Re: [Json] JSON Schema

[Henry Andrews <[e-mail]>]

So... the point of me sending this email was to answer a request made to
the JSON Schema project that I investigate the working group.  The clear
answer to that is that this working group is closed, and a new one would
need to be chartered.  It's not clear to me that we would want to charter
such a group now, although I would be interested in anyone's input on that.


Otherwise this discussion has turned into various people raising complaints
about JSON Schema who have clearly not followed the recent developments on
the project, or just clearly want something entirely different.  For those
complaining about outdated concepts (failure to consider data definition,
which is actually a huge focus right now, or concern over a required json
encoding, which no longer exists- the spec works on a data model derived
from JSON, not on JSON itself, or the behavior of implementations that are
five drafts out of date) I don't think a closed working group mailing list
that did not have JSON Schema in its scope to begin with is the appropriate
place to deal with these complaints.  Nor does it seem to be the
appropriate place for me to educate everyone on the past few years of work.

For those of you who want something else entirely, that's great, there are
lots of good ideas out there.  I wish you well.  There are several projects
underway in the same general space, some with quite a bit of momentum of
their own.  One of them may be a better choice for an IETF working group,
I'm not in a position to say one way or the other.

For those of you who would like to take a look at the current state of the
project, outstanding topics and debates, etc., please come on over to
https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec or join our slack
channel with this invite:

https://join.slack.com/t/json-schema/shared_invite/enQtMjk1NDcyNDI2NTAwLTcyYmYwMjdmMmUxNzZjYzIxNGU2YjdkNzdlOGZiNjIwNDI2M2Y3NmRkYjA4YmMwODMwYjgyOTFlNWZjZjAyNjg

Filing issues or asking questions on our slack channel will probably work
better than hi-jacking this mailing list, now that I understand it is no
longer active. :-)

I would be interested in pursuing the IETF process (heavyweight or not), if
there is interest from the appropriate segment of the IETF community.
However, if the reaction is primarily hostile, or just indifferent with
preferences for other projects, that is fine.  We can work through another
standards body or pursue some other path, or if our own community moves on
to other ideas we can just wind it down.  I have no interest in forcing
anyone to support JSON Schema- it stands or falls on its own.  Even without
a formal standardized specification, JSON Schema is broadly used and
survived several years of abandonment, so whatever other worthy ideas might
be out there, we have a community to support either way, and that is my
primary focus right now.

thanks,
-henry


On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> I have been designing protocols for 25 years and I have never come across
> a requirement to specify a minimum number of items in a set that is other
> than 0 or 1 and never come across a reason to specify a maximum other than
> 1 or infinity.
>
> When I have come across other limits, I have pretty much always found them
> to be wrong. Take the requirement to have two authoritative servers for a
> DNS zone (not enforced by the protocol but enforced by the social
> infrastructure around it). That seemed such a good idea to me till I found
> the two authoritative servers for the MIT LCS/AI running on a couple of
> sparc stations plugged into the same wall socket.
>
>
> The less twiddles and curlicues, the better.
>
> Validation is not useful for a data schema. It is useful for a document
> schema because it allows an intelligent editor to tell the user if they are
> filling in what really amounts to a form correctly.
>
>
> My other objection is to the use of JSON syntax and the limitation to JSON
> encoding. I don't see a reason to limit scope to one encoding. I write my
> systems using a schema language that is at least in principle capable of
> targeting ASN.1 and XML as well as JSON. This approach only allows me a
> subset of the capabilities of ASN.1 and XML schema which is exactly the
> point.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> There are much more efficient and unambiguous formats available if
>> there's a schema at hand.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Henry Andrews <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The full set of current documents is on the web page:
>>>
>>> http://json-schema.org/specification.html
>>>
>>> The first set of links (in the table) go to locally hosted renderings of
>>> each document.
>>> Beneath that, there are links to the IETF-hosted documents.
>>>
>>> If you want to see why the numbering is so incredibly confusing, there's
>>> a "Specification LInks" page linked under "Older Drafts"
>>>
>>> -henry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20 Jan 2018, at 13:25, Henry Andrews wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>   I'm one of the JSON Schema draft editors, and it's been brought to
>>>>> our
>>>>> attention that the JSON Schema project may fit within this working
>>>>> group
>>>>> (or a successor?  I'm a little confused as to the current status and
>>>>> scope
>>>>> of this group).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The WG is closed and thus has no charter. If you want an IETF WG for
>>>> JSON Schema, it would need to be a new WG. The new WG could be chartered
>>>> just to work on JSON Schema, and not every other JSON-y idea that comes by.
>>>>
>>>>   The current draft is draft-07 (although the actual IETF numbering is
>>>>> complicated).  So draft-02 was a very long time ago :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you point to the actual documents you are talking about? I see
>>>> draft-handrews-json-schema-00, which is not at -07,
>>>>
>>>> --Paul Hoffman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
>>>    [e-mail]
>>>    <https://www.cloudflare.com/>
>>>
>>>    1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
>>>    -
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> json mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>>
>


-- 

   -

   *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
   [e-mail]
   <https://www.cloudflare.com/>

   1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
   -