Vocabulary keyword meta-data, particularly for in-place applicators

[handrews]

Since unevaluatedProperties #556 and unevaluatedItems #557 depend on the results of other keywords, not just in the immediate schema object but in subschemas, we need to decide how extension keywords can or cannot impact that behavior. There are two cases:

1. New object child applicators or array child applicators

2. New in-place applicators

For child applicators, as noted in #530 (comment), we should not allow them to change the behavior of unevaluated*. This follows from additionalProperties and additionalItems which do not change as a result of new keywords. They are defined just in terms of properties/patternProperties or items.

For new in-place applicators, which could contain *properties or *items keywords, the situation is more complex.

TL;DR:

• we need to allow *properties and *items to affect unevaluated* even when they are in subschemas of an extension in-place applicator.
• we can solve this generally by declaring some keyword meta-data in vocabularies
• implementations that just want to implement standard vocabularies can hardwire stuff and not worry about handling meta-data at runtime, so it won't be a huge burden on implementations

Example

In our brave new world of multi-vocabulary schemas, let's pretend someone decides to create an extension keyword patternSchemaDependencies which is a cross between patternProperties and schemaDependencies (the old schema form of dependencies). So, if the instance is an object, and at least one property matches a pattern in patternSchemaDependencies, then that pattern's subschema is applied to the current instance location, making it an in-place applicator.

Consider this schema using that keyword (and assume patternSchemaDependencies is properly declared in the meta-schema referenced by $schema, and in whatever vocabulary stuff we come up with, and that the implementation will only process the schema if it understands the extension vocabulary, etc. see #561 for details)

{
    "patternSchemaDependencies": {
        "^foo": {
            "properties": {
                "bar": {"type": "string"}
            }
        }
    },
    "patternProperties": {
        "^foo": true
    },
    "unevaluatedProperties": false
}

Should {"foooo": 1, "bar": "hello"} be valid or invalid?

My intuition says that it should be valid. unevaluatedProperties applies to properties that have never had a subschema from properties, patternProperties, additionalProperties, or another unevaluatedProperties applied to them.

In this example, because of patternSchemaDependencies, the "bar" property is covered by the schema at #/patternSchemaDependencies/^foo/properties/bar.

The problem

The reason this might not work is that we (presumably) did not know about patternSchemaDependencies when we wrote the spec for unevaluatedProperties. So the implementation might not know that it could affect the behavior of unevaluatedProperties.

If it happens to check patternSchemaDependencies first, this won't matter- as explained in #530 (comment), the properties keyword in its subschema would put the property name "bar" in the "properties" annotation, and unevaluatedProperties would notice it and exclude it from its applicable set.

However, if the implementation happens to check unevaluatedProperties before it checks patternSchemaDependencies, then the annotation results for "properties" at that point will not include "bar" (or anything else, in this example). So unevaluatedProperties will apply it's false subschema to "bar", which will fail validation, and patternSchemaDependencies will never even be checked.

So not only would it seem counter-intuitive (to me, at least) for this to fail, it's actually non-deterministic. It depends entirely on the keyword evaluation order, which is not constrained by the spec.

Implementation burden

How could an implementation possibly know that it needs to check patternSchemaDependencies before unevaluatedProperties? Of course, if the implementation only supports a fixed set of known vocabularies, the schema author could hardwire patternSchemaDependencies and any other known in-place applicators as being checked before unevaluatedProperties.

That is totally acceptable for fixed-vocabulary implementations, and I expect many will go this route.

However, it breaks down if someone wants to make a generically extensible implementation where 3rd-parties can register handlers for new vocabularies and keywords at runtime. This is not a hypothetical situation; Ajv's custom keyword support does exactly this already.

Of course, an extensible implementation's interface could provide a way to pass in such information when registering the keyword. However, leaving this interface to individual implementations to design will lead to variable quality and ease of use levels, increasing the barrier to adoption of extensions.

For that matter, needing to figure out the registration design is a significant task that probably discourages making implementations extensible in the first place.

