Relative references from hyper-schema.json to schema.json

[handrews]

For consideration after #168 is merged. Should reference to the regular meta-schema be full URIs or relative references?

[Anthropic]

@handrews I would expect that a ui-schema would also need to point to data model, hyper-schema and schema potentially so a consistent way to define scopes for pointers seems to be required? A problem we have grappled with is how to point to within an anyOf or a model array relative to the current position within a ui-schema. Using an array key to define the current path goes some of the way to find the relevant data in another scope, but not all.

[handrews]

@Anthropic This is just about whether to refer to the regular meta-schema as "http://json-schema.org/draft/schema#" or just plain "schema#" since combining that reference with the meta-schema's "id" as the base produces the correct URI.

For relative references within a schema, you want #126

Or am I misunderstanding your concern?

[Anthropic]

@handrews ah sorry, I just thought perhaps schema#/whatever could also be model#/whatever or state#/workflowstatus etc.. so I missed the point of what you were referring to. Sorry about that, got excited by the heading, I think I need to raise a new issue regarding how to apply scope to a JSON-pointer, 126 is for relative pointer and I'm not sure that fits the bill as I was meaning I could have a condition that when the schema has property value A and the data model value B I do something, in that case I need to point to json in two scopes.

[handrews]

I could have a condition that when the schema has property value A and the data model value B I do something, in that case I need to point to json in two scopes.

No worries. That might be covered by $data but I'm not sure I follow your use case so I look forward to the new issue.

[awwright]

This is... a good question.

Relative references make a lot of sense (we'd be able to change the location, draft number, authority, or protocol, without needing to update multiple references in the meta-schema).

But the spec also suggests using full URIs for different reasons that make some sense... mostly clarity.

[handrews]

I think full URIs make sense here. We had some relative ones and changed them while re-organizing links.json vs hyper-schema.json anyway, and I feel like clearly explicit references are best in this situation.