Re: [Json] Link-relation expressed in JSON?

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Tatu Saloranta <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The questions here seem to be: whether the metadata in this thread could
>> be simplified, and if not whether it's worth specifying a schema.  My
>> answer to the second part is "yes" because clearly such complexity can
>> be handled and it's better to have a schema than not if the pattern will
>> repeat often.
>
>
> Fair enough. I agree in that there are complex cases. My point is that
> complexity of structure is a choice, and should be made explicit. Based on
> JSON usage I have seen, I think modellers are not always aware of
> complexities or resulting trade-offs.

That's fair.

JSON (and XML) allow for such complex schemas (explicit or otherwise)
that we end up needing XSLT- and jq-like query languages.  It'd be
nice if such complexity could be avoided in many cases, but there's a
trade-off: flattening the schema will simply move the complexity into
object names (keys) and result in if ladders in actual code.  Perhaps
this should be noted somewhere, but there's more pressing things to do
I think.

> To reiterate what I was trying to say was just that I think it is necessary
> to not only consider aesthetics of JSON representation, but also its usage
> and impedance to usage of data beyond simple transfer or storage.
> And that certain kind of polymorphism that is easy in JSON (and json-centric
> schemas) -- such as "Object or Array" -- do not map well to object
> definitions of programming languages.

Right.  Having something like XSLT for JSON (jq!) really helps.

Nico
--