On 2023-04-28, at 08:59, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The effort for registration at IANA is considerable. It looks to me as if the larger part of these registrations could be replaced by some kind of schema. I'm not familiar with schemas for JSON, but I have heard about some of them. What should be remaining for IANA registrations are extensions at the predefined extension points. I don’t understand the comment about IANA, but I could mention that three years ago Henk Birkholz and I did a CDDL data model for what was then jscontact(*). This probably needs lots of overhaul, but it is still on github as https://github.com/cabo/jscontact-poc JFYI, not necessarily a response to this last-call. I do sympathize with the sentiment that a spec should not make the format look like JSON-LD and then not conform to that. (JSON-LD is a representation of RDF in JSON(**); I have no idea whether moving from JSON to RDF would help or hurt jscontact.) At the time I looked into jscontact (2020), I didn’t notice any of this. Grüße, Carsten (*) In case you wonder why: I habitually make CDDL models for specifications that I want to understand. (**) … and is often abused to smuggle in RDF into specifications that then are sold as “pure JSON”. That’s not the way it is when the semantics actually are RDF semantics and not JSON semantics… -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
