json-schema-org.github.io
json-schema-org.github.io copied to clipboard
json-schema-org
Add glossary entries for schema and instance.
Deploy Preview for condescending-hopper-c3ed30 ready!
| Name | Link |
|---|---|
| Latest commit | 9783f12ccecc19784c7fe9c27e03a6796fe78c99 |
| Latest deploy log | https://app.netlify.com/sites/condescending-hopper-c3ed30/deploys/62f62ea27769940008a6a5e4 |
| Deploy Preview | https://deploy-preview-462--condescending-hopper-c3ed30.netlify.app/learn/glossary |
| Preview on mobile | Toggle QR Code...Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link. |
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.
![netlify[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/13473?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This seems to focus on validation to the point of not considering any other application of JSON schema. Validation is by far the most common thing to do with schemas and instances, for sure, but not the only thing. I'd say that an instance is JSON data described by a schema (or multiple schemas), and a schema describes a set of instances, which are expected to be valid against it.
This is a thought I have had more broadly in the language used with JSON schema. My own implementation is focused on the descriptive aspect of the schema/instance relationship, with validation being a requisite feature to support that.
This seems to focus on validation to the point of not considering any other application of JSON schema. Validation is by far the most common thing to do with schemas and instances, for sure, but not the only thing. I'd say that an instance is JSON data described by a schema (or multiple schemas), and a schema describes a set of instances, which are expected to be valid against it.
I'm happy to reword, but don't we use the verbiage "validation" / "validate" even for the cases you're referring to? That was the feedback given here.
There's https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-org.github.io/pull/469 with some cleanup so we can discuss on an open PR.
I'm happy to reword, but don't we use the verbiage "validation" / "validate" even for the cases you're referring to? That was the feedback given here.
Which was immediately followed by:
I'd go with "evaluation." I think "apply" is also fine whether the application is because of an applicator or because of a top-level invocation, but to avoid confusion, "evaluate" is probably best (and I think we settled on evaluationPath in the revised output format?)
"evaluation" is used fairly consistently in the spec such as in section 7 among others.
