Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [json] JSON representation of common types

Expand Messages
  • Todd
    Thanks for the great feedback Atif. But I’m really not looking to introduce behavior into JSON at all. I don’t think we even need to get that in depth in
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the great feedback Atif.



      But I’m really not looking to introduce behavior into JSON at all. I don’t
      think we even need to get that in depth in order to outline a basic way of
      returning the data inside the DataSet.



      A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but each language has some form
      of object that represents data returned from a database. They may be known
      by a different names, get referenced with different syntax, and have
      slightly different behaviors associated with them. However, at the most
      fundamental level they are approximately the same thing, that being, a
      “flat” 2 dimensional data object (containing columns and rows).



      My thought is not to duplicate all the “behavioral baggage”. It is simply to
      take that data (columns and rows) and decide on a uniform way of
      representing it within JSON.



      In reality there are only two ways to look at DataSets, QueryBeans,
      Whatever…..



      1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an identical set of keys)
      2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be assumed to be of the
      exact same length)



      These objects can also be returned at the root level or nested down inside a
      “wrapper” object that contains “supporting” key values such as column Lists,
      record counts, etc…



      Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has come up with (in their own
      mind) a great way of doing this already. I simply feel it would be helpful
      to the JSON community as a whole, if we all decided on ONE way and everyone
      stick to that.



      Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I don’t know. I’m just trying
      to start some dialog and get people thinking about it.



      Again, maybe I’m way off track here. But it my mind it would be helpful to
      know I can write some JavaScript that dynamically iterates through an object
      and know it won’t break regardless of what parser encoded the string.



      Just a thought ;)







      _____

      From: json@yahoogroups.com [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
      Aziz
      Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
      To: json@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common types



      I think you'll have a hard time getting input on standardization of DataSets
      because most folks who are not familiar with .NET Framework may have no clue
      what's being talked about. The DataSet type and concept carries a lot of
      structural and behavioral baggage with it. Unless one defines the general
      problem (without referring to library-specific types) that needs to be
      addressed and then keep the focus on the wire format, it's a lost cause. The
      DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and what's mostly interesting
      about it is all the richness it provides to give nearly the sense of a
      disconnected database (short of stored procedures and a query language
      unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON is not about behavior, one
      has to focus on the structure and the wire format. The behavior can be
      defined only through an abstract specification that defines a processing
      model for each end of the wire that wants to interoperate on that data. And,
      mind you, the more you put in there, the more behavior each party has to
      provide. For example, if you're going to ship over a DataSet in JSON to a
      Java application, then who's going through the trouble of making sure that
      something on the Java or JavaScript side can provide all the expected
      functionality, like producing updategrams when calling back into the server?
      Don't get me wrong. There's an interesting problem domain behind it all
      that's interesting to try and standardize, but I fear that it might be a bit
      out of scope for this group.

      ________________________________

      From: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
      [mailto:json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of
      2
      Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:10 PM
      To: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
      Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common types

      Good question.

      Unless I'm mistaken a Dictionary is pretty much an associative array, which
      will follow the pattern of: {key:value,key:value,key:value}, and Lists will
      just be arrays [value,value,value]

      I know there is no standard for DataSet or DateTime. I started a thread
      about a DataSet standard and got some good feedback on the way people like
      to see them, but I didn't really get a strong sense of urgency about the
      subject of standardizing them. You can check out the thread here:
      http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
      yahoo.com/group/json/message/436 <http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
      yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>

      As for DateTime, again there is no formal standard other then just returning
      your data in a format that can be considered a date by both languages you
      are developing for (let's say C# and JavaScript).

      I personally feel that JSON would benefit greatly from standardizing
      DataSets and DateTime values so that as a developer, I know I can
      deserialize ANY value and know how to use it, without worrying about what
      serializer was used.

      Hope that helps,

      -Todd

      _____

      From: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
      <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:json@yahoogroups.
      <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
      Behalf Of
      Michael Schwarz
      Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:36 AM
      To: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
      <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [json] JSON representation of common types

      Hi,

      I'd like to know if there are already some common representations of
      common types like following .NET data types:

      - DataSet, DataTable
      - Dictionary
      - List, Collection
      - DateTime -> sometimes handeled as "new Date(...)" or maybe the
      SortablePattern string representation

      --
      Best regards | Schöne Grüße
      Michael

      Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
      Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

      http://weblogs. <http://weblogs. <http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/>
      asp.net/mschwarz/ <http://weblogs. <http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/>
      asp.net/mschwarz/> > asp.net/mschwarz/
      http://www.schwarz- <http://www.schwarz-
      <http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/> interactive.de/ <http://www.schwarz-
      <http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/> interactive.de/> > interactive.de/
      mailto:info@schwarz- <mailto:info%40schwarz-interactive.de> interactive.de

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mert Sakarya
      Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the following format; { DataSet : { Tables : [ { Fields : [ Column1 , ImgDate , Column2 ], Records : [
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the following format;

        {
        "DataSet" : {
        "Tables" : [
        {
        "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
        "Records" : [
        ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
        ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
        ...
        ]
        }
        ]
        },
        "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return, total number of records...
        "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
        }
        }




        Mert Sakarya
        IT Direktörü
         

         
        Tel 
        : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
        Fax 
        : (212) 251 89 50
        www.yenibiris.com

        ________________________________________
        From: json@yahoogroups.com [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
        Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
        To: json@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common types

        Thanks for the great feedback Atif.

        But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior into JSON at all. I don't
        think we even need to get that in depth in order to outline a basic way of
        returning the data inside the DataSet.

        A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but each language has some form
        of object that represents data returned from a database. They may be known
        by a different names, get referenced with different syntax, and have
        slightly different behaviors associated with them. However, at the most
        fundamental level they are approximately the same thing, that being, a
        "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing columns and rows).

        My thought is not to duplicate all the "behavioral baggage". It is simply to
        take that data (columns and rows) and decide on a uniform way of
        representing it within JSON.

        In reality there are only two ways to look at DataSets, QueryBeans,
        Whatever.....

        1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an identical set of keys)
        2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be assumed to be of the
        exact same length)

        These objects can also be returned at the root level or nested down inside a
        "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key values such as column Lists,
        record counts, etc...

        Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has come up with (in their own
        mind) a great way of doing this already. I simply feel it would be helpful
        to the JSON community as a whole, if we all decided on ONE way and everyone
        stick to that.

        Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I don't know. I'm just trying
        to start some dialog and get people thinking about it.

        Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my mind it would be helpful to
        know I can write some JavaScript that dynamically iterates through an object
        and know it won't break regardless of what parser encoded the string.

        Just a thought ;)

        _____

        From: json@yahoogroups.com [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
        Aziz
        Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
        To: json@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common types

        I think you'll have a hard time getting input on standardization of DataSets
        because most folks who are not familiar with .NET Framework may have no clue
        what's being talked about. The DataSet type and concept carries a lot of
        structural and behavioral baggage with it. Unless one defines the general
        problem (without referring to library-specific types) that needs to be
        addressed and then keep the focus on the wire format, it's a lost cause. The
        DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and what's mostly interesting
        about it is all the richness it provides to give nearly the sense of a
        disconnected database (short of stored procedures and a query language
        unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON is not about behavior, one
        has to focus on the structure and the wire format. The behavior can be
        defined only through an abstract specification that defines a processing
        model for each end of the wire that wants to interoperate on that data. And,
        mind you, the more you put in there, the more behavior each party has to
        provide. For example, if you're going to ship over a DataSet in JSON to a
        Java application, then who's going through the trouble of making sure that
        something on the Java or JavaScript side can provide all the expected
        functionality, like producing updategrams when calling back into the server?
        Don't get me wrong. There's an interesting problem domain behind it all
        that's interesting to try and standardize, but I fear that it might be a bit
        out of scope for this group.

        ________________________________

        From: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
        [mailto:json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of
        2
        Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:10 PM
        To: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
        Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common types

        Good question.

        Unless I'm mistaken a Dictionary is pretty much an associative array, which
        will follow the pattern of: {key:value,key:value,key:value}, and Lists will
        just be arrays [value,value,value]

        I know there is no standard for DataSet or DateTime. I started a thread
        about a DataSet standard and got some good feedback on the way people like
        to see them, but I didn't really get a strong sense of urgency about the
        subject of standardizing them. You can check out the thread here:
        http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
        yahoo.com/group/json/message/436 <http://groups.
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
        yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>

        As for DateTime, again there is no formal standard other then just returning
        your data in a format that can be considered a date by both languages you
        are developing for (let's say C# and JavaScript).

        I personally feel that JSON would benefit greatly from standardizing
        DataSets and DateTime values so that as a developer, I know I can
        deserialize ANY value and know how to use it, without worrying about what
        serializer was used.

        Hope that helps,

        -Todd

        _____

        From: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
        <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:json@yahoogroups.
        <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
        Behalf Of
        Michael Schwarz
        Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:36 AM
        To: json@yahoogroups. <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
        <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [json] JSON representation of common types

        Hi,

        I'd like to know if there are already some common representations of
        common types like following .NET data types:

        - DataSet, DataTable
        - Dictionary
        - List, Collection
        - DateTime -> sometimes handeled as "new Date(...)" or maybe the
        SortablePattern string representation

        --
        Best regards | Schöne Grüße
        Michael

        Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
        Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

        http://weblogs. <http://weblogs. <http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/>
        asp.net/mschwarz/ <http://weblogs. <http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/>
        asp.net/mschwarz/> > asp.net/mschwarz/
        http://www.schwarz- <http://www.schwarz-
        <http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/> interactive.de/ <http://www.schwarz-
        <http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/> interactive.de/> > interactive.de/
        mailto:info@schwarz- <mailto:info%40schwarz-interactive.de> interactive.de

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Fang Yidong
        If used in general purpose,maybe it s good to add the table name and the field datatypes in the metadata section. ... === message truncated === -- JSON: Action
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to add the
          table name and the field datatypes in the metadata
          section.

