Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Minor inconsistency with Reconciliation Query's type field #152

Open
derenrich opened this issue Jan 11, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Minor inconsistency with Reconciliation Query's type field #152

derenrich opened this issue Jan 11, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@derenrich
Copy link

The spec says that the type field should be

An array of types. Supplying such types allows users to restrict the search to entities which bear those types

But then the example shows

{
    "type": "DifferentiatedPerson"
}

Looking at the json schema it actually says that type is

Either a single type identifier or a list of type identifiers

which I guess sounds ok but it still doesn't match the linked definition of type in section 2.2 which says

A type represents a category of entities. It comprises the following fields:
id
an identifier, which is a non-empty string. This identifier must be unique among all types;
name
a human-readable name, which is a non-empty string;
broader
an optional array

which I think is the definition of the type object when its returned

@derenrich
Copy link
Author

Also the definition of type in section 2.2 refers to a field of it called broader but that appears to never be referenced in the jsonschema? The json schema looks like:

                    {
                      "type": "object",
                      "description": "A type can be given by id and name",
                      "properties": {
                        "id": {
                          "type": "string"
                        },
                        "name": {
                          "type": "string"
                        }
                      },
                      "required": [
                        "id"
                      ]
                    },

@wetneb
Copy link
Member

wetneb commented Jan 11, 2024

This is indeed something that we have been working on in the new version of the specification: see #109.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants