JSON schema expired draft since January 31st 2013 (older than one year now)

[Philippe Marsteau]

According to IETF [1] the latest JSON schema draft has expired end of January last year (last updated August last year). 

By reading posts on this forum, I believe the language is still evolving or at least, enough traction is there to not consider it as "dead".

Could you update on the level of maturity of JSON schema? Is the latest draft close to reaching a maturity we could hope get released as an RFC anytime soon?

For some large corporations (incl. mine, Oracle), adopting a language typically requires that language to be recognized as an official standard (W3C or IETF). Seeing interest for such organization should be seen as encouraging as it will ultimately brings it to a broader adoption (Java is pretty widespread today). I would appreciate an update on where you think you stand, how close you think the language is today in regards to community adoption and maturity, and what exit criteria you see pre-requisite before advancing it in the IETF process (In Last Call then RFC).

Or is there any alternate language you see could super-seed JSON schema specification, and that JSON schema early adopters should be redirected to? 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=JSON+Schema&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&olddrafts=on&sort=

[Francis Galiegue]

Hello,

I am unfortunately fully aware that the drafts are expired; I have
stepped back some time back but am ready to step in back again as the
maintainer of the core specification and validation specification
(those are authored by me). David (Gerraint) is the man for hyper
schema, though, not me.

The problem we have is organizational; we have nothing like, well,
resources to start with; I do this entirely on my spare time (time
shared with a slew of other projects) and would like infrastructure
support, but I'm no PR guy at all. If you want to NOT sell then ask me
to PR, if you understand what I mean.

I also happen to have a library which is used quite a lot (I see that
RestAssured uses it, but also VertX, and I know of a few others; I
don't maintain a list though) so I do have a vested interest in
keeping the process alive! I am just not skilled enough on some
crucial departments to harness real traction.

If you have proposals, I'm all ears; I'm really only skilled at the
technical side of things...

Regards,
--
Francis Galiegue, fgal...@gmail.com
JSON Schema in Java: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com

[Kenny Hoxworth]

There was a post back in 2011 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/roadmap/json-schema/JSfq2xPnlsA/24MU4zbN2BMJ) when Kris Zyp and Gary Court were handling the specifications that hinted at a roadmap, with draft-04 intended to be the "last call for features" and draft-05 being intended to clean everything up as a final push towards standardization. Is there any kind of goal like that anymore, or is the desire to keep pushing forward with adding/removing features?

[Ning]

If there is something that other people can help make json schema a standard, please let me know. I am facing issues of adopting json schema due to the standard argument.

[Geraint]

On Saturday, 10 May 2014 04:39:20 UTC+1, Kenny Hoxworth wrote:

There was a post back in 2011 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/roadmap/json-schema/JSfq2xPnlsA/24MU4zbN2BMJ) when Kris Zyp and Gary Court were handling the specifications that hinted at a roadmap, with draft-04 intended to be the "last call for features" and draft-05 being intended to clean everything up as a final push towards standardization. Is there any kind of goal like that anymore, or is the desire to keep pushing forward with adding/removing features?

Finalising features would of course be wonderful.  However, this was derailed because draft v04 was the version when Kris and Gary handed off, and Francis and I took over the spec, and doing any kind of finalisation at that moment would have been problematic.

If v5 could be a "last call for features", that would be great, because I don't want to keep adding features forever and never standardise.  However, some of the features proposed for v5 are unproblematic and well-received, and some of them aren't, so I think that if we released v5 soonish then it would be inappropriate to decide on the final feature set in such a rush.

I think we could either prioritise a swift release of v5 (with only the "safe" proposed features) to signal that the project is still active, or carefully debate and consider our final feature set, but not both.

Geraint

[Matthew O'Donoghue]

I'd encourage a swift release of v5 to refresh the expiry and then a push to finalise.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSON Schema" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to json-schema...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[camilo....@gmail.com]

Is there any update about this? 

[joan...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I'm an Open Geospatial Consortium member. OGC is an geospatial standardization body. We have been working in XML for years but we have seen the community, more and more interested in JSON in general and in GeoJSON in particular. I think that as an standards body, being able to generate JSON Schema for services requests and responses and for geospatial formats is a key issue. By doing so you are more ready to generate conformance test for JSON based standards.

In particular, to define the data model of your geospatial objects we use application schema in GML and we could use JSON Schema in JSON. In fact, this is recommended in the current draft of the next version of Web Feature Service.

I wonder if we could start some collaboration to between this group and OGC to move JSON Schema to the next step in the IETF process.

Joan

[bja...@gmail.com]

This is all very sad. I hope someone picks this up sometime soon. It just seems dead. 

[to...@timetric.com]

What needs to be done to pick this up? I'd be interested in lending a hand, but I'm not sure where to begin. There seem to enough interested parties here that between us we could at least push out another draft to restart the clock.

Toby

[Ben Hutton (Relequestual]

The update seems to be this: https://github.com/json-schema/json-schema/issues/167