|
|
|
|
|
|
by breck
1768 days ago
|
|
|
> "data schema" conversations massively dominated the entirety of the development and testing time. Agreed. JSON let's me know something is a number. That's great, but I still have to check for min/max,zero etc. A string? That's great, but I got to check it against a set of enums, and so forth. Basically, the "types" JSON gives you is about 20% of the work, and you're going to have to parse things into your own types anyway. > What I would really like to see is a file format where the validity of the file could be established by only using the header. Are you saying something like a checksum so not only is a schema provided but some method to verify that the data obeys the schema? If you're talking about just some stronger shared ontology, I think that's a direction things will go. I call this concept "Type the world" or "World Wide Types". I'm starting to think something like GPT-N will be the primary author, rather than a committee of humans like Schema.org. |
|
|
A checksum would be crude and user-hostile, only being able to say "you did it wrong" but not really good at tell you what it means to do it right.
If I understand the concepts correctly then it seems like a shared ontology could potentially solve the problem in a non-hostile way.
Plus, it makes me happy because I feel like types are a real-world problem, so it is always nice if the type system could enforce that real-world-ness and all the messiness that comes along for the ride.