blog about json schema analysis

[zx80]

A (controversial) blog entry about a research paper which analyses JSON Schema, categorizes defects and suggests spec changes.

This is a transfer (with a few updates) from the old blog repository as suggested by @benjagm.

[benjagm]

As commented in #483 :

Hi @zx80. As you know, we had a lengthy discussion showing everyone's efforts to learn from each other, so first of all we'd like to thank everyone for the effort in engaging this conversation.

After long consideration, in the last OCWM, we have decided not to publish the blog and encourage you to use other channels of the JSON Schema Community, like GitHub Discussions to continue the exchange of ideas, or the #community-announcements Slack channel in JSON Schema Slack Workspace if you like to share your work with the JSON Schema Community or ask for feedback.

The JSON Schema's Blog main goal is to promote the JSON Schema adoption, and this is why the content needs to fulfill specific criteria as per the blog guidelines, and as said before, this was not the case.

The JSON Schema Community is proud to be a diverse and safe space, and we encourage everyone to respectfully share their opinions, having in mind the JSON Schema Code of Conduct and here we celebrate diversity. We are just providing the appropriate channel for this type of content/discussion for this case.

We are mindful that this can be frustrating at this point, but trust us, this was a difficult decision, and we took a lot of care in every step of the process. We hope you stay in the Community so we can continue learning from each other.

[zx80]

Hello @benjagm,

After long consideration, in the last OCWM, we have decided not to publish the blog [...]

Ok!

The JSON Schema's Blog main goal is to promote the JSON Schema adoption, and this is why the content needs to fulfill specific criteria as per the blog guidelines, and as said before, this was not the case.

Sure. It seems that these guidelines have been devised after the post was submitted, thus are applied retroactively.

We accept content from JSON Schema maintainers and contributors, implementation maintainers, and JSON Schema Champions.

Ok. The fact that only some people are allowed opinions in this community is unusual from an academic perspective.
We could have been contributors if our proposals had been considered. We are also experimental tool developers.

Anyway, we take good notice that the blog is exclusively about promoting JSON Schema by insiders, thus is not the right place to propose changes and provide opinions for others.

Thanks for all the discussions which have greatly improved our understanding of how the JSON Schema community works.

[benjagm]

I am sorry that my message has been perceived that way.

only some people are allowed opinions in this community is unusual from an academic perspective

We already invited you to share your work in other channels of the JSON Schema Community, therefore is not fair to make that asseveration.

We are proud to collaborate with other researchers in the past, but in the past the researching teams approached us during their research and before the publication of their papers, what created an ideal collaboration context. However, this wasn't the case.

We could have been contributors

We need contributors, but not at any price. My personal vision of Open Source is that the first step to become a contributor should be engage with the Community and that happens on Slack and Github, the channels we are encouraging you to use. Maybe in the academic domain the contribution path starts differently, and maybe this is causing this friction.

I am going to use my last sentence to once again invite you to share your work and line of thinking with the JSON Schema Community starting a discussion in Github and posting in the community-annoucements channel in Slack and all the JSON Schema Community will get it. You voice will be heard, and hopefully the Community will engage.