Re: [Json] JSON Schema Language

Daniel P <danielaparker@gmail.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <danielaparker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701041201EC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kfkcCw1aoUHo for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92b.google.com (mail-ua1-x92b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C651201ED for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92b.google.com with SMTP id 94so5503562uaf.10 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 May 2019 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=H+cAVja39EJgxM2pojQNYVMbZLBqbiZvNIS68WicZ98=; b=SeMbsz+U2WWi+n2RPr9LX7fLYs8a7ZT8/yyd3BijN8lBXop2yHZKiA2X0ex52MTJU8 TIs8yHR24M2wl7G+SlGmUcNN24fSFQArnRtJSFoedom776E/UOKbj7zd7GtTUGz+clGm iHXB0ekmiAiIvnOxPy2Q6UxcpTGWn/56u4ahfcFl45SZGlpocrCBzvTxcsFg0v50Xk+J RH9F2DURLLGi8tQPetOaHU3eZGvZ4NanZDAKrsHnau0mcLc1ZtgwCumRc8lVB61X7xQz YWW3bNkIxx0xCBJ+ZFqbqFh/nbOxTCOi8bjpulIWCsBr5GZu7SSOMbeLolJkzqK02vFZ f/gQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=H+cAVja39EJgxM2pojQNYVMbZLBqbiZvNIS68WicZ98=; b=rBux+LXvVchXHn06IFLuKZNuNeoqzkecHjeYJU9sfZDmHc4LyxGkq/6OIt2TwMZTds PkGJFJFXBt/sS3cle/YbCnSEZmzczaQmxUlEYtsYIRyIvGTopgdNegc6zRr3N76ExjR0 1tB9A3qn04DWxOwdwhkfKF8f4eLqkeCFXSlWVrJC35/WdcsXIOdsXqiuoX8HMcq0CRSo y5pabC/FwYVkKGPaedZDWxzrTTEIeNwa85Rxl9WP9nFATA7eBsDYTdx1fvFuAAb9bk6D mEEhjx0nyiLwJoZqieAKzc7bo26vqXZVVp8UN2g8mLRZts1+UfW5DuxDWUDxEbuOKI0c b5Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXvP0CJM/oJSAU2cAT65THv29xj5L4+/o5GL2lJR8/MAzvci0BG 3oTkxZrL2tsD8u9K28bwbUEyoNBcP4RJwfKNqghdmr3G
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx+oqVY1SvrFV1dPqcX+bDpP3bmty+X3zpSS+8714BZxe6DENuh3nwbEW/oKgOzxLxD+l42Q50cIjKItm1EOXQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6595:: with SMTP id v21mr7692822uam.113.1557341349660; Wed, 08 May 2019 11:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Daniel P <danielaparker@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 14:48:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+mwktJ2rYkuTHt4OSiL-Wg4z3w8Zpx_cRWTE3uP8BDAK-tTkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/3e7sYJyFM6_w5PIApEpVHU_z_tg>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON Schema Language
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 18:49:12 -0000

On May 8, 2019, at 15:48, Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>; wrote:

> On 08/05/2019 00:57, Ulysse Carion wrote:
>> ...  I went with JSON as the representation
>> because it makes building tooling atop of JSON Schema Language much
>> easier, since it doesn't require that the implementor write a parser.

> This makes sense if the only things reading and writing JSON Schema are
> machines. Once you have humans involved, my experience (e.g. XML
> Schema) is that it is a bad choice.

Agreed, I don't think there is any compelling reason to choose JSON as
the representation for a schema language. The grammar of JCR, for
instance, is not particularly difficult to implement, and cannot reasonably be
considered as a barrier to its adoption. What is a barrier is the
absence of any
clear coalescing around any schema proposal, apart from the defacto standard
one, JSON Schema. Without that, it's hard to see people making the
investment.

Daniel