A solution

Fortunately there's nothing magical about patternSchemaDependencies, specifically. All in-place applicators will have this effect, whether they are keywords like allOf that we know about now, or keywords of this sort added in the future by 3rd parties.

Generally a keyword should either affect things based on its classification (in this example, all present and future in-place applicators, regardless of specific behavior, are involved), or based on the specific keyword itself (in which case, as with additionalProperties depending on properties and patternProperties, the relevant keywords are enumerated in the specification).

With #561 vocabulary support, we now have a way to indicate that we are defining schema keywords. We can tag these keyword definitions with various properties in the meta-schema. The structure of these tags would provide a standard interface for writing extensible implementations.

Presumably, most implementations would be passed the relevant meta-schemas as part of their extension loading sequence, and retrieved by recognizing the vocabulary URI at runtime (similar to how most implementations pre-package the standard meta-schemas rather than dynamically resolving them from somewhere).

We could add a keyword description object (KDO), and a keyword called keyword or $keyword that takes that object as a value. I'm suggesting an object, similar to links with it's array of LDOs, as the information in the KDO will probably be processed very differently from other keywords. I could also see using the prefixed compound word form, but this does feel distinct enough for an object.

Solution example

It could look something like this (off the top of my head without much thought to the syntax, so while we can discuss syntax as part of the overall solution, complaints about minor details will be ignored for now- syntax is always solvable).

This example shows the declaration of an in-place applicator (allOf), plus a child applicator that depends only on specific keywords (additionalProperties) and one that depends on both specific properties and on a whole class of keywords (unevaluatedProperties).

The specific keyword dependencies are notated in terms of the annotations produced by that keyword, which is how such dependencies are now described in the specification. Annotation values are read either from adjacent keywords only, or from subschemas in addition to adjacent keywords.

Note that when relevantTypes is absent, the keyword applies to all possible instance types.

{
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
        "allOf": {
            "type": "array",
            "items": {"$recurse": true},
            "$keyword": {
                "applicator": {
                    "instanceLocation": "in-place",
                    "schemaLocation": "local"
                }
             }
         },
         "additionalProperties": {
             "type": "object",
             "$recurse": true,
             "$keyword": {
                 "relevantTypes": ["object"],
                 "applicator": {
                     "instanceLocation": "child",
                     "schemaLocation": "remote"
                 },
                 "annotation": true,
                 "dependsOn": {
                     "annotations": {
                         "properties": "adjacentOnly",
                         "patternProperties": "adjacentOnly"
                     }
                 }
             }
         },
         "unevaluatedProperties": {
             "type": "object",
             "additionalProperties": {"$recurse": true},
             "$keyword": {
                 "relevantTypes": ["object"],
                 "applicator": {
                     "child": true,
                     "remote": false
                 },
                 "annotation": true,
                 "dependsOn": {
                     "annotations": {
                         "properties": "subschemas",
                         "patternProperties": "subschemas",
                         "additionalProperties": "subschemas",
                         "unevaluatedProperties": "subschemas"
                     },
                     "classifications": {
                         "applicator": {
                             "instanceLocation": "in-place"
                         }
                     }
                 }
             }
         }         
     }
 }

To explain the schemaLocation part, note that $ref (which would not be in the same vocabulary) would have {"instanceLocation": "in-place", "schemaLocation": "remote"}. Since the classification dependency for unevaluatedProperties only mentions instanceLocation, that means that it matches regardless of the value of schemaLocation. This is very hand-wavy and I have not thought through all implications. I am sure that there will be a way to work it out.

There's obviously a lot more that could be done in this area, and we need to figure out what is so essential that it needs to be in draft-08, and what can be deferred. But I think that this mechanism is a key part of enabling schema designers to write their own vocabulary, and have a viable chance of that vocabulary becoming interoperable across multiple implementations.

Should [$]keyword be part of core?

Should the keyword description object be part of core or its own vocabulary? I'd say that this will be determined by whether we consider extensible implementations a fundamental part of the JSON Schema system. If they are, then we need $keyword to bootstrap the system. If they are not, then we can make this a separate thing that only extensible implementations need to support.

