search

gs1 / EPCIS

Draft files being shared for EPCIS 2.0 development
Other
22 stars 7 forks source link

minor typos in section 12 #141

Closed shalikasingh closed 3 years ago

shalikasingh commented 3 years ago

Hi @joelvogt, @mgh128,

  1. Line: 3834 as-is: "The EPCIS REST bindings provide an interface based on Representational State Transfer (REST) architecture style [REST]" to be: "The EPCIS REST bindings provide an interface based on Representational State Transfer (REST) architecture style"
  2. Line 3912: Word "declaring" is misspelled.
  3. Line 3929, as is: "If GS1-Capture-Error-Behaviour is rollback, the server SHALL try to capture as many EPCIS events as possible." to be: "If GS1-Capture-Error-Behaviour is proceed, the server SHALL try to capture as many EPCIS events as possible."
  4. In line 3931, the Words "successfully captured" seems a bit misfit here. as-is: "If events were successfully captured, /capture SHALL respond with 202 Accepted and a captureID." suggestion: "successfully accepted" OR "successfully accepted for processing"
  5. Line 3968 : Word "aspects" is misspelled.
  6. Line 4018, as-is "An EPCIS 2.0 server MAY provide additional endpoints to describe the context an EPCIS event." to be: "An EPCIS 2.0 server MAY provide additional endpoints to describe the context of an EPCIS event."
  7. Line 4022 and 4023 can be removed.
  8. 12.7.4 Top-level resources Table 6: Copy paste error for readPoint top-level resource
  9. Section 12.8.3.2: As the Triggered query is now a Streaming query we should replace all occurrence of the "triggered query" with "streaming query" for e.g. Line 4101
mgh128 commented 3 years ago

Hi @shalikasingh

  1. The [REST] in square brackets is a citation. It should remain as it is. No change needed.
  2. When I open 2021_01_12r the line numbers are completely scrambled - so I can't even find line 3912. If you can give some indication of the phrase in which it is misspelled or what the misspelled version looks like, I might be able to find it and take a look.
  3. Agreed for the second of these two sentences - The first sentence explains the rollback behaviour, the second should explain the 'proceed' behaviour - not be a duplicate of the first sentence. Well spotted!, @shalikasingh
  4. Perhaps. We cannot change the label for HTTP response 202, which is 'Accepted'. The actual capturing of the event data is done by a capturing application that sends the event data to the capture interface. So you're saying that the capture interface accepts (or sometimes rejects) data from the capturing application, rather than that the capture interface 'captures' data. I think this is probably a valid point - but there may be other places where we also need to change this wording. Probably needs some group discussion.
  5. Agreed - this is in the first sentence of section 12.7, 'Events interface'. ( I'm seeing this as line 5129 when I open 2021_01_12r )
  6. Agreed - insert 'of' before 'an EPCIS event'. (I'm seeing that at line 5271)
  7. Are you suggesting removal of: these additional endpoints (including /epcs) SHALL comply with the following pattern: /{top-level resource}s/{optional vocabulary prefix}:{resource identifier}/events OR /{top-level resource}s/{optional vocabulary prefix}:{resource identifier}/events ? (because not all endpoints end with /events)
  8. Well spotted, @shalikasingh ! @joelvogt - please update the descriptions for these readPoint endpoints.
  9. Agreed - and we should also change 'subscribe' to 'subscribing' in the sentence: This restriction is to prevent clients from accidentally subscribe to EPCIS event streams
shalikasingh commented 3 years ago

Hi @mgh128 ,

Sorry, it was my bad as I was referring 2021_01_12q version of the draft which was already obsolete. Below are my further inputs for the points 2nd and 7th unclear. Currently have followed 2021_01_12r.

  1. Line 3894: Word "declaring" is misspelled. (Sentence from draft: "A server MAY optionally collobarotate with clients on resource management by declearing ... " )
  2. Line 4004 and 4005 can be removed. Below is quoted from the draft for reference. 
    4003 "/{top-level resource}s/{optional vocabulary prefix}:{resource identifier}/events
4004 OR
4005 /{top-level resource}s/{optional vocabulary prefix}:{resource identifier}/events")
mgh128 commented 3 years ago

Hi @shalikasingh

No problem. Even 2021_01_12r is having some problems with line numbering. Craig is looking into fixing that in the next version. Thanks for the additional clarifications regarding points 2 and 7 which were unclear

@CraigRe - can you please fix this typo declearing --> declaring anywhere it appears @joelvogt - do you agree that the following lines should now be deleted (keep in mind that these might appear at different line numbers from what you see below / in Shalika's post above):

4003 "/{top-level resource}s/{optional vocabulary prefix}:{resource identifier}/events 4004 OR 4005 /{top-level resource}s/{optional vocabulary prefix}:{resource identifier}/events")