          --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:

          > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the following
          > format;
          >
          > {
          > "DataSet" : {
          > "Tables" : [
          > {
          > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
          > "Records" : [
          > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
          > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
          > ...
          > ]
          > }
          > ]
          > },
          > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return,
          > total number of records...
          > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
          > }
          > }
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Mert Sakarya
          > IT Direkt��
          >
          >
          >
          > Tel
          > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
          > Fax
          > : (212) 251 89 50
          > www.yenibiris.com
          >
          > ________________________________________
          > From: json@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
          > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
          > To: json@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
          > types
          >
          > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
          >
          > But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior
          > into JSON at all. I don't
          > think we even need to get that in depth in order to
          > outline a basic way of
          > returning the data inside the DataSet.
          >
          > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but each
          > language has some form
          > of object that represents data returned from a
          > database. They may be known
          > by a different names, get referenced with different
          > syntax, and have
          > slightly different behaviors associated with them.
          > However, at the most
          > fundamental level they are approximately the same
          > thing, that being, a
          > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing columns
          > and rows).
          >
          > My thought is not to duplicate all the "behavioral
          > baggage". It is simply to
          > take that data (columns and rows) and decide on a
          > uniform way of
          > representing it within JSON.
          >
          > In reality there are only two ways to look at
          > DataSets, QueryBeans,
          > Whatever.....
          >
          > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an
          > identical set of keys)
          > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be
          > assumed to be of the
          > exact same length)
          >
          > These objects can also be returned at the root level
          > or nested down inside a
          > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key
          > values such as column Lists,
          > record counts, etc...
          >
          > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has come
          > up with (in their own
          > mind) a great way of doing this already. I simply
          > feel it would be helpful
          > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all decided
          > on ONE way and everyone
          > stick to that.
          >
          > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I don't
          > know. I'm just trying
          > to start some dialog and get people thinking about
          > it.
          >
          > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my mind
          > it would be helpful to
          > know I can write some JavaScript that dynamically
          > iterates through an object
          > and know it won't break regardless of what parser
          > encoded the string.
          >
          > Just a thought ;)
          >
          > _____
          >
          > From: json@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
          > Aziz
          > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
          > To: json@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
          > types
          >
          > I think you'll have a hard time getting input on
          > standardization of DataSets
          > because most folks who are not familiar with .NET
          > Framework may have no clue
          > what's being talked about. The DataSet type and
          > concept carries a lot of
          > structural and behavioral baggage with it. Unless
          > one defines the general
          > problem (without referring to library-specific
          > types) that needs to be
          > addressed and then keep the focus on the wire
          > format, it's a lost cause. The
          > DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and what's
          > mostly interesting
          > about it is all the richness it provides to give
          > nearly the sense of a
          > disconnected database (short of stored procedures
          > and a query language
          > unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON is
          > not about behavior, one
          > has to focus on the structure and the wire format.
          > The behavior can be
          > defined only through an abstract specification that
          > defines a processing
          > model for each end of the wire that wants to
          > interoperate on that data. And,
          > mind you, the more you put in there, the more
          > behavior each party has to
          > provide. For example, if you're going to ship over a
          > DataSet in JSON to a
          > Java application, then who's going through the
          > trouble of making sure that
          > something on the Java or JavaScript side can provide
          > all the expected
          > functionality, like producing updategrams when
          > calling back into the server?
          > Don't get me wrong. There's an interesting problem
          > domain behind it all
          > that's interesting to try and standardize, but I
          > fear that it might be a bit
          > out of scope for this group.
          >
          > ________________________________
          >
          > From: json@yahoogroups.
          > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
          > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.
          > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of
          > 2
          > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:10 PM
          > To: json@yahoogroups.
          > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
          > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
          > types
          >
          > Good question.
          >
          > Unless I'm mistaken a Dictionary is pretty much an
          > associative array, which
          > will follow the pattern of:
          > {key:value,key:value,key:value}, and Lists will
          > just be arrays [value,value,value]
          >
          > I know there is no standard for DataSet or DateTime.
          > I started a thread
          > about a DataSet standard and got some good feedback
          > on the way people like
          > to see them, but I didn't really get a strong sense
          > of urgency about the
          > subject of standardizing them. You can check out the
          > thread here:
          > http://groups.
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
          > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436 <http://groups.
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
          > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
          >
          > As for DateTime, again there is no formal standard
          > other then just returning
          > your data in a format that can be considered a date
          > by both languages you
          > are developing for (let's say C# and JavaScript).
          >
          === message truncated ===



          --
          JSON: Action in AJAX!

          JSON - http://www.json.org
          JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt







          ___________________________________________________________
          Mp3疯狂搜-新歌热歌高速下
          http://music.yahoo.com.cn/?source=mail_mailbox_footer
        • Michael Schwarz
          Because I m currently using .NET data types in my JSON parser, do you think it would be a good idea to use common data type identifiers like used in XML
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my JSON parser, do you
            think it would be a good idea to use common data type identifiers like
            used in XML schema?

            http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes

            Regards,
            Michael



            On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to add the
            > table name and the field datatypes in the metadata
            > section.
            >
            > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
            >
            >
            > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the following
            > > format;
            > >
            > > {
            > > "DataSet" : {
            > > "Tables" : [
            > > {
            > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
            > > "Records" : [
            > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
            > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
            > > ...
            > > ]
            > > }
            > > ]
            > > },
            > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return,
            > > total number of records...
            > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
            > > }
            > > }
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Mert Sakarya
            >
            > > IT Direkt鰎�
            >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Tel
            > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
            > > Fax
            > > : (212) 251 89 50
            > > www.yenibiris.com
            > >
            > > ________________________________________
            > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
            > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
            > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
            > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
            > > types
            > >
            > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
            > >
            > > But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior
            > > into JSON at all. I don't
            > > think we even need to get that in depth in order to
            > > outline a basic way of
            > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
            > >
            > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but each
            > > language has some form
            > > of object that represents data returned from a
            > > database. They may be known
            > > by a different names, get referenced with different
            > > syntax, and have
            > > slightly different behaviors associated with them.
            > > However, at the most
            > > fundamental level they are approximately the same
            > > thing, that being, a
            > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing columns
            > > and rows).
            > >
            > > My thought is not to duplicate all the "behavioral
            > > baggage". It is simply to
            > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide on a
            > > uniform way of
            > > representing it within JSON.
            > >
            > > In reality there are only two ways to look at
            > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
            > > Whatever.....
            > >
            > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an
            > > identical set of keys)
            > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be
            > > assumed to be of the
            > > exact same length)
            > >
            > > These objects can also be returned at the root level
            > > or nested down inside a
            > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key
            > > values such as column Lists,
            > > record counts, etc...
            > >
            > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has come
            > > up with (in their own
            > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I simply
            > > feel it would be helpful
            > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all decided
            > > on ONE way and everyone
            > > stick to that.
            > >
            > > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I don't
            > > know. I'm just trying
            > > to start some dialog and get people thinking about
            > > it.
            > >
            > > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my mind
            > > it would be helpful to
            > > know I can write some JavaScript that dynamically
            > > iterates through an object
            > > and know it won't break regardless of what parser
            > > encoded the string.
            > >
            > > Just a thought ;)
            > >
            > > _____
            > >
            > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
            > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
            > > Aziz
            > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
            > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
            > > types
            > >
            > > I think you'll have a hard time getting input on
            > > standardization of DataSets
            > > because most folks who are not familiar with .NET
            > > Framework may have no clue
            > > what's being talked about. The DataSet type and
            > > concept carries a lot of
            > > structural and behavioral baggage with it. Unless
            > > one defines the general
            > > problem (without referring to library-specific
            > > types) that needs to be
            > > addressed and then keep the focus on the wire
            > > format, it's a lost cause. The
            > > DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and what's
            > > mostly interesting
            > > about it is all the richness it provides to give
            > > nearly the sense of a
            > > disconnected database (short of stored procedures
            > > and a query language
            > > unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON is
            > > not about behavior, one
            > > has to focus on the structure and the wire format.
            > > The behavior can be
            > > defined only through an abstract specification that
            > > defines a processing
            > > model for each end of the wire that wants to
            > > interoperate on that data. And,
            > > mind you, the more you put in there, the more
            > > behavior each party has to
            > > provide. For example, if you're going to ship over a
            > > DataSet in JSON to a
            > > Java application, then who's going through the
            > > trouble of making sure that
            > > something on the Java or JavaScript side can provide
            > > all the expected
            > > functionality, like producing updategrams when
            > > calling back into the server?
            > > Don't get me wrong. There's an interesting problem
            > > domain behind it all
            > > that's interesting to try and standardize, but I
            > > fear that it might be a bit
            > > out of scope for this group.
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > >
            > > From: json@yahoogroups.
            > > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
            > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.
            > > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of
            > > 2
            > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:10 PM
            > > To: json@yahoogroups.
            > > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
            > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
            > > types
            > >
            > > Good question.
            > >
            > > Unless I'm mistaken a Dictionary is pretty much an
            > > associative array, which
            > > will follow the pattern of:
            > > {key:value,key:value,key:value}, and Lists will
            > > just be arrays [value,value,value]
            > >
            > > I know there is no standard for DataSet or DateTime.
            > > I started a thread
            > > about a DataSet standard and got some good feedback
            > > on the way people like
            > > to see them, but I didn't really get a strong sense
            > > of urgency about the
            > > subject of standardizing them. You can check out the
            > > thread here:
            > > http://groups.
            > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
            > > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436 <http://groups.
            > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
            > > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
            > >
            > > As for DateTime, again there is no formal standard
            > > other then just returning
            > > your data in a format that can be considered a date
            > > by both languages you
            > > are developing for (let's say C# and JavaScript).
            > >
            >
            > === message truncated ===
            >
            > --
            > JSON: Action in AJAX!
            >
            > JSON - http://www.json.org
            > JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________________
            > Mp3疯狂搜-新歌热歌高速下
            > http://music.yahoo.com.cn/?source=mail_mailbox_footer
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >



            --
            Best regards | Schöne Grüße
            Michael

            Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
            Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

            http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
            http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
            mailto:info@...
          • Fang Yidong
            Common datatypes seem to be a good idea. Maybe we can do JSON schema ? :-) But as to XML schema, I think it s too complicated. ...
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Common datatypes seem to be a good idea. Maybe we can
              do 'JSON schema'? :-)

              But as to XML schema, I think it's too complicated.

