Add Phenopacket examples

[buske]

Replace existing examples with draft Phenopacket examples (Phenopacket implementation guide has not yet been finalized).

[julesjacobsen]

@buske the branch is now here:

https://github.com/phenopackets/phenopacket-schema/blob/727b245c0ec0df71467344eef7d04cb07b00ae9e/src/main/proto/ga4gh/pedigree/v1/pedigree.proto

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?

[liberaliscomputing]

Hi @julesjacobsen, as the main contributor to the Classes section, the followings are my rationales regarding the casing:

1. Naming convention: In naming classes and elements, I followed the naming convention in JavaScript. This means the class names are titleized while the element names are camel-cased. For example:
   • Individual
     • id
     • sex
     • gender
     • dateOfBirth
     • age
     • raceEthnicityAncestry
     • deceased
     • affected
2. [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!

[buske]

Superseded by #28