is not enough{{subject}}
should be consistent between every places and consistent when associated with{{predicate}}
, and converted into different format (snake_came, PascalCase, kebab-case, camelCase) when used in json, java, python,...{{subject}}
and{{predicate}}
from$id
,context.type
, filename (schema, examples) should be doable without ambiguity (=> no_
,-
, case variation into{{subject}}
)subject.type
requires storing additional information into SDK (lookup table, mapping or static field) to be able to set it when generation json in sdkNotes
from @afrittoli