              --- Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...>:

              > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my
              > JSON parser, do you
              > think it would be a good idea to use common data
              > type identifiers like
              > used in XML schema?
              >
              >
              http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
              >
              > Regards,
              > Michael
              >
              >
              >
              > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to add
              > the
              > > table name and the field datatypes in the metadata
              > > section.
              > >
              > > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
              > >
              > >
              > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
              > following
              > > > format;
              > > >
              > > > {
              > > > "DataSet" : {
              > > > "Tables" : [
              > > > {
              > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
              > > > "Records" : [
              > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
              > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
              > > > ...
              > > > ]
              > > > }
              > > > ]
              > > > },
              > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return,
              > > > total number of records...
              > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
              > > > }
              > > > }
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Mert Sakarya
              > >
              > > > IT Direkt榘�拷
              > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Tel
              > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
              > > > Fax
              > > > : (212) 251 89 50
              > > > www.yenibiris.com
              > > >
              > > > ________________________________________
              > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
              > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
              > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
              > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
              > common
              > > > types
              > > >
              > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
              > > >
              > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior
              > > > into JSON at all. I don't
              > > > think we even need to get that in depth in order
              > to
              > > > outline a basic way of
              > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
              > > >
              > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but
              > each
              > > > language has some form
              > > > of object that represents data returned from a
              > > > database. They may be known
              > > > by a different names, get referenced with
              > different
              > > > syntax, and have
              > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
              > them.
              > > > However, at the most
              > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
              > same
              > > > thing, that being, a
              > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
              > columns
              > > > and rows).
              > > >
              > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
              > "behavioral
              > > > baggage". It is simply to
              > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide on
              > a
              > > > uniform way of
              > > > representing it within JSON.
              > > >
              > > > In reality there are only two ways to look at
              > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
              > > > Whatever.....
              > > >
              > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an
              > > > identical set of keys)
              > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be
              > > > assumed to be of the
              > > > exact same length)
              > > >
              > > > These objects can also be returned at the root
              > level
              > > > or nested down inside a
              > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key
              > > > values such as column Lists,
              > > > record counts, etc...
              > > >
              > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has
              > come
              > > > up with (in their own
              > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
              > simply
              > > > feel it would be helpful
              > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
              > decided
              > > > on ONE way and everyone
              > > > stick to that.
              > > >
              > > > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I
              > don't
              > > > know. I'm just trying
              > > > to start some dialog and get people thinking
              > about
              > > > it.
              > > >
              > > > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my
              > mind
              > > > it would be helpful to
              > > > know I can write some JavaScript that
              > dynamically
              > > > iterates through an object
              > > > and know it won't break regardless of what
              > parser
              > > > encoded the string.
              > > >
              > > > Just a thought ;)
              > > >
              > > > _____
              > > >
              > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
              > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
              > > > Aziz
              > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
              > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
              > common
              > > > types
              > > >
              > > > I think you'll have a hard time getting input on
              > > > standardization of DataSets
              > > > because most folks who are not familiar with
              > .NET
              > > > Framework may have no clue
              > > > what's being talked about. The DataSet type and
              > > > concept carries a lot of
              > > > structural and behavioral baggage with it.
              > Unless
              > > > one defines the general
              > > > problem (without referring to library-specific
              > > > types) that needs to be
              > > > addressed and then keep the focus on the wire
              > > > format, it's a lost cause. The
              > > > DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and
              > what's
              > > > mostly interesting
              > > > about it is all the richness it provides to give
              > > > nearly the sense of a
              > > > disconnected database (short of stored
              > procedures
              > > > and a query language
              > > > unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON
              > is
              > > > not about behavior, one
              > > > has to focus on the structure and the wire
              > format.
              > > > The behavior can be
              > > > defined only through an abstract specification
              > that
              > > > defines a processing
              > > > model for each end of the wire that wants to
              > > > interoperate on that data. And,
              > > > mind you, the more you put in there, the more
              > > > behavior each party has to
              >
              === message truncated ===



              --
              JSON: Action in AJAX!

              JSON - http://www.json.org
              JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt


              __________________________________________________
              赶快注册雅虎超大容量免费邮箱?
              http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
            • Michael Schwarz
              Here is an example I m currently using: { dataSet : { tables : [ { name : My Table 1 , columns :
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Here is an example I'm currently using:

                {
                "dataSet" : {
                "tables" : [
                {
                "name": "My Table 1",
                "columns" : [["Column1","string"],["ImgDate","string"],["Column2","int"]],
                "rows" : [
                ["16.7.2006,Pazar", "16.7.2006,Pazar", 51],
                ["9.7.2006,Pazar", "9.7..2006,Pazar", 54],
                ...
                ] // end of rows
                }
                ] // end of tables
                }
                }








                On 7/17/06, Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...> wrote:
                > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my JSON parser, do you
                > think it would be a good idea to use common data type identifiers like
                > used in XML schema?
                >
                > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                >
                > Regards,
                > Michael
                >
                >
                >
                > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to add the
                > > table name and the field datatypes in the metadata
                > > section.
                > >
                > > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
                > >
                > >
                > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the following
                > > > format;
                > > >
                > > > {
                > > > "DataSet" : {
                > > > "Tables" : [
                > > > {
                > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                > > > "Records" : [
                > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                > > > ...
                > > > ]
                > > > }
                > > > ]
                > > > },
                > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return,
                > > > total number of records...
                > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                > > > }
                > > > }
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Mert Sakarya
                > >
                > > > IT Direkt鰎�
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Tel
                > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                > > > Fax
                > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                > > > www.yenibiris.com
                > > >
                > > > ________________________________________
                > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
                > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
                > > > types
                > > >
                > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                > > >
                > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior
                > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                > > > think we even need to get that in depth in order to
                > > > outline a basic way of
                > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                > > >
                > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but each
                > > > language has some form
                > > > of object that represents data returned from a
                > > > database. They may be known
                > > > by a different names, get referenced with different
                > > > syntax, and have
                > > > slightly different behaviors associated with them.
                > > > However, at the most
                > > > fundamental level they are approximately the same
                > > > thing, that being, a
                > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing columns
                > > > and rows).
                > > >
                > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the "behavioral
                > > > baggage". It is simply to
                > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide on a
                > > > uniform way of
                > > > representing it within JSON.
                > > >
                > > > In reality there are only two ways to look at
                > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                > > > Whatever.....
                > > >
                > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an
                > > > identical set of keys)
                > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be
                > > > assumed to be of the
                > > > exact same length)
                > > >
                > > > These objects can also be returned at the root level
                > > > or nested down inside a
                > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key
                > > > values such as column Lists,
                > > > record counts, etc...
                > > >
                > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has come
                > > > up with (in their own
                > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I simply
                > > > feel it would be helpful
                > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all decided
                > > > on ONE way and everyone
                > > > stick to that.
                > > >
                > > > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I don't
                > > > know. I'm just trying
                > > > to start some dialog and get people thinking about
                > > > it.
                > > >
                > > > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my mind
                > > > it would be helpful to
                > > > know I can write some JavaScript that dynamically
                > > > iterates through an object
                > > > and know it won't break regardless of what parser
                > > > encoded the string.
                > > >
                > > > Just a thought ;)
                > > >
                > > > _____
                > > >
                > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
                > > > Aziz
                > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
                > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
                > > > types
                > > >
                > > > I think you'll have a hard time getting input on
                > > > standardization of DataSets
                > > > because most folks who are not familiar with .NET
                > > > Framework may have no clue
                > > > what's being talked about. The DataSet type and
                > > > concept carries a lot of
                > > > structural and behavioral baggage with it. Unless
                > > > one defines the general
                > > > problem (without referring to library-specific
                > > > types) that needs to be
                > > > addressed and then keep the focus on the wire
                > > > format, it's a lost cause. The
                > > > DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and what's
                > > > mostly interesting
                > > > about it is all the richness it provides to give
                > > > nearly the sense of a
                > > > disconnected database (short of stored procedures
                > > > and a query language
                > > > unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON is
                > > > not about behavior, one
                > > > has to focus on the structure and the wire format.
                > > > The behavior can be
                > > > defined only through an abstract specification that
                > > > defines a processing
                > > > model for each end of the wire that wants to
                > > > interoperate on that data. And,
                > > > mind you, the more you put in there, the more
                > > > behavior each party has to
                > > > provide. For example, if you're going to ship over a
                > > > DataSet in JSON to a
                > > > Java application, then who's going through the
                > > > trouble of making sure that
                > > > something on the Java or JavaScript side can provide
                > > > all the expected
                > > > functionality, like producing updategrams when
                > > > calling back into the server?
                > > > Don't get me wrong. There's an interesting problem
                > > > domain behind it all
                > > > that's interesting to try and standardize, but I
                > > > fear that it might be a bit
                > > > out of scope for this group.
                > > >
                > > > ________________________________
                > > >
                > > > From: json@yahoogroups.
                > > > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
                > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.
                > > > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of
                > > > 2
                > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:10 PM
                > > > To: json@yahoogroups.
                > > > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com
                > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common
                > > > types
                > > >
                > > > Good question.
                > > >
                > > > Unless I'm mistaken a Dictionary is pretty much an
                > > > associative array, which
                > > > will follow the pattern of:
                > > > {key:value,key:value,key:value}, and Lists will
                > > > just be arrays [value,value,value]
                > > >
                > > > I know there is no standard for DataSet or DateTime.
                > > > I started a thread
                > > > about a DataSet standard and got some good feedback
                > > > on the way people like
                > > > to see them, but I didn't really get a strong sense
                > > > of urgency about the
                > > > subject of standardizing them. You can check out the
                > > > thread here:
                > > > http://groups.
                > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
                > > > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436 <http://groups.
                > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
                > > > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>
                > > >
                > > > As for DateTime, again there is no formal standard
                > > > other then just returning
                > > > your data in a format that can be considered a date
                > > > by both languages you
                > > > are developing for (let's say C# and JavaScript).
                > > >
                > >
                > > === message truncated ===
                > >
                > > --
                > > JSON: Action in AJAX!
                > >
                > > JSON - http://www.json.org
                > > JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > __________________________________________________________
                > > Mp3疯狂搜-新歌热歌高速下
                > > http://music.yahoo.com.cn/?source=mail_mailbox_footer
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                > Michael
                >
                > Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                > Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer
                >
                > http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                > http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
                > mailto:info@...
                >