[gregsdennis]

First, I'm not sure I understand your example. There are a lot of properties and values in there that you don't explain:

• relevantTypes (okay, this one's pretty self-explanatory)
• applicator and its properties
• annotation (implies that this keyword counts as an annotation?)
• in-place vs local
• remote vs child
• subschemas vs adjacentOnly

I've been away from this for about 6 months working on other projects, and coming into this fresh I am confused.

---

I also think you're getting dangerously close to implementing (or at least defining) logic in JSON here. It's important to note that while $keyword may describe a new user-defined keyword's relationship to other keywords, it doesn't define the meaning behind the keyword.

For example, a $keyword entry for minimum could define that it applies to numeric JSON values only, but it can't possibly define minimum's validation logic. That has to be coded into the implementation.

What is an implementation to do when it doesn't know how to validate a keyword? It can know that the keyword is there and its relationship with other keywords, but it can't validate instances that use the keyword. Is that of any use?

Example Time

I'd like to show a complete example, but as I mentioned before, I am befuddled by yours, so I'll fudge it where I don't understand. Feel free to correct.

Let's try to define the if/then/else paradigm of draft 7 but in draft 6 (and assuming the existence of your $keyword stuff).

Given a new meta-schema of my own user-level design:

{
    "$id":"http://my.awesome.schema/draft-01/schema#",
    "$schema":"http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
    "allOf":[{"$ref":"http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#"}],
    "properties":{
        "if":{
            "allOf":[{"$ref":"#"}],
            "$keyword":{
                "annotation":true,
                "relevantTypes":["object"]
            }
        },
        "then":{
            "allOf":[{"$ref":"#"}],
            "$keyword":{
                "annotation":true,
                "relevantTypes":["object"],
                "dependsOn":{
                    "annotations":{
                        "if": ???
                    }
                }
            }
        },
        "else":{
            "allOf":[{"$ref":"#"}],
            "$keyword":{
                "annotation":true,
                "relevantTypes":["object"],
                "dependsOn":{
                    "annotations":{
                        "if": ???
                    }
                }
            }
        },
    }
}

My awesome draft-6-with-custom-keyword-compatible schema validator reads this in and recognizes that

1. if, then, and else are all user-defined keywords,
2. they only apply when the instance being validated is an object, and
3. then and else are dependent upon if... somehow.

There is no way to tell the implementation that

1. then and else are to be ignored when if is absent,
2. when if passes, apply then and ignore else, and
3. when if fails, apply else and ignore then.

These are things that the implementation must understand in a way that cannot (and should not) be encoded within the JSON. And because we're leaving out the behavior of these keywords, we can't be certain that any implementation will handle them correctly. Each implementation will need to be independently instructed on how to handle these new keywords.

Even if we were to bake evaluation rules into the "if" dependency declarations:

{
    ...
        "else":{
            "allOf":[{"$ref":"#"}],
            "$keyword":{
                "annotation":true,
                "relevantTypes":["object"],
                "dependsOn":{
                    "annotations":{
                        "if": {
                            "applyOn":"failure"
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
    ...
}

should we? I seem to recall you vehemontly arguing against logic in JSON in the past.

[gregsdennis]

Note: I'm not sure if the allOf is necessary in my keyword definitions. Can $ref be adjacent to $keyword?

[handrews]

Great questions @gregsdennis! I'll have to come back to this tomorrow for a full response, but for a few key points:

• The goal is not to describe keyword-specific behavior, so maybe calling this keyword definition is misleading. Keyword classification, perhaps? The idea is that an extensible implementation would use this data to figure out when and how to call handler code.
• unevaluatedProperties needs to run after all in-place applicators, so we need to be able to express that requirement, and keywords also need to indicate whether they are in-place applicators so an implementation knows the correct order for evaluating them.
• The keywords within $keyword more or less mean what they say- all of those terms are used either in this issue, or in PRS Create an Applicators section, group into a Keyword Behaviors section #595 and/or Keywords can depend on subschema or adjacent keyword annotation results #600. I haven't sorted out exactly how they should work, at this point this is just to give a general impression of how things might look.

