Inconsistency in ContractRequestMessage

[juliapampus]

In the procotol, we define that a ContractRequestMessage contains either a dspace:offer or dspace:offerId. This is not reflected in the schema.

[matgnt]

@juliapampus where exactly? I can't find the text that allows dspace:offerId

[juliapampus]

@matgnt Oh sry, wrong link.. here is the section: https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/blob/main/negotiation/contract.negotiation.binding.https.md#261-post

[juliapampus]

The consumer must include the providerPid and consumerPid. The consumer must include either the offer or offerId property.

[juliapampus]

could be a leftover?

[IgorBalog-Eng]

While we review this file, there are broken json examples, that are missing comma at the end

{
"@context": "https://w3id.org/dspace/v0.8/context.json",
"@type": "dspace:ContractRequest" <----- here missing comma
"dspace:consumerPid": "urn:uuid:32541fe6-c580-409e-85a8-8a9a32fbe833",

and also in next json example and
3.2.1 POST
"@context": "https://w3id.org/dspace/v0.8/context.json",
"@type": "dspace:ContractOfferMessage" <--- here
"dspace:providerPid": "urn:uuid:dcbf434c-eacf-4582-9a02-f8dd50120fd3",

and its response example

[ssteinbuss]

should be fixed with #184

[juliapampus]

will check again before closing the issue

[juliapampus]

I can't find any more inconsistencies.