Re: [Json] JSON Schema

[Henry Andrews <[e-mail]>]

Note that this is all my personal opinion.  I'm the de-facto spokesperson
for JSON Schema mostly because I have the most time available, but I'm not
necessarily the ideal person to be running things.  So take my views with a
grain of salt.

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Henry Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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  For those complaining about outdated concepts (failure to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 behavior of implementations that are five drafts out of date) I don't think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/
> enQtMjk1NDcyNDI2NTAwLTcyYmYwMjdmMmUxNzZjYzIxNGU2YjdkNzdlOGZi
> NjIwNDI2M2Y3NmRkYjA4YmMwODMwYjgyOTFlNWZjZjAyNjg
>
> 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
>    -
>
>


-- 

   -

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

   1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
   -