Explicitly mention `type: "integer"` in definition of Schema Object

[ralfhandl]

OAS 3.0 and 3.1 explicitly define "integer" as an allowed value of the type keyword in section Data Types.

This difference between OAS and pure JSON Schema is not mentioned in section Schema Object.

Proposal

Explicitly mention this significant difference and define OAS type: "integer" as a shortcut for JSON Schema type: "number", multipleOf: 1.

Explicitly state in the Format Registry that column "Type" uses the extended OAS definition.

[handrews]

This is not a difference. integer is an allowed value for the type keyword in all relevant versions of JSON Schema.

However, integers are not part of the JSON data model, and therefore it is not something that can control the applicability of JSON Schema keywords of format values.

These are two separate things, as the JSON Schema specification explicitly states.

We cannot change the applicability criteria for the format registry, because that is defined by JSON Schema and not the OAS.

[baywet]

String values MUST be one of the six primitive types ("null", "boolean", "object", "array", "number", or "string"), or "integer" which matches any number with a zero fractional part

source

Note that JSON Schema vocabularies are free to define their own extended type system. This should not be confused with the core data model types defined here. As an example, "integer" is a reasonable type for a vocabulary to define as a value for a keyword, but the data model makes no distinction between integers and other numbers.

source

Note that the "type" keyword in this specification defines an "integer" type which is not part of the data model. Therefore a format attribute can be limited to numbers, but not specifically to integers. However, a numeric format can be used alongside the "type" keyword with a value of "integer", or could be explicitly defined to always pass if the number is not an integer, which produces essentially the same behavior as only applying to integers

source

@handrews I know you've already tried to explain this multiple times. Thank you for you patience here.
Based on those, it seems that using format alongside with integer is explicitly permitted/defined in the specification.
Even if it wasn't defined, this second paragraph as far as I understand it, would effectively allow the OAS vocab to define it.

I couldn't find any information in the specifications I could link that'd implicitly or explicitly invalidate the statement I made above.

[handrews]

@baywet the things you quoted prove what I said. I already responded to exactly these quotes once. [EDIT: at least I thought I did, now I can't find it- my apologies if not] They put "integer" as a type keyword value distinct from the six data model types. How else can I explain this?

The values in the type keyword do not have anything to do with keyword or format value applicability.

The type keyword is just a keyword. It doesn't define the data model.

[baywet]

@handrews thanks. Let's try to backtrack this together then.
If the type keyword does not define the data model, what does?

[handrews]

@baywet

If the type keyword does not define the data model, what does?

the section you linked titled "Instance Data Model" which explicitly lists the six types: null, boolean, object, array, number, string. This is in turn derived from the JSON data model, which defined four types (object, array, number, string) and three literals (true and false, which JSON Schema groups as booleans, plus null, which JSON Schema treats as its own type).

[baywet]

Allow me to rephrase my question. If the type keyword is not how a given schema declares which model it's using, how does the schema declare which model it's using?