[occi-wg] Consider JSON Schema for OCCI

[Gary Mazz]

Hi,

json-schema and HAL are for two different purposes.

json-schema is a generic definition language that can be applied for 
validation, much the same as xsd is used for xml, as well as other 
definition use cases.  A validator for json-schema has already been 
created, we can use the tool to experiment and conceptualize a 
technology path.  Due to the structure of json-schema, it can transverse 
aspects of of systems concerns and be used to define capabilities, IDLs 
and other system artifacts. It already includes properties that can be 
used to support rudimentary negotiation mechanism for capabilities and 
evaluate compliance.

In the json-schema community, there are proposals for self-referencing 
as a interesting mechanism for version management.  Additionally,  
through self-referencing, we can augment json-schema to include a 
broader life-cycle definition to include specification revisions and 
compliance levels. Compliance can also serve as a contract between 
parties and can gateway to SLAs and other obligation defining agreements.

If we were to move in the direction of a pure IDL/linking technology, I 
would strongly recommend evaluating OASIS'TOSCA 
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tosca> The 
TOSCA work, in xml, can be easily and directly transformed to json. A 
json-schema could be created to support TOSCA-json as a validator and a 
compliance contract.

If I find time, I'll evaluate the linking mechanism in HAL proposed by 
Micheal. As part of the evaluation, I will be looking at how it aligns 
to capabilities defined W3C linking proposals

cheers,
gary
.


On 4/1/2012 10:31 AM, Michael Behrens wrote:
> I just recently learned of HAL, which is related to this thread 
> (author CC'd):
> http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html
> http://blog.stateless.co/post/13296666138/json-linking-with-hal
> I do like the concepts and agree with Gary that we take a closer look 
> at JSON schema and HAL.
>
> Brainstorm: The current OCCI JSON draft spec is close to these, I 
> think (e.g., links).  If needed, we could divide the spec into two 
> parts, one on a generic JSON core model, and the second one that 
> extends it for the domain specific OCCI JSON rendering.
>
> - Michael
>
> Gary Mazz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that JSON is moving along it way, I'd like to suggest the 
>> adoption of JSON schema as a method to augment the JSON 
>> specification.  The website is located http://json-schema.org/  The 
>> discussion the group on google is json-schema google group 
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/json-schema>
>>
>> The scheme bring the JSON representation a few new capabilities 
>> including validation, and a new ability to deliver OCCI compliance 
>> profiles.
>>
>> There is an expired RFC for json-schema, but there is progress being 
>> made, evident on the discussion forum.
>>
>> If this group agrees json-schema is a worth while technology for 
>> OCCI, we can start a closer examination for applicability  to OCCI.
>>
>> cheers,
>> gary mazzaferro
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20120401/fa2d290f/attachment.html>