LD Context: define convenient mappings for `@id` and `@type`

[jmcanterafonseca-iota]

It would be good to define mappings in the LD Context as

{
    "id": "@id",
   "type": "@type"
}

That way the adoption by JSON developers will be smoother

[nissimsan]

Agreed.

[kshychko]

There is a problem with UNECE context, because it already has https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/id and https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/type properties. I assume we can rename them just in the context:

        "idProperty": {
            "@id": "unece:id",
            "@type": "xsd:token"
        },
        "typeProperty": {
            "@id": "unece:type",
            "@type": "xsd:string"
        }

@nissimsan , @jmcanterafonseca-iota , any thoughts?

[nissimsan]

Both these clash with existing attribute domain naming. Decision on the call:

1. Change id back to identifier
2. Split the 7 types into qualified types (e.g. packingType)
3. Add the two mappings as suggested on the description.

[kshychko]

Diff report:

Classes that exists in set1 but missing in set2 (were removed from set2) - 0:
Classes that exists in set2 but missing in set1 (were added to set2) - 0:
Properties that exists in set1 but missing in set2 (were removed from set2) - 2:
unece:id
unece:type
Properties that exists in set2 but missing in set1 (were added to set2) - 7:
unece:identifier
unece:packagingType
unece:priceType
unece:routeType
unece:taxType
unece:transportMeansType
unece:transportMovementType

[nissimsan]

We did this. We can close this.

[nissimsan]

We did it - closing