                --
                Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                Michael

                Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

                http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
                mailto:info@...
              • Michael Schwarz
                I ve done some test on that, and almost all simple web services that offer JSON as output could be compiled using the XSD compiler inside .NET SDK, what was
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I've done some test on that, and almost all simple web services that
                  offer JSON as output could be compiled using the XSD compiler inside
                  .NET SDK, what was missing is always the response class. In my Yahoo!
                  example (http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/) I was missing the ResultSet
                  class, which I wrote at my own. All other classes could be created
                  using the XML schema. The only thing is that Yahoo! i.e. doesn't use
                  the same data type for JSON as defined in the XML schema.

                  Do you we need a new schema or can we use XML schema (the light way).
                  I would be very interessted in having a schema for JSON, too.

                  Regards,
                  Michael




                  On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Common datatypes seem to be a good idea. Maybe we can
                  > do 'JSON schema'? :-)
                  >
                  > But as to XML schema, I think it's too complicated.
                  >
                  > --- Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...>:
                  >
                  >
                  > > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my
                  > > JSON parser, do you
                  > > think it would be a good idea to use common data
                  > > type identifiers like
                  > > used in XML schema?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                  > >
                  > > Regards,
                  > > Michael
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to add
                  > > the
                  > > > table name and the field datatypes in the metadata
                  > > > section.
                  > > >
                  > > > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
                  > > following
                  > > > > format;
                  > > > >
                  > > > > {
                  > > > > "DataSet" : {
                  > > > > "Tables" : [
                  > > > > {
                  > > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                  > > > > "Records" : [
                  > > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                  > > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                  > > > > ...
                  > > > > ]
                  > > > > }
                  > > > > ]
                  > > > > },
                  > > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return,
                  > > > > total number of records...
                  > > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                  > > > > }
                  > > > > }
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Mert Sakarya
                  > > >
                  >
                  > > > > IT Direkt榘庯拷
                  >
                  > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Tel
                  > > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                  > > > > Fax
                  > > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                  > > > > www.yenibiris.com
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ________________________________________
                  > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
                  > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                  > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                  > > common
                  > > > > types
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior
                  > > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                  > > > > think we even need to get that in depth in order
                  > > to
                  > > > > outline a basic way of
                  > > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but
                  > > each
                  > > > > language has some form
                  > > > > of object that represents data returned from a
                  > > > > database. They may be known
                  > > > > by a different names, get referenced with
                  > > different
                  > > > > syntax, and have
                  > > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
                  > > them.
                  > > > > However, at the most
                  > > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
                  > > same
                  > > > > thing, that being, a
                  > > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
                  > > columns
                  > > > > and rows).
                  > > > >
                  > > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
                  > > "behavioral
                  > > > > baggage". It is simply to
                  > > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide on
                  > > a
                  > > > > uniform way of
                  > > > > representing it within JSON.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > In reality there are only two ways to look at
                  > > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                  > > > > Whatever.....
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an
                  > > > > identical set of keys)
                  > > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be
                  > > > > assumed to be of the
                  > > > > exact same length)
                  > > > >
                  > > > > These objects can also be returned at the root
                  > > level
                  > > > > or nested down inside a
                  > > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key
                  > > > > values such as column Lists,
                  > > > > record counts, etc...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has
                  > > come
                  > > > > up with (in their own
                  > > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
                  > > simply
                  > > > > feel it would be helpful
                  > > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
                  > > decided
                  > > > > on ONE way and everyone
                  > > > > stick to that.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I
                  > > don't
                  > > > > know. I'm just trying
                  > > > > to start some dialog and get people thinking
                  > > about
                  > > > > it.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my
                  > > mind
                  > > > > it would be helpful to
                  > > > > know I can write some JavaScript that
                  > > dynamically
                  > > > > iterates through an object
                  > > > > and know it won't break regardless of what
                  > > parser
                  > > > > encoded the string.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Just a thought ;)
                  > > > >
                  > > > > _____
                  > > > >
                  > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif
                  > > > > Aziz
                  > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
                  > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                  > > common
                  > > > > types
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I think you'll have a hard time getting input on
                  > > > > standardization of DataSets
                  > > > > because most folks who are not familiar with
                  > > .NET
                  > > > > Framework may have no clue
                  > > > > what's being talked about. The DataSet type and
                  > > > > concept carries a lot of
                  > > > > structural and behavioral baggage with it.
                  > > Unless
                  > > > > one defines the general
                  > > > > problem (without referring to library-specific
                  > > > > types) that needs to be
                  > > > > addressed and then keep the focus on the wire
                  > > > > format, it's a lost cause. The
                  > > > > DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and
                  > > what's
                  > > > > mostly interesting
                  > > > > about it is all the richness it provides to give
                  > > > > nearly the sense of a
                  > > > > disconnected database (short of stored
                  > > procedures
                  > > > > and a query language
                  > > > > unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON
                  > > is
                  > > > > not about behavior, one
                  > > > > has to focus on the structure and the wire
                  > > format.
                  > > > > The behavior can be
                  > > > > defined only through an abstract specification
                  > > that
                  > > > > defines a processing
                  > > > > model for each end of the wire that wants to
                  > > > > interoperate on that data. And,
                  > > > > mind you, the more you put in there, the more
                  > > > > behavior each party has to
                  > >
                  >
                  > === message truncated ===
                  >
                  > --
                  > JSON: Action in AJAX!
                  >
                  > JSON - http://www.json.org
                  > JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  >
                  > 赶快注册雅虎超大容量免费邮箱?
                  > http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                  Michael

                  Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                  Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

                  http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                  http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
                  mailto:info@...
                • Fang Yidong
                  Because string,number,boolean and null is build-in in JSON,maybe types represented in string like date be more helpful. ...
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Because string,number,boolean and null is build-in in
                    JSON,maybe types represented in string like 'date' be
                    more helpful.


                    --- Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...>:

                    > Here is an example I'm currently using:
                    >
                    > {
                    > "dataSet" : {
                    > "tables" : [
                    > {
                    > "name": "My Table 1",
                    > "columns" :
                    >
                    [["Column1","string"],["ImgDate","string"],["Column2","int"]],
                    > "rows" : [
                    > ["16.7.2006,Pazar", "16.7.2006,Pazar",
                    > 51],
                    > ["9.7.2006,Pazar", "9.7..2006,Pazar", 54],
                    > ...
                    > ] // end of rows
                    > }
                    > ] // end of tables
                    > }
                    > }
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On 7/17/06, Michael Schwarz
                    > <michael.schwarz@...> wrote:
                    > > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my
                    > JSON parser, do you
                    > > think it would be a good idea to use common data
                    > type identifiers like
                    > > used in XML schema?
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                    > >
                    > > Regards,
                    > > Michael
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to
                    > add the
                    > > > table name and the field datatypes in the
                    > metadata
                    > > > section.
                    > > >
                    > > > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
                    > following
                    > > > > format;
                    > > > >
                    > > > > {
                    > > > > "DataSet" : {
                    > > > > "Tables" : [
                    > > > > {
                    > > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                    > > > > "Records" : [
                    > > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                    > > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                    > > > > ...
                    > > > > ]
                    > > > > }
                    > > > > ]
                    > > > > },
                    > > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to
                    > return,
                    > > > > total number of records...
                    > > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                    > > > > }
                    > > > > }
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Mert Sakarya
                    > > >
                    > > > > IT Direkt榘�拷
                    > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Tel
                    > > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                    > > > > Fax
                    > > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                    > > > > www.yenibiris.com
                    > > > >
                    > > > > ________________________________________
                    > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                    > Todd
                    > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                    > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                    > common
                    > > > > types
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce
                    > behavior
                    > > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                    > > > > think we even need to get that in depth in
                    > order to
                    > > > > outline a basic way of
                    > > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET
                    > but each
                    > > > > language has some form
                    > > > > of object that represents data returned from a
                    > > > > database. They may be known
                    > > > > by a different names, get referenced with
                    > different
                    > > > > syntax, and have
                    > > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
                    > them.
                    > > > > However, at the most
                    > > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
                    > same
                    > > > > thing, that being, a
                    > > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
                    > columns
                    > > > > and rows).
                    > > > >
                    > > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
                    > "behavioral
                    > > > > baggage". It is simply to
                    > > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide
                    > on a
                    > > > > uniform way of
                    > > > > representing it within JSON.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > In reality there are only two ways to look at
                    > > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                    > > > > Whatever.....
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has
                    > an
                    > > > > identical set of keys)
                    > > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can
                    > be
                    > > > > assumed to be of the
                    > > > > exact same length)
                    > > > >
                    > > > > These objects can also be returned at the root
                    > level
                    > > > > or nested down inside a
                    > > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting"
                    > key
                    > > > > values such as column Lists,
                    > > > > record counts, etc...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser
                    > has come
                    > > > > up with (in their own
                    > > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
                    > simply
                    > > > > feel it would be helpful
                    > > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
                    > decided
                    > > > > on ONE way and everyone
                    > > > > stick to that.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I
                    > don't
                    > > > > know. I'm just trying
                    > > > > to start some dialog and get people thinking
                    > about
                    > > > > it.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my
                    > mind
                    > > > > it would be helpful to
                    > > > > know I can write some JavaScript that
                    > dynamically
                    > > > > iterates through an object
                    > > > > and know it won't break regardless of what
                    > parser
                    > > > > encoded the string.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Just a thought ;)
                    > > > >
                    > > > > _____
                    > > > >
                    > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                    > Atif
                    > > > > Aziz
                    > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
                    > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                    > common
                    >
                    === message truncated ===



                    --
                    JSON: Action in AJAX!

