Being able to normatively reference JSON Schema

[decentralgabe]

Our largest hurdle for this work item is being able to normatively reference JSON Schema.
JSON Schema has broad usage and industry adoption but isn't a standard in the eyes of the W3C, yet.

The latest draft of JSON Schema is being standardized in the IETF, though this make take some time, too much time for us to hit our REC goal. We can non-normatively refer to older versions of the spec. But I believe we need to normatively refer to at least one version of JSON Schema (@msporny @OR13 correct me if I'm wrong).

I believe our first step should be reaching out to contacts at the W3C and seeing if we can gain an exception for normatively referencing JSON Schema. I'm not certain how this process works. @iherman can you please advise sensible next steps?

[iherman]

@decentralgabe the first thing to do is to crosscheck the JSON Schema development process with the W3C Normative References document. If we can have a reasonable set of arguments why JSON Schema can be referred to this way (just, as say, we can refer to schema.org, although it is not a formal standard either) then we are fine.

I guess there is no problem with Licensing, and our answer to the Scheduling question is relatively easy: references to JSON Schema is absolutely essential for this specification to move forward. I think the real question is the stability of the referenced document and this was, I guess, the problem with earlier cases of JSON Schema usage. I am not familiar enough with the JSON Schema developers' community and way of operations to answer this; hopefully you have good information.

It is also a question how sensitive you are on the latest changes/features in terms of our references. Maybe we can argue that the features we are referring to are stable, and we are not sensitive on newer features (e.g., I know I am dependent on the 2019-09 version in yml2vocab for example).

Can you look at those issues? If we have a reasonable set of arguments then we may decide to go ahead, though we may have to defend at later stage in our process.

[Relequestual]

Hello. I currently lead the JSON Schema project.
I recently replied to someone who had some similar questions: https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/3#discussioncomment-6290893. (I referenced this issue too.)

Happy to chat! Feel free to join our slack server!
I'm unlikely to be able to give a timly response in replies here, but feel free to reply in that thread.

[OR13]

@Relequestual I have enjoyed chatting with you on slack : )

I think we have resolved this issue, but I will confirm with others.

[decentralgabe]

this issue is resolved, and we normatively refer to JSON schema https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/179

[msporny]

this issue is resolved, and we normatively refer to JSON schema w3c/AB-memberonly#179

The question isn't if we normatively refer to JSON Schema, we have to do that... it's if the document linked to (specifically the features linked to) are stable, not going away, and that document will continue to exist over time. That's what we'd like to have a definitive answer from W3M or the W3C Process folks.

That is, "Is the way we're referring to JSON Schema ok?"

[OR13]

@iherman can we assign you? we've done everything we can on our side I think.

[iherman]

@iherman can we assign you? we've done everything we can on our side I think.

Sure, but I am not sure what I could do that @decentralgabe could not.

See w3c/strategy#108, b.t.w., which is a pretty long-standing issue as you can see. The only thing we can do (and hope for) is to watch that issue.

(I get notifications for w3c/strategy#108 so if this help, I am happy to serve as a conduit.)