Discussion on EPCIS and UN/CEFACT semantics

[onthebreeze]

The readme says APIs should be standards based. Aligned with the GS1 EPCIS event model and conforming to UN/CEFACT supply chain semantics. This ensures consistency across multiple implementations.

However

• EPCIS 1.1 does not specify REST bindings.
• EPCIS2.0 (currently in final draft) does - see https://app.swaggerhub.com/apis-docs/onthebreeze/EPCIS/2.0. But the EPCIS 2.0 REST bindings seem un-necessarily complex
  • too many different paths that could be replaced with fewer more flexible end points
  • A complex query model that still only returns a list of events (not a linked graph) - could be replaced with a GraphQL service.
• the [specification](https://www.gs1.org/standards/development-work-groups/public-reviews#EPCISCBV_Public-Review-2021 seems a little too tightly bound to GS1 identifiers and potentially to GS1 membership.
• There has been some considerable work at UN/CEFACT to create a supply chain vocabulary subset that is well aligned with the EPCIS style event model and has no restrictions on use.

Therefore we propose to create APIs that

• have a much simpler REST binding for POST/PUT/GET of events.
• include a graphQL query for more flexible query capability.
• Are inspired by EPCIS2.0 but based on UN/CEFACT vocabulary.