                    JSON - http://www.json.org
                    JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt




                    ___________________________________________________________
                    抢注雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量,20M附件!
                    http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
                  • Fang Yidong
                    I don t know. JSON sparkles in its simplicity.It s a challenge bring in an elegant and simple common type system,I think.Maybe Douglas can give some comments?
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't know. JSON sparkles in its simplicity.It's a
                      challenge bring in an elegant and simple common type
                      system,I think.Maybe Douglas can give some comments?

                      --- Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...>:

                      > I've done some test on that, and almost all simple
                      > web services that
                      > offer JSON as output could be compiled using the XSD
                      > compiler inside
                      > .NET SDK, what was missing is always the response
                      > class. In my Yahoo!
                      > example (http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/) I was
                      > missing the ResultSet
                      > class, which I wrote at my own. All other classes
                      > could be created
                      > using the XML schema. The only thing is that Yahoo!
                      > i.e. doesn't use
                      > the same data type for JSON as defined in the XML
                      > schema.
                      >
                      > Do you we need a new schema or can we use XML schema
                      > (the light way).
                      > I would be very interessted in having a schema for
                      > JSON, too.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Michael
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...>
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Common datatypes seem to be a good idea. Maybe we
                      > can
                      > > do 'JSON schema'? :-)
                      > >
                      > > But as to XML schema, I think it's too
                      > complicated.
                      > >
                      > > --- Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...>:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in
                      > my
                      > > > JSON parser, do you
                      > > > think it would be a good idea to use common data
                      > > > type identifiers like
                      > > > used in XML schema?
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                      http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                      > > >
                      > > > Regards,
                      > > > Michael
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong
                      > <fangyidong@...>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to
                      > add
                      > > > the
                      > > > > table name and the field datatypes in the
                      > metadata
                      > > > > section.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
                      > > > following
                      > > > > > format;
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > {
                      > > > > > "DataSet" : {
                      > > > > > "Tables" : [
                      > > > > > {
                      > > > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                      > > > > > "Records" : [
                      > > > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                      > > > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                      > > > > > ...
                      > > > > > ]
                      > > > > > }
                      > > > > > ]
                      > > > > > },
                      > > > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to
                      > return,
                      > > > > > total number of records...
                      > > > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                      > > > > > }
                      > > > > > }
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Mert Sakarya
                      > > > >
                      > >
                      > > > > > IT Direkt姒�函��
                      > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Tel
                      > > > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                      > > > > > Fax
                      > > > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                      > > > > > www.yenibiris.com
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > ________________________________________
                      > > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                      > Todd
                      > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                      > > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                      > > > common
                      > > > > > types
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce
                      > behavior
                      > > > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                      > > > > > think we even need to get that in depth in
                      > order
                      > > > to
                      > > > > > outline a basic way of
                      > > > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET
                      > but
                      > > > each
                      > > > > > language has some form
                      > > > > > of object that represents data returned from
                      > a
                      > > > > > database. They may be known
                      > > > > > by a different names, get referenced with
                      > > > different
                      > > > > > syntax, and have
                      > > > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
                      > > > them.
                      > > > > > However, at the most
                      > > > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
                      > > > same
                      > > > > > thing, that being, a
                      > > > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
                      > > > columns
                      > > > > > and rows).
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
                      > > > "behavioral
                      > > > > > baggage". It is simply to
                      > > > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide
                      > on
                      > > > a
                      > > > > > uniform way of
                      > > > > > representing it within JSON.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > In reality there are only two ways to look
                      > at
                      > > > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                      > > > > > Whatever.....
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object
                      > has an
                      > > > > > identical set of keys)
                      > > > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can
                      > be
                      > > > > > assumed to be of the
                      > > > > > exact same length)
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > These objects can also be returned at the
                      > root
                      > > > level
                      > > > > > or nested down inside a
                      > > > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting"
                      > key
                      > > > > > values such as column Lists,
                      > > > > > record counts, etc...
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser
                      > has
                      > > > come
                      > > > > > up with (in their own
                      > > > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
                      > > > simply
                      > > > > > feel it would be helpful
                      > > > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
                      > > > decided
                      > > > > > on ONE way and everyone
                      >
                      === message truncated ===



                      --
                      JSON: Action in AJAX!

                      JSON - http://www.json.org
                      JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt




                      ___________________________________________________________
                      雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量,20M附件
                      http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
                    • Michael Schwarz
                      For date, time,... I use this currently: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#isoformats ... -- Best regards | Schöne Grüße Michael Microsoft
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        For date, time,... I use this currently:

                        http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#isoformats



                        On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Because string,number,boolean and null is build-in in
                        > JSON,maybe types represented in string like 'date' be
                        > more helpful.
                        >
                        > --- Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...>:
                        >
                        >
                        > > Here is an example I'm currently using:
                        > >
                        > > {
                        > > "dataSet" : {
                        > > "tables" : [
                        > > {
                        > > "name": "My Table 1",
                        > > "columns" :
                        > >
                        > [["Column1","string"],["ImgDate","string"],["Column2","int"]],
                        > > "rows" : [
                        > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar", "16.7.2006,Pazar",
                        > > 51],
                        > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar", "9.7..2006,Pazar", 54],
                        > > ...
                        > > ] // end of rows
                        > > }
                        > > ] // end of tables
                        > > }
                        > > }
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On 7/17/06, Michael Schwarz
                        > > <michael.schwarz@...> wrote:
                        > > > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my
                        > > JSON parser, do you
                        > > > think it would be a good idea to use common data
                        > > type identifiers like
                        > > > used in XML schema?
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                        > > >
                        > > > Regards,
                        > > > Michael
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to
                        > > add the
                        > > > > table name and the field datatypes in the
                        > > metadata
                        > > > > section.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
                        > > following
                        > > > > > format;
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > {
                        > > > > > "DataSet" : {
                        > > > > > "Tables" : [
                        > > > > > {
                        > > > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                        > > > > > "Records" : [
                        > > > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                        > > > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                        > > > > > ...
                        > > > > > ]
                        > > > > > }
                        > > > > > ]
                        > > > > > },
                        > > > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to
                        > > return,
                        > > > > > total number of records...
                        > > > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                        > > > > > }
                        > > > > > }
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Mert Sakarya
                        > > > >
                        >
                        > > > > > IT Direkt榘庯拷
                        >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Tel
                        > > > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                        > > > > > Fax
                        > > > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                        > > > > > www.yenibiris.com
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > ________________________________________
                        > > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                        > > Todd
                        > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                        > > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                        > > common
                        > > > > > types
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce
                        > > behavior
                        > > > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                        > > > > > think we even need to get that in depth in
                        > > order to
                        > > > > > outline a basic way of
                        > > > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET
                        > > but each
                        > > > > > language has some form
                        > > > > > of object that represents data returned from a
                        > > > > > database. They may be known
                        > > > > > by a different names, get referenced with
                        > > different
                        > > > > > syntax, and have
                        > > > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
                        > > them.
                        > > > > > However, at the most
                        > > > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
                        > > same
                        > > > > > thing, that being, a
                        > > > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
                        > > columns
                        > > > > > and rows).
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
                        > > "behavioral
                        > > > > > baggage". It is simply to
                        > > > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide
                        > > on a
                        > > > > > uniform way of
                        > > > > > representing it within JSON.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > In reality there are only two ways to look at
                        > > > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                        > > > > > Whatever.....
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has
                        > > an
                        > > > > > identical set of keys)
                        > > > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can
                        > > be
                        > > > > > assumed to be of the
                        > > > > > exact same length)
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > These objects can also be returned at the root
                        > > level
                        > > > > > or nested down inside a
                        > > > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting"
                        > > key
                        > > > > > values such as column Lists,
                        > > > > > record counts, etc...
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser
                        > > has come
                        > > > > > up with (in their own
                        > > > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
                        > > simply
                        > > > > > feel it would be helpful
                        > > > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
                        > > decided
                        > > > > > on ONE way and everyone
                        > > > > > stick to that.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I
                        > > don't
                        > > > > > know. I'm just trying
                        > > > > > to start some dialog and get people thinking
                        > > about
                        > > > > > it.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my
                        > > mind
                        > > > > > it would be helpful to
                        > > > > > know I can write some JavaScript that
                        > > dynamically
                        > > > > > iterates through an object
                        > > > > > and know it won't break regardless of what
                        > > parser
                        > > > > > encoded the string.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Just a thought ;)
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > _____
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                        > > Atif
                        > > > > > Aziz
                        > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM
                        > > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                        > > common
                        > >
                        >
                        > === message truncated ===
                        >
                        > --
                        > JSON: Action in AJAX!
                        >
                        > JSON - http://www.json.org
                        > JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt
                        >
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________________
                        >
                        > 抢注雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量,20M附件!
                        >
                        > http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        --
                        Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                        Michael

                        Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                        Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

                        http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                        http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
                        mailto:info@...
                      • Atif Aziz
                        I ve been doing some thinking along these lines for my work on the JSON-RPC 1.1 specification. In JSON-RPC 1.1, I added introspection support for services,
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 17, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I've been doing some thinking along these lines for my work on the
                          JSON-RPC 1.1 specification. In JSON-RPC 1.1, I added introspection
                          support for services, meaning that there would be a standard way to
                          describe a service, its procedures and the paramterers of those
                          procedures. Needless to say, the last bit needs some type-hinting
                          support, especially for the strongly-typed languages so that they have a
                          chance of generating reasonable proxy code. I am not completely done
                          with all the ideas, but I can shed some light on what I've come up with
                          so far.

