Re: [xml-dev] JSON DDL suggestions?

[Pete Cordell <pete++xmldev@codalogic.com>]

I've been working with Andy Newton on his JSON Content Rules described 
in the 
https://www.ietfjournal.org/the-benefits-of-a-json-data-definition-language/ 
page you mention.  You can see more details at:

http://json-content-rules.org

CDDL is an official IETF effort primarily focused on defining CBOR 
messages, but also claims to incidentally support JSON messages. That's 
described at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06

HTH,

Pete.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com
Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 28/11/2018 15:42, Toby Considine wrote:
> I am working on a project that demands JSON and whose target is 
> multi-party interoperability.
>
> In the XML world, defining the message exchanges in XSD would be the 
> easy win, and there is nothing in this project that would not be handled 
> by any of the versions of XSD.
>
> But this project demands JSON, and the community around the project 
> demands JSON. This list has had frequent discussions of XML vs JSON, 
> some technical, some tending toward flame, so I am bringing this 
> question here.
>
> What do you see as the most accepted JSON DDL format? Is there any that 
> is well accepted by tooling? By well accepted, I mean one that can be 
> imported into an IDE and then guide the programmer to emitting “correct” 
> JSON, and that can be used to create pre-validation of messages before 
> consumed by the actual target app.
>
> The potential value of such a DDL has long been discussed.
>
> https://www.ietfjournal.org/the-benefits-of-a-json-data-definition-language/
>
> JADN has been suggested, but I see multiple attempts to create a 
> standard JADN definition. JXON would suggest using an XSD and moving 
> messages in and out of JSON as required.
>
> JSON Schema Validation: A Vocabulary for Structural Validation of JSON
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01.html
>
> is still in draft from
>
> JSON Schema and JSON hyper-schema seem not quite done
>
> https://json-schema.org/
>
> My concern is that I have participated in writing an XML standard (OBIX 
> 1.0) in the days before XSD was created. All messages were described by 
> example and in prose. Interoperability between implementations was much 
> lower than desired. We finally had to go back, and with great effort 
> (1.1) create schemas (XSD) that were compatible with some of the quirks 
> from the original prose.
>
> In the interests of avoiding a repeat of that experience, what do you 
> recommend?
>
> Thanks
>
> tc