changing "problematic" property names back to PXF version

[mbaudis]

In Beacon some parameters were renamed compared to the Phenopackets versions since they could be confused with JSON Schema keywords, e.g.

• type
• description

However, since these do not directly violate JSON Schema itself & with view to a better alignment we here may follow the original implementation.

[tb143]

From an implementation perspective, explicit property names are preferred, e.g. "ageAtProcedure" (Beacon) is more informative than "performed" (Phenopackets). We will be able to accommodate these changes within our implementation.

[mbaudis]

@tb143 I definitely agree. There are also parameter which were "better named" in earlier PXF versions (or in the GA4GH metadata schema etc...) but then were converted to something more in line w/ some PXF developers/stakeholders ... So in some sense some of the Beacon use is - IMO - better developed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd like to leave this to a "democratic decision"[^1] how to deal with this in the end. One argument against the PXF naming is that we don't adopt the standard completely; so we may diverge in some "opinionated" places and hope for PXF to revise. Or we leave it just as documented differences.

[^1]: i.e. let @jrambla decide

[mbaudis]

Just a note about closing this: It is still an item which in principle could be revived, though the consensus from discussion in GA4GH Beacon etc. was "attempt as much Phenopackets alignment as possible, document this and differences, leave the 1:1 Phenopackets model use to an implementation as one of alternativeSchemas and/or for future bi-directional alignment".