Inconsistent Naming with Header Objects, and alignment with the UNCEFACT JSON Schema

[ChrisJMacdonald]

In some recent changes, a few of the top-level header objects names had been updated:

• TradeTransaction is now https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/SupplyChainTradeTransaction.
• applicableTradeAgreement is now https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/applicableHeaderTradeAgreement
• applicableTradeDelivery is now https://vocabulary.uncefact.org/applicableHeaderTradeDelivery

However, applicableTradeSettlement is still the same (of type HeaderTradeSettlement), so odd how it hasn't received the same treatment.

As a Developer, I would want to use JSON LD Vocabulary in combination with the JSON Schema Project to guide me in creating JSON payloads.

There are currently a fair few differences as outlined in this GitHub Issue: https://github.com/uncefact/spec-JSONschema/issues/4

Thus far from my looking, the fields are still mostly equivalent, but the naming from the JSON Schema team is much more verbose (Which can be a good and bad thing). But my main question is about considerations of compatibility between the two.

[nissimsan]

Hi @ChrisJMacdonald,

Yes, most of the NDR changes since the draft version are concerned with those prefixes. This probably came from https://github.com/uncefact/spec-jsonld/issues/139.

Your question is why is applicableTradeSettlement not applicableHeaderTradeSettlement and applicableLineTradeSettlement? When that distinction is made on the Agreement and Delivery.

This is either 1) reflecting the source model, or 2) a bug - might you have any indications of which?

[AP-G]

Hi,

I did not check if it was a bug to be honest, but I looked at the current publication:

The applicableHeaderTradeSettlement etc. exists in the CII, and the BSPContextCCL.

Please have a look here: CII specifiedLineTradeSettlement CII applicableHeaderTradeSettlement CII specifiedLineTradeSettlement BSP at Lines 17629, 47113 for *headerTradeSettlement and 21344, 46718 for *lineTradeSettlement

Please be aware that I am not sure if the current JSON-LD vocab takes all (Sub-)RDMs into account. Please have a look here again => https://github.com/uncefact/spec-JSONschema/issues/4