                          JSON supports 6 data types. As everyone probably can guess, these are
                          Object, Array, String, Number, Boolean and Null. In JSON-RPC 1.1, these
                          take the form "object", "array", "string", "number", "bool" and "null"
                          in text. Dead simple so far, but now let's get to the fun part. From
                          this, how do you express types representing an array of integers versus
                          an array of floats? How do you express a type for dates expressed in ISO
                          8601 format versus those in Unix time? The first rule I came up with is
                          not to violate or hide the 6 JSON types. These should always be stated
                          as the root relation of some new type so that parties that don't
                          understand the extension can still work with the basic ones they know
                          about. In other words, you express a new data type as specialization of
                          one of the 6 fundamental types. The type specification expression looks
                          roughly like this:

                          type-spec := json-type "/" sub-type
                          json-type := "null" | "bool" | "number" |
                          "string" | "object" | "array"

                          If you think about it, it looks a lot like MIME-type specification, as
                          in "text/plain". This is no coincidence. I wanted a familiar syntax so
                          that people can pick it up quickly and recall it easily. Short of
                          writing the spec here, the best way to demonstrate how it works is by
                          showing you a few examples, so here are some concrete ones I have been
                          working on:

                          * string/w3time = String containing time using ISO 8601 format.
                          * string/time = String containing time using unix time format.
                          * string/guid = String containing a GUID.
                          * number/time = Number containing time using unix time format.
                          * number/int32 = Number that is a 32-bit integer.
                          * number/int64 = Number that is a 64-bit integer
                          * number/float = Number with single precision.
                          * number/double = Number with double precision.
                          * number/decimal = Number for financial application.
                          * array/string = Array of String values.
                          * array/object = Array of Object values.

                          You can also now combine to form further hierarchies, which is mostly
                          useful in the Array case, as in:

                          * array/string/time = Array of String values containing time using
                          unix time format.
                          * array/number/int32 = Array of 32-bit integers.

                          The important thing to realize is that a consumer can stop processing at
                          the first slash and take only the pure JSON type on its left if it
                          wishes to ignore the rest. What's more, it can do this without fear of
                          loosing information that will be held in the containing super type. For
                          example, if a consumer treats "string/w3time" as String then the time
                          information has not been lost. It's just delivered to the application as
                          a String as opposed to a type that is more representative of time in the
                          development language of the application.

                          In the case of Object, it would be possible to say, "object/person",
                          provided that you describe person somewhere as:

                          { "name" : "string",
                          "sirname" : "string",
                          "birthday" : "string/time"
                          "children" : "array/object/person" }

                          In the last case, you see that "children" is defined as array of
                          "person" Object values.

                          Finally, as common sense would tell us, so goes the rule...types such as
                          Null and Boolean cannot be specialized. A consumer would simple ignore
                          any specialization.

                          Anyway, there you have it. Hope I've been able to give an idea of how I
                          am planning to solve the problem for JSON-RPC 1.1, but it certainly has
                          a wider application and you're free to see if it fits your needs (as in
                          describing the column types of a table of records). Meanwhile, I've
                          tried to keep it simple and effective while allowing for fallback cases.
                          Thoughts?


                          --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I don't know. JSON sparkles in its simplicity.It's a
                          > challenge bring in an elegant and simple common type
                          > system,I think.Maybe Douglas can give some comments?
                          >
                          > --- Michael Schwarz michael.schwarz@...:
                          >
                          > > I've done some test on that, and almost all simple
                          > > web services that
                          > > offer JSON as output could be compiled using the XSD
                          > > compiler inside
                          > > .NET SDK, what was missing is always the response
                          > > class. In my Yahoo!
                          > > example (http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/) I was
                          > > missing the ResultSet
                          > > class, which I wrote at my own. All other classes
                          > > could be created
                          > > using the XML schema. The only thing is that Yahoo!
                          > > i.e. doesn't use
                          > > the same data type for JSON as defined in the XML
                          > > schema.
                          > >
                          > > Do you we need a new schema or can we use XML schema
                          > > (the light way).
                          > > I would be very interessted in having a schema for
                          > > JSON, too.
                          > >
                          > > Regards,
                          > > Michael
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong fangyidong@...
                          > > wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Common datatypes seem to be a good idea. Maybe we
                          > > can
                          > > > do 'JSON schema'? :-)
                          > > >
                          > > > But as to XML schema, I think it's too
                          > > complicated.
                          > > >
                          > > > --- Michael Schwarz michael.schwarz@...:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in
                          > > my
                          > > > > JSON parser, do you
                          > > > > think it would be a good idea to use common data
                          > > > > type identifiers like
                          > > > > used in XML schema?
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Regards,
                          > > > > Michael
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong
                          > > fangyidong@...
                          > > > > wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to
                          > > add
                          > > > > the
                          > > > > > table name and the field datatypes in the
                          > > metadata
                          > > > > > section.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > --- Mert Sakarya msakarya@...:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
                          > > > > following
                          > > > > > > format;
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > {
                          > > > > > > "DataSet" : {
                          > > > > > > "Tables" : [
                          > > > > > > {
                          > > > > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                          > > > > > > "Records" : [
                          > > > > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                          > > > > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                          > > > > > > ...
                          > > > > > > ]
                          > > > > > > }
                          > > > > > > ]
                          > > > > > > },
                          > > > > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to
                          > > return,
                          > > > > > > total number of records...
                          > > > > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                          > > > > > > }
                          > > > > > > }
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Mert Sakarya
                          > > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > > > IT Direkt榘庯拁
                          > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Tel
                          > > > > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                          > > > > > > Fax
                          > > > > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                          > > > > > > www.yenibiris.com
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > ________________________________________
                          > > > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                          > > Todd
                          > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                          > > > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                          > > > > common
                          > > > > > > types
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce
                          > > behavior
                          > > > > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                          > > > > > > think we even need to get that in depth in
                          > > order
                          > > > > to
                          > > > > > > outline a basic way of
                          > > > > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET
                          > > but
                          > > > > each
                          > > > > > > language has some form
                          > > > > > > of object that represents data returned from
                          > > a
                          > > > > > > database. They may be known
                          > > > > > > by a different names, get referenced with
                          > > > > different
                          > > > > > > syntax, and have
                          > > > > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
                          > > > > them.
                          > > > > > > However, at the most
                          > > > > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
                          > > > > same
                          > > > > > > thing, that being, a
                          > > > > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
                          > > > > columns
                          > > > > > > and rows).
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
                          > > > > "behavioral
                          > > > > > > baggage". It is simply to
                          > > > > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide
                          > > on
                          > > > > a
                          > > > > > > uniform way of
                          > > > > > > representing it within JSON.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > In reality there are only two ways to look
                          > > at
                          > > > > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                          > > > > > > Whatever.....
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object
                          > > has an
                          > > > > > > identical set of keys)
                          > > > > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can
                          > > be
                          > > > > > > assumed to be of the
                          > > > > > > exact same length)
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > These objects can also be returned at the
                          > > root
                          > > > > level
                          > > > > > > or nested down inside a
                          > > > > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting"
                          > > key
                          > > > > > > values such as column Lists,
                          > > > > > > record counts, etc...
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser
                          > > has
                          > > > > come
                          > > > > > > up with (in their own
                          > > > > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
                          > > > > simply
                          > > > > > > feel it would be helpful
                          > > > > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
                          > > > > decided
                          > > > > > > on ONE way and everyone
                          > >
                          > === message truncated ===
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > JSON: Action in AJAX!
                          >
                          > JSON - http://www.json.org
                          > JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ___________________________________________________________
                          > ÑÅ»¢Ãâ·ÑÓÊÏä-3.5GÈÝÁ¿£¬20M¸½¼þ
                          > http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Michael Schwarz
                          Are you talking about a JSON schema or a message? Where do you want to put the type? I think there are two scenarios where type meta information is neccesary:
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 18, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Are you talking about a JSON schema or a message? Where do you want to
                            put the type? I think there are two scenarios where type meta
                            information is neccesary:

                            1) if we have to describe a JSON "message" comparing to XSD to create
                            classes on other side. I had a look at the Yahoo! search that are
                            currently similar to their XSDs.

                            2) If we return objects which will inherit from others. Where do you
                            want to add the additional information? Again, I think, we are talking
                            about something like the __type property.


