On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:55 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote:
>
> 4. Schema languages give a false sense of conformance. Conformance
> tools are far more important.
>
> Schema won't replace the conformance tools for sure, as not every constraint
> or relation can be covered with schema. But it makes it a
Hi,
Some comments below.
Am 31.08.23 um 19:56 schrieb Andrew Newton:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:05 PM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
AFAIU, the definition of a standard JSON data description language has been a
controversial matter for long. To my knowledge, the only DDL published as RFC
that
Hi,
Sami Here from D3serve Labs.
Greatly Appreciate everyone's feedback.
>From What I've read it seems that what I've perceived as discrepancies may
be caused by:
- The differences between RFC-7483 and RFC-9083.
- The Huge Difference in response size from different RDAP APIs, due to a
big number
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:05 PM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
>
> AFAIU, the definition of a standard JSON data description language has been a
> controversial matter for long. To my knowledge, the only DDL published as
> RFC that could work is CDDL [RFC8610]. It was primarily created for CBOR but
>
Hi Scott,
as just posted by Gavin, have already worked on a JSON Schema for RDAP
and used it to build a kind of crawler which was able to validate the
RDAP responses against RFC7483.
Obviously, have no problem to collaborate with everyone is willing to
define a JSON Schema for RDAP but
Hi there,
Further to Scott’s email, some time ago Mario and Maurizio from .IT created
some schemas which I pinched and put in this Git repository:
https://github.com/gbxyz/rdap-json-schemas
These are based on RFC 7483, but with a bit of work could be updated and form
the basis of a draft.
G.
There is no RFC that I can find that describes JSON Schema. That’s not
surprising, since when I did some reading on the web site described below I
found references to multiple expired I-Ds:
https://json-schema.org/specification.html
The lack of a formal specification certainly contributed
