✅ Deploy Preview for reconciliation-api-specs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	634ed9f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/reconciliation-api-specs/deploys/67334460175641000822cc5b
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-176--reconciliation-api-specs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

I wonder if the same syntax should be adopted elsewhere, for instance in the responses for entity, name and type preview

You mean the suggest services (entity, property, type)? Additionally there are names and descriptions in data extension property proposals, names in data extension responses and a service name in the manifest. If we aim for a consistent data structure, should these all use the array-of-objects syntax?

At the same time, we support both simple strings and arrays of objects (or strings, even mixed) as condition values (v), see https://reconciliation-api.github.io/specs/draft/#example-7:

"conditions": [
    {
      "matchType": "name",
      "v": "Christel Hanewinckel"
    },
    {
      "matchType": "property",
      "pid": "professionOrOccupation",
      "v": [
        "Politik*",
        {
          "id": "wissenschaftler",
          "name": "Wissenschaftler(in)"
        }
      ]
    }
]

For consistency and maintainability we should probably unify these, right? To keep the common case simple, I'd prefer the current v behavior for all strings, but the discussion in #138 very much favors the consistent array-of-objects syntax (though it mostly mentions only the array part). But then v should also require consistent array-of-object values, right?

I think I have a preference for keeping the same format all the time ([{"str":"some value"}] in minimal form) even if it's a bit more verbose, because otherwise we're bound to have implementations which oversee this possibility and break when confronted with something else than a bare string.

I've updated suggest responses and property proposals to use the string object format too.

While there are fields all over the spec that in theory could also use the string object format, I think restricting it to the current state in this PR does actually make some sense: candidates, suggest responses and property proposals are all provided to users for making a selection. So this would allow multi-language objects for all user selections. At the same time, I keep wondering if this actually is the right approach. In his original requirement in #138, @saumier wrote:

[...] to return candidate names in one or more languages specified by the client request

Did we ever consider implementing it by (only) specifying the language(s) in the client request (in the Accept-Language header), and returning the old structure? Do we actually need to return multiple languages at the same time, for a single request?

I also noticed that in many places we don't use the actual object structure of our concepts (like entities, properties, types), but objects representing these concepts, but adding context-specific fields. I tried to clarify that a bit for the places I switched to the string object format.

Replaced by #184, closing.