                            Michael



                            On 7/18/06, Atif Aziz <atif.aziz@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > I've been doing some thinking along these lines for my work on the
                            > JSON-RPC 1.1 specification. In JSON-RPC 1.1, I added introspection
                            > support for services, meaning that there would be a standard way to
                            > describe a service, its procedures and the paramterers of those
                            > procedures. Needless to say, the last bit needs some type-hinting
                            > support, especially for the strongly-typed languages so that they have a
                            > chance of generating reasonable proxy code. I am not completely done
                            > with all the ideas, but I can shed some light on what I've come up with
                            > so far.
                            >
                            > JSON supports 6 data types. As everyone probably can guess, these are
                            > Object, Array, String, Number, Boolean and Null. In JSON-RPC 1.1, these
                            > take the form "object", "array", "string", "number", "bool" and "null"
                            > in text. Dead simple so far, but now let's get to the fun part. From
                            > this, how do you express types representing an array of integers versus
                            > an array of floats? How do you express a type for dates expressed in ISO
                            > 8601 format versus those in Unix time? The first rule I came up with is
                            > not to violate or hide the 6 JSON types. These should always be stated
                            > as the root relation of some new type so that parties that don't
                            > understand the extension can still work with the basic ones they know
                            > about. In other words, you express a new data type as specialization of
                            > one of the 6 fundamental types. The type specification expression looks
                            > roughly like this:
                            >
                            > type-spec := json-type "/" sub-type
                            > json-type := "null" | "bool" | "number" |
                            > "string" | "object" | "array"
                            >
                            > If you think about it, it looks a lot like MIME-type specification, as
                            > in "text/plain". This is no coincidence. I wanted a familiar syntax so
                            > that people can pick it up quickly and recall it easily. Short of
                            > writing the spec here, the best way to demonstrate how it works is by
                            > showing you a few examples, so here are some concrete ones I have been
                            > working on:
                            >
                            > * string/w3time = String containing time using ISO 8601 format.
                            > * string/time = String containing time using unix time format.
                            > * string/guid = String containing a GUID.
                            > * number/time = Number containing time using unix time format.
                            > * number/int32 = Number that is a 32-bit integer.
                            > * number/int64 = Number that is a 64-bit integer
                            > * number/float = Number with single precision.
                            > * number/double = Number with double precision.
                            > * number/decimal = Number for financial application.
                            > * array/string = Array of String values.
                            > * array/object = Array of Object values.
                            >
                            > You can also now combine to form further hierarchies, which is mostly
                            > useful in the Array case, as in:
                            >
                            > * array/string/time = Array of String values containing time using
                            > unix time format.
                            > * array/number/int32 = Array of 32-bit integers.
                            >
                            > The important thing to realize is that a consumer can stop processing at
                            > the first slash and take only the pure JSON type on its left if it
                            > wishes to ignore the rest. What's more, it can do this without fear of
                            > loosing information that will be held in the containing super type. For
                            > example, if a consumer treats "string/w3time" as String then the time
                            > information has not been lost. It's just delivered to the application as
                            > a String as opposed to a type that is more representative of time in the
                            > development language of the application.
                            >
                            > In the case of Object, it would be possible to say, "object/person",
                            > provided that you describe person somewhere as:
                            >
                            > { "name" : "string",
                            > "sirname" : "string",
                            > "birthday" : "string/time"
                            > "children" : "array/object/person" }
                            >
                            > In the last case, you see that "children" is defined as array of
                            > "person" Object values.
                            >
                            > Finally, as common sense would tell us, so goes the rule...types such as
                            > Null and Boolean cannot be specialized. A consumer would simple ignore
                            > any specialization.
                            >
                            > Anyway, there you have it. Hope I've been able to give an idea of how I
                            > am planning to solve the problem for JSON-RPC 1.1, but it certainly has
                            > a wider application and you're free to see if it fits your needs (as in
                            > describing the column types of a table of records). Meanwhile, I've
                            > tried to keep it simple and effective while allowing for fallback cases.
                            > Thoughts?
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > I don't know. JSON sparkles in its simplicity.It's a
                            > > challenge bring in an elegant and simple common type
                            > > system,I think.Maybe Douglas can give some comments?
                            > >
                            >
                            > > --- Michael Schwarz michael.schwarz@...:
                            >
                            > >
                            > > > I've done some test on that, and almost all simple
                            > > > web services that
                            > > > offer JSON as output could be compiled using the XSD
                            > > > compiler inside
                            > > > .NET SDK, what was missing is always the response
                            > > > class. In my Yahoo!
                            > > > example (http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/) I was
                            > > > missing the ResultSet
                            > > > class, which I wrote at my own. All other classes
                            > > > could be created
                            > > > using the XML schema. The only thing is that Yahoo!
                            > > > i.e. doesn't use
                            > > > the same data type for JSON as defined in the XML
                            > > > schema.
                            > > >
                            > > > Do you we need a new schema or can we use XML schema
                            > > > (the light way).
                            > > > I would be very interessted in having a schema for
                            > > > JSON, too.
                            > > >
                            > > > Regards,
                            > > > Michael
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong fangyidong@...
                            >
                            > > > wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Common datatypes seem to be a good idea. Maybe we
                            > > > can
                            > > > > do 'JSON schema'? :-)
                            > > > >
                            > > > > But as to XML schema, I think it's too
                            > > > complicated.
                            > > > >
                            >
                            > > > > --- Michael Schwarz michael.schwarz@...:
                            >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > Because I'm currently using .NET data types in
                            > > > my
                            > > > > > JSON parser, do you
                            > > > > > think it would be a good idea to use common data
                            > > > > > type identifiers like
                            > > > > > used in XML schema?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Regards,
                            > > > > > Michael
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > On 7/17/06, Fang Yidong
                            >
                            > > > fangyidong@...
                            >
                            > > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to
                            > > > add
                            > > > > > the
                            > > > > > > table name and the field datatypes in the
                            > > > metadata
                            > > > > > > section.
                            > > > > > >
                            >
                            > > > > > > --- Mert Sakarya msakarya@...:
                            >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the
                            > > > > > following
                            > > > > > > > format;
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > {
                            > > > > > > > "DataSet" : {
                            > > > > > > > "Tables" : [
                            > > > > > > > {
                            > > > > > > > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],
                            > > > > > > > "Records" : [
                            > > > > > > > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],
                            > > > > > > > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],
                            > > > > > > > ...
                            > > > > > > > ]
                            > > > > > > > }
                            > > > > > > > ]
                            > > > > > > > },
                            > > > > > > > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to
                            > > > return,
                            > > > > > > > total number of records...
                            > > > > > > > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"
                            > > > > > > > }
                            > > > > > > > }
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Mert Sakarya
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            >
                            > > > > > > > IT Direkt榘庯拁
                            >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Tel
                            > > > > > > > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112
                            > > > > > > > Fax
                            > > > > > > > : (212) 251 89 50
                            > > > > > > > www.yenibiris.com
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > ________________________________________
                            > > > > > > > From: json@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > > > > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                            > > > Todd
                            > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM
                            > > > > > > > To: json@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of
                            > > > > > common
                            > > > > > > > types
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > But I'm really not looking to introduce
                            > > > behavior
                            > > > > > > > into JSON at all. I don't
                            > > > > > > > think we even need to get that in depth in
                            > > > order
                            > > > > > to
                            > > > > > > > outline a basic way of
                            > > > > > > > returning the data inside the DataSet.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET
                            > > > but
                            > > > > > each
                            > > > > > > > language has some form
                            > > > > > > > of object that represents data returned from
                            > > > a
                            > > > > > > > database. They may be known
                            > > > > > > > by a different names, get referenced with
                            > > > > > different
                            > > > > > > > syntax, and have
                            > > > > > > > slightly different behaviors associated with
                            > > > > > them.
                            > > > > > > > However, at the most
                            > > > > > > > fundamental level they are approximately the
                            > > > > > same
                            > > > > > > > thing, that being, a
                            > > > > > > > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing
                            > > > > > columns
                            > > > > > > > and rows).
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > My thought is not to duplicate all the
                            > > > > > "behavioral
                            > > > > > > > baggage". It is simply to
                            > > > > > > > take that data (columns and rows) and decide
                            > > > on
                            > > > > > a
                            > > > > > > > uniform way of
                            > > > > > > > representing it within JSON.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > In reality there are only two ways to look
                            > > > at
                            > > > > > > > DataSets, QueryBeans,
                            > > > > > > > Whatever.....
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object
                            > > > has an
                            > > > > > > > identical set of keys)
                            > > > > > > > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can
                            > > > be
                            > > > > > > > assumed to be of the
                            > > > > > > > exact same length)
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > These objects can also be returned at the
                            > > > root
                            > > > > > level
                            > > > > > > > or nested down inside a
                            > > > > > > > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting"
                            > > > key
                            > > > > > > > values such as column Lists,
                            > > > > > > > record counts, etc...
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser
                            > > > has
                            > > > > > come
                            > > > > > > > up with (in their own
                            > > > > > > > mind) a great way of doing this already. I
                            > > > > > simply
                            > > > > > > > feel it would be helpful
                            > > > > > > > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all
                            > > > > > decided
                            > > > > > > > on ONE way and everyone
                            > > >
                            > > === message truncated ===
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --
                            > > JSON: Action in AJAX!
                            > >
                            > > JSON - http://www.json.org
                            > > JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > __________________________________________________________
                            >
                            > > �Ż��������-3.5G����20M����
                            >
                            > > http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >



                            --
                            Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                            Michael

                            Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                            Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer

                            http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                            http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
                            mailto:info@...
                          • Mert Sakarya
                            I think, simplicity in mind, JSON is not strong-typed, types are only Variants in JSON. I think, we only have, null, true/false, number and string (and we
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 18, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I think, simplicity in mind, JSON is not strong-typed, types are only "Variants" in JSON. I think, we only have, null, true/false, number and string (and we also have Array and Object structures). So we can only use these types in JSON-Schema.

