Name meta schemas something other than "draft-"

[handrews]

We often get complaints about how confusing the draft numbering is, not just from people new to JSON Schema, but from people such as members of the IETF JSON working group.

We kept the sequential draft numbering for meta-schemas mostly because of inertia, and because that's how many of us (and others) would talk about future work even while things were stalled on draft-04 (the last meta-schema where the number appeared in at least one of the IETF draft names).

I propose dropping this for "draft-08" and calling the meta-schemas something else, ideally along with a shift to HTTPS. Since we will have a larger set of modular vocabulary meta-schemas (in addition to the core+applicators+validation+basic-annotation, and all of that +hyper-schema meta schemas that we have now, which will be retained for convenience), it feels like a good opportunity to reconsider how we identify these.

One option might be to take a cue from modern JavaScript and use years, or years+month as we at least sometimes publish two updates a year. Assuming a September publication of the next set:

meta would be for the convenience meta-schemas, which are all that most people would use:

https://json-schema.org/09-2018/meta/schema
https://json-schema.org/09-2018/meta/hyper-schema

vocab would be for per-vocabulary meta-schemas, which are mostly building blocks for the convenience meta-schemas (see #561)

https://json-schema.org/09-2018/vocab/core
https://json-schema.org/09-2018/vocab/applicators
https://json-schema.org/09-2018/vocab/validation
https://json-schema.org/09-2018/vocab/basic-annotation
https://json-schema.org/09-2018/vocab/hyper-schema

I don't like the name basic-annotation but that's not the point, please don't fixate on the exact list of vocabularies or their name, we will sort that out as the vocab PRs get written.

I'm not entirely sure what to do with the LDO schema. It's not really a meta-schema, as LDOs on their own are not schemas. Although they contain schemas. Possibly still meta? Or maybe something else like components? If we go forward with a hypermedia operations object, there would likely be another schema of this sort.

https://json-schema.org/09-2018/components/links

Thoughts?

[gregsdennis]

For clarity, what is the objection to the draft-* naming scheme? I find it quite simple.

[handrews]

@gregsdennis you're apparently the only one! The IETF drafts reset their numbers each time a new editor does the publishing, or each time a new draft is split off (as there's no notion of a suite of specifications, even though there are quite a few such suites, e.g. RFCs 7230-7240 for the revision of HTTP/1.1)

I've repeatedly had people complain that they couldn't figure out what draft to look at (no, I don't understand that either, I think the web site is quite clear). And a lot of people can't seem to figure out the correspondence (even though the specifications name their meta-schema explicitly). I say "a lot", I mean "enough that it's a notable and rather frequent recurring irritation".

But perhaps most importantly, the IETF working group people seemed kind of upset about it. I mean, some of them were also upset that we had a keyword called minimum because they personally saw no use for it, so... ¯\(ツ)/¯ But it was viewed as misleading since there's no actual draft-*-json-schema-07 anywhere.

[gregsdennis]

In regard to IETF, if we're trying to publish within their domain, then adopting their versioning scheme makes sense. Even so, if this were software, I'd use 0.x.y[beta z] versioning, but given that this is an unofficial/still-under-development specification, draft-* makes sense for now.