[handrews]

I've been thinking on this more and we may be able to get a way with a less complicated $keyword or even none at all.

Really, the issue is that in-place applicators need to go before other kinds of keywords, as in-place applicators are the only keywords that can gather more annotations from this same point in the instance. I can't come up with other keyword classification-based orderings right now.

That doesn't solve per-keyword ordering (additional* and if/then/else), but we've gotten by OK with those handled as special cases so far, so maybe we can keep doing that?

I'd like to avoid overcomplicating the first draft with vocabulary support.

[gregsdennis]

@handrews I was mulling over this, and I think the main hesitation that I have is the idea of the keyword meta-data being defined in the meta-schema. That just seems "bloaty" to me, making the meta-schema difficult to read. Perhaps if this information were to be defined in a separate document, I'd be more open to it.

Perhaps something like this:

{
  "$id":"http://my.awesome.schema/draft-01/schema#",
  "$keywords":"http://my.awesome.schema/draft-01/keywords#",
  ...
}

Then the keywords document would contain the pertinent information relating to each of the properties (stealing from your example above), but no validation stuff:

{
  "if":{
    "annotation":true,
    "relevantTypes":["object"]
  },
  "then":{
    "annotation":true,
    "relevantTypes":["object"],
    "dependsOn":{
      "annotations":{
        "if": ???
      }
  },
  "else":{
    "annotation":true,
    "relevantTypes":["object"],
    "dependsOn":{
      "annotations":{
        "if": ???
      }
    }
  },
  ...
}

Of course, I'd want to put in a $schema and $id, but this isn't a schema, it's data that amends the meta-schema.

[gregsdennis]

@handrews BTW, I also support extending schemas. It's not documented, though. I should probably do that.

In the linked test, I extend the draft-06 schema to add if/then/else keywords.

[handrews]

@gregsdennis a separate document could be a reasonable approach for the $vocabularies keyword (and then that document would have $keywords or something in it).

Right now in #561 the proposal is that the $vocabularies URIs identify meta-schemas that just describe that vocabulary. But I've been uncertain if that's the right approach. Particularly because it's not entirely clear how they should be combined (allOf vs anyOf, for example), which leads to the overall meta-schema having to specify them as both $vocabularies and within an allOf or similar.

I don't think we need an elaborate keywords object for draft-08, as noted in my last comment, but these are interesting ideas and might point us in a different direction for #561.

[gregsdennis]

I think an interesting test case for this feature is how easy it would be to define negative applicator keywords:

• nand = { "not" : { "allOf" : [ ... ] } }
• nor = { "not" : { "anyOf" : [ ... ] } }
• xnor = { "not" : { "oneOf" : [ ... ] } }

Now this doesn't necessarily cover custom keywords, where the actual logic is defined in a specification (like the maximum keyword), but it's interesting nonetheless.

---

BTW, extending schemas is now easier with my new implementation. The client just has to write an implementation for a keyword and register it. Presto!

[handrews]

I'm now starting to think that defining a simple vocabulary description format would be beneficial for draft-08. It would do three things:

1. Make the nature of vocabularies more clear by showing how they differ from meta-schemas
2. Flag which keywords are in-place applicators, as that is the one type of keyword that really requires special handling in many situations (e.g. static analysis of schemas for code generation)
3. Allow specifying value requirements for format, content* etc. (Vocabularies and "format" #563)

This would actually make it slightly easier to do these as annotations in a meta-schema (because you need to recognize in-place applicators to have any hope of making that work), but I still firmly believe that vocabulary term lists and meta-schemas serve distinct purposes. I am only likely to change my view if someone else shows a fully working counter-proposal.

[handrews]

At this point, I am pretty certain that we will wait to attempt any sort of formal description of application semantics in a vocabulary file of some sort until at least draft-09, so we can get feedback on the basics of vocabularies first. So I'm bumping it to the next milestone.

[handrews]

#996 is a minimalist approach to this for draft-08-patch1

(apologies for earlier comment with the wrong number- deleted and re-added to send email again)