JSONSchema compliance for namespaces

[MCMcCallum]

• Addresses issue Next generation jams #208 phase 1
• Updated JAMs schema to be json schenma compliant
• Previously dense observation types are now entered as a single observation in the Annotation observation list, they no longer redefine the observation list itself, rather, just the elements within it. This means