                              There is no date, float, function and other primitive/complex types.

                              I think, JSON-Schema should be simple and it should contain only the basic types/definitions.
                              JSON-Schema can have, Constraints (May contain regular expressions - this way Date/Time or float types can be handled), Min-Max validations and definition of Object and Arrays...

                              I admit that, I use Date and "function" or any other JavaScript types in my code, but I don't call them JSON (Well I decided to not to, after becoming a member of this group).
                              For example adding Dataset to JSON is not possible, it could only be a "recommendation".

                              Hey, what about J(SON)Pointer and J(SON)Include like XPointer and XInclude? Well that's another topic but something interesting.

                              I am wondering, if we should keep JSON simple or add more extensions and make it complex?Mert


                              To: json@yahoogroups.comFrom: michael.schwarz@...: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:35:55 +0200Subject: Re: [json] JSON representation of common types




                              Because I'm currently using .NET data types in my JSON parser, do youthink it would be a good idea to use common data type identifiers likeused in XML schema?http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypesRegards,MichaelOn 7/17/06, Fang Yidong <fangyidong@...> wrote:>>> If used in general purpose,maybe it's good to add the> table name and the field datatypes in the metadata> section.>> --- Mert Sakarya <msakarya@...>:>>> > Hi, I am using readonly datasets in the following> > format;> >> > {> > "DataSet" : {> > "Tables" : [> > {> > "Fields" : ["Column1","ImgDate","Column2"],> > "Records" : [> > ["16.7.2006,Pazar","16.7.2006,Pazar",51],> > ["9.7.2006,Pazar","9.7..2006,Pazar",54],> > ...> > ]> > }> > ]> > },> > "Parameters" : { //Any other you want to return,> > total number of records...> > "RETURN_VALUE" : "0"> > }> > }> >> >> >> >> > Mert Sakarya>> > IT Direkt鰎�>> >> >> >> > Tel> > : (212) 251 85 70 / 112> > Fax> > : (212) 251 89 50> > www.yenibiris.com> >> > ________________________________________> > From: json@yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd> > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:02 AM> > To: json@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common> > types> >> > Thanks for the great feedback Atif.> >> > But I'm really not looking to introduce behavior> > into JSON at all. I don't> > think we even need to get that in depth in order to> > outline a basic way of> > returning the data inside the DataSet.> >> > A DataSet may be an object specific to .NET but each> > language has some form> > of object that represents data returned from a> > database. They may be known> > by a different names, get referenced with different> > syntax, and have> > slightly different behaviors associated with them.> > However, at the most> > fundamental level they are approximately the same> > thing, that being, a> > "flat" 2 dimensional data object (containing columns> > and rows).> >> > My thought is not to duplicate all the "behavioral> > baggage". It is simply to> > take that data (columns and rows) and decide on a> > uniform way of> > representing it within JSON.> >> > In reality there are only two ways to look at> > DataSets, QueryBeans,> > Whatever.....> >> > 1. An Array of Objects (where each object has an> > identical set of keys)> > 2. An Object of Arrays (where each array can be> > assumed to be of the> > exact same length)> >> > These objects can also be returned at the root level> > or nested down inside a> > "wrapper" object that contains "supporting" key> > values such as column Lists,> > record counts, etc...> >> > Everyone who has ever written a JSON parser has come> > up with (in their own> > mind) a great way of doing this already. I simply> > feel it would be helpful> > to the JSON community as a whole, if we all decided> > on ONE way and everyone> > stick to that.> >> > Who gets to decide on what the standard is? I don't> > know. I'm just trying> > to start some dialog and get people thinking about> > it.> >> > Again, maybe I'm way off track here. But it my mind> > it would be helpful to> > know I can write some JavaScript that dynamically> > iterates through an object> > and know it won't break regardless of what parser> > encoded the string.> >> > Just a thought ;)> >> > _____> >> > From: json@yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atif> > Aziz> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:08 AM> > To: json@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common> > types> >> > I think you'll have a hard time getting input on> > standardization of DataSets> > because most folks who are not familiar with .NET> > Framework may have no clue> > what's being talked about. The DataSet type and> > concept carries a lot of> > structural and behavioral baggage with it. Unless> > one defines the general> > problem (without referring to library-specific> > types) that needs to be> > addressed and then keep the focus on the wire> > format, it's a lost cause. The> > DataSet is specific to the .NET Framework and what's> > mostly interesting> > about it is all the richness it provides to give> > nearly the sense of a> > disconnected database (short of stored procedures> > and a query language> > unless XPath cuts it for your case). Since JSON is> > not about behavior, one> > has to focus on the structure and the wire format.> > The behavior can be> > defined only through an abstract specification that> > defines a processing> > model for each end of the wire that wants to> > interoperate on that data. And,> > mind you, the more you put in there, the more> > behavior each party has to> > provide. For example, if you're going to ship over a> > DataSet in JSON to a> > Java application, then who's going through the> > trouble of making sure that> > something on the Java or JavaScript side can provide> > all the expected> > functionality, like producing updategrams when> > calling back into the server?> > Don't get me wrong. There's an interesting problem> > domain behind it all> > that's interesting to try and standardize, but I> > fear that it might be a bit> > out of scope for this group.> >> > ________________________________> >> > From: json@yahoogroups.> > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com> > [mailto:json@yahoogroups.> > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of> > 2> > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:10 PM> > To: json@yahoogroups.> > <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com> com> > Subject: RE: [json] JSON representation of common> > types> >> > Good question.> >> > Unless I'm mistaken a Dictionary is pretty much an> > associative array, which> > will follow the pattern of:> > {key:value,key:value,key:value}, and Lists will> > just be arrays [value,value,value]> >> > I know there is no standard for DataSet or DateTime.> > I started a thread> > about a DataSet standard and got some good feedback> > on the way people like> > to see them, but I didn't really get a strong sense> > of urgency about the> > subject of standardizing them. You can check out the> > thread here:> > http://groups.> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>> > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436 <http://groups.> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>> > yahoo.com/group/json/message/436>> >> > As for DateTime, again there is no formal standard> > other then just returning> > your data in a format that can be considered a date> > by both languages you> > are developing for (let's say C# and JavaScript).> >>> === message truncated ===>> --> JSON: Action in AJAX!>> JSON - http://www.json.org> JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt>>>>>>> __________________________________________________________> Mp3疯狂搜-新歌热歌高速下> http://music.yahoo.com.cn/?source=mail_mailbox_footer>>>>>>> -- Best regards | Schöne GrüßeMichaelMicrosoft MVP - Most Valuable ProfessionalMicrosoft MCAD - Certified Application Developerhttp://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/mailto:info@...


                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Try Live.com: where your online world comes together - with news, sports, weather, and much more.
                              http://www.live.com/getstarted

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Andy
                              Hi, I went to the root of the conversation since I couldn t find a good spot elsewhere for this thought: I think JSON is fine as-is. If you want something
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 7, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi,
                                I went to the root of the conversation since I couldn't find a good
                                spot elsewhere for this thought:
                                I think JSON is fine as-is. If you want something that can carry more
                                complicated data types, use XML. If you want something simple, use
                                JSON. If you're after something in the middle, make up something new.

                                The way JSON defines types is by its delimiters.
                                Currently, we have {} for objects, [] for arrays, "" for strings and
                                nothing for numbers, and true, false, and null stand alone.
                                If you wish to add more strict data types, you need to add more
                                delimiter choices. Perhaps Parenthesis should be used for Dates ()
                                and angle brackets <> for another type. The question eventually
                                becomes, when are there enough?

                                Incorporating limits for values is beyond the scope of JSON as a data
                                serializer. The point of JSON is to efficiently get data from here to
                                there. The end-points are responsabile for understanding the
                                capabilities and limitations of the data. If you need to communicate
                                those, do so in a separate set of correspondance. This can either be
                                off-line in some agreement, talking to yourself while making up an
                                AJAX app, or through some nifty schema description language. In any
                                case, don't mix data with schema.

                                Another way: If I were a bakery, I don't need to tell my courier that
                                he's sending bread and include direction on how to eat it each time I
                                send it. I expect the recipient to know how to eat bread, and if he
                                doesn't, he can come to my shop and ask for any of my wonderful
                                sandwich recipies, but I don't need to ship my collection of recipies
                                with every order of bread.

                                IMarv
                                Andy Bay
                                --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schwarz" <michael.schwarz@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi,
                                >
                                > I'd like to know if there are already some common representations of
                                > common types like following .NET data types:
                                >
                                > - DataSet, DataTable
                                > - Dictionary
                                > - List, Collection
                                > - DateTime -> sometimes handeled as "new Date(...)" or maybe the
                                > SortablePattern string representation
                                >
                                > --
                                > Best regards | Schöne Grüße
                                > Michael
                                >
                                > Microsoft MVP - Most Valuable Professional
                                > Microsoft MCAD - Certified Application Developer
                                >
                                > http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/
                                > http://www.schwarz-interactive.de/
                                > mailto:info@...
                                >
                              • Matt
                                Out of band data for creating types in other languages which don t cleanly/easily support raw javascript types should be done as optional data, which can still
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 8, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Out of band data for creating types in other languages which don't
                                  cleanly/easily support raw javascript types should be done as optional
                                  data, which can still be encoded as json.

                                  It should be easy enough to take your objects before json encoding,
                                  and run them through a function to turn them into wrapper objects, the
                                  additional data you need being stored in properties, without polluting
                                  json or json-rpc directly.

                                  Assuming you know that the consumer of the data needs these additional
                                  suggestions as to type election, otherwise as Andy said that `burden`
                                  should be on the decoder to figure it out.


                                  --
                                  Matthew P. C. Morley
                                  MPCM Technologies Inc.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.