Closed buske closed 1 year ago
@buske the branch is now here:
In the example relationship e.g. the basic trio you use the field names individual
, relationship
, relative
yet in the classes doc these are named individual
, relation
, relative
and the phenopacket implementation uses the field names individualId
, relation
, relativeId
. This is trivial to change in the phenopacket-schema but it needs to be referred to consistently everywhere!!! Also in the Common Dataset for FHH doc these fields are referred to as Individual
, Relationship
, Relative
- should the be upper-cased? Should Relationship
be [rR]elation
?
Hi @julesjacobsen, as the main contributor to the Classes section, the followings are my rationales regarding the casing:
Individual
id
sex
gender
dateOfBirth
age
raceEthnicityAncestry
deceased
affected
[rR]elation
vs [rR]elationship
: Based on my understanding, while relation and relationship refer to the connection between things, relation shades more toward "the way things are connected," while relationship refers to "the connection itself" (please correct me if I am wrong for English is not my native tongue). If this understanding is correct, then I would prefer Relation
as a class name while using relationship
for the element name. Actually, as it is, the Classes section is opposite for I used Relationship
as the class name whereas the element is labeled as relation
. I am open to any suggestion!Superseded by #28
Replace existing examples with draft Phenopacket examples (Phenopacket implementation guide has not yet been finalized).