sebbader-sap

Open topics for the Eclipse Dataspace Group: 1. Schema definition of the RightOperand 2. Decide on odrl:prohibition - is it needed? If so, how shall it be modelled? @ssteinbuss please...

Thanks @janpmeyer for raising this topic, we have discussed it in our working group call today. We agree that 204 is better and will change the document accordingly soon.

We just need to figure out if the descriptions in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-204-no-content conflict with the intended state transitions.

It's a little bit late to introduce such changes (our fault), however, I have prepared an PR for it to speed up the discussion.

Any reason why a response body (and thereby 200) would be required? If not, a 204 certainly reduces confusion.

Solved with https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/pull/264

Github Actions provide many of the required features. We need to create a PoC to see if anything is missing.

Update: General JSON Schema validation works, however, not yet for more than one JSON file.

Solution has been prepared here: * https://github.com/simantvermasap/ids-specification/blob/5145306dae3d8a7691c63f92652c191976a02df8/.github/workflows/validate-shapes.yml * https://github.com/simantvermasap/ids-specification/blob/5145306dae3d8a7691c63f92652c191976a02df8/.github/workflows/validate-json-schemas.yml

@ssteinbuss please move this issue to the new repo. No further activity will happen in this one. The proposed solution will work also in the new repo as long as...