> What's the source of truth? Nobody knows.

Except everyone who ever used standards like OpenAPI and JSON Schema.

> it seems particularly the German-speaking countries are borderline obsessed with a) titles

There is nothing borderline about that - the German cultural space (including very much the countries of former Habsburg Empire) is still completely obsessed with titles and formal positions despite many of them losing any practical importance in modern times.

> As the article outlines: you need to acquire that knowledge. And they’re many ways to do that.

Domain-driven design is all about this.

So you're basically saying: "nobody is using the standard that we have defined, let's solve this by introducing a new standard". Fair enough.

Yep. And those that did implement the standard did so for a different set of consumers with different needs.

I'm also willing to make an appeal to authority here (or at least competitive markets). If Anthropic was able to get Google and others on board with this thing, it probably does have merit beyond what else is available.

> the point of MCP is that it's discoverable by an AI

What exactly makes it more discoverable than, say, pointing the AI to an OpenAPI spec?

> Spitting distance to the mediterranean.

People tend to underestimate how cold it gets in the interior of countries generally seen as the "sunny Mediterranean" - from Croatia, Montenegro, Albania and even Greece.

And Spain. Bring these "sunny Spain lovers" to North/Inner Spain in Winter. Watch them running away as if it were some kind of weird disease.

Also, spotting the typical tourist climbing the Picos de Europa range in sandals is not weird. What's weird if he/she makes it alive... or without frozen fingers or toes.

The Winter Olympics will be in Milan next year.

We even have a snowy mouintain outside Tehran.

Yes, I've been searching for a long time for a good solution to allow non-coding people to visually design JSON Schemas. The closest thing I found is the schema editor in the amazing Stoplight service, but that is sadly not open source.

Heck, I'm a coder and I get lost when just dealing with the raw JSON Schema.

It's not a problem for a dozen properties, but we have several hundreds in our larger schemas, even accounting for them being fairly normalized w.r.t. types. And five or more levels of nesting turns into an effective ten plus levels in the schema.

One underutilised feature of JSON Schema is referencing external schemas and reusing them in multiple places, rather than copying them over and over again. The main hurdle to a better use of this feature is the lack of a good standard for schema repositories; I've been working on addressing this, but it's difficult to find the time. :/

> One underutilised feature of JSON Schema is referencing external schemas and reusing them in multiple places

Yeah, though while it does make each subschema somewhat more readable and contained, you still don't get a good overview. If you're reading the spec for a given object, do you don't easily see where it's being used in the schema.

For now I've just supplied the JSON Schema as a self-contained thing, and deferred other parties to the XSD to get an overview. The self-contained makes it trivial to load into a validator and such.

So while it helps for knowing what to fill into that exact object, it doesn't help for getting a feel for the overall schema. This is where the visual view of tools such as XMLSpy really helps.

> lack of a good standard for schema repositories

Interesting, do you have something public to show? For our large ones I feel they'd be entirely custom anyway, but perhaps I can see standard sub-schemas useful for other tasks. Would be interesting to have a look.

> you still don't get a good overview

True, when focusing only on the schemas as code. But good tooling could provide links and similar.

> do you have something public to show

Just a very early PoC [0]. I'm slowly working my way through a very long to-do list of improvements, but I'm lacking time and resources to do it more efficiently.

[0] https://schematalog.com/

The Life in the UK test certainly needs updating.

MANGA is the new FAANG.

Just use BigTech, then you don't have to keep shuffling letters nor inserting Netflix to prevent it becoming a slur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech

I suspect they meant Nvidia, not Netflix; after all, the letters in MANGA are exactly the initials of the companies listed in the post they were replying to.

The N was really Netflix originally when it was the poster child for AWS consumption before NVIDEA/AI was even in the conversation. But, yes, "Big Tech" is probably the best term these days to avoid debates about whether this company or that company really belongs in the category--especially given that certain companies have done very well in terms of stock relative to the the historical FAANGs.

FANG (notice the missing A) was always a meaningless term. Cramer initially left Apple off and it was already the most valuable company, Microsoft was already in the top 5 most valuable and Netflix was t really that valuable then.

Thank you. You can expect my ophthalmologist bill in the mail, after I used "fuchsia". o.O