[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: JSON DDL suggestions?

  • From: Pete Cordell <pete++xmldev@codalogic.com>
  • To: Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@gmail.com>, xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:32:49 +0000

Re:  JSON DDL suggestions?
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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.