Inconsistencies in Inspections dataset

[mmartin78]

Why do some inspection fields start with "Insp" like InspType, InspTypeMapped and other start with "Inspection" like InspectionNotes? I would suggest to go with the complete word to be more descriptive, but otherwise at the very least there should be consistency.

[eddietejeda]

We discussed such a broad set of issues on the requirements and definitions that I think we were less finicky about naming. But we should clean this up. I am in a favor of more descriptive names.

In this example, InspTypeMapped should be InspectionTypeMapped.

The concern is backwards compatibility. Luckily, we have an advantage, since many of us work directly with the agencies publishing the data. But that's a bigger discussion.

[mmartin78]

Since the standard has not been adopted by many jurisdictions just yet, I would try to issue a revision as soon as possible.

Otherwise, the fields can be marked as "deprecated" for a period of time and the new naming adopted to allow for both names for a period of time (or until release 2.0) at which point the old name can be finally removed.

[bettin]

As was pointed out, renaming fields like this is a breaking change. I would suggest adding this to be considered as part of a future major release (2.0 for example).