Code and service review

[x] review use of "@id" fields - use local URL or fixed URI?
- see also issue #32
[ ] review TODOs
[ ] review URI for delete type/view/list confirmation
[x] review field names used in sitedata
[ ] review record list description form (create data and configure URIs)
[ ] review record view description form (create data and configure URIs)
[x] review field description form (create data and configure URIs)
[x] Review field descriptions in sitedata: type values seem to be inconsistent??? (e.g. Type vs Entity_type?). Need to start some proper documentation of the form data descriptions.
[x] review URI design: can we revert to original design (without /c/, /d/, etc.)?
- [x] In particular, think about flat file deployment to standard web server: would like URI patterns to be consistent with directories.
- see also issue #32
[ ] can all permission/scope labels be moved from code to data? E.g. use field(s) in view to determine permissions needed to view/edit. This would pave the way to finer-grained permissions if required.
- currently, linking permissions to types seems to be a reasonable approach, and is how permissions for internal data operations are handled

gklyne / annalist