Re: [dispatch] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt

[Glyn Normington <[e-mail]>]

Several authors and maintainers of JSONPath implementations, including myself, started to gather in June this year to collaborate on an Internet Draft for JSONPath, so I am delighted to see the post below.

Our approach so far has been informed by Christoph Bergmer's JSONPath implementation comparison project ([1]) and its computed consensus. We are working in the open in a GitHub repository ([2]). See the latest pull request text ([3]) to get an idea of our approach. We also have a slack workspace which anyone is welcome to join ([4]).

I look forward to a suitable WG being established so that we can collaborate together.

Regards,
Glyn

[1] https://cburgmer.github.io/json-path-comparison/
[2] https://github.com/jsonpath-standard/internet-draft
[3] https://glyn.github.io/internet-draft/
[4] https://join.slack.com/t/jsonpath-standard/shared_invite/zt-fp521hp0-D7gmDcmOMK4UkrRRug~SQQ

---
I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html

It says:

> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated
> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it.
> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to
> find the right way to complete standardization of this specification.
> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to
> be covered.

(For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.)

This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document.  The immediate cause for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath.  Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two fit together.

There is no active WG that immediately fits this work.

Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model).

Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a short-lived targeted WG.

Please discuss!

Grüße, Carsten



> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST
> To: "Stefan Gössner" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>de>, "Stefan Gossner" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>de>, "Carsten Bormann" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath
> Revision: 00
> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON
> Document date: 2020-07-12
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 14
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath
>
>
> Abstract:
>   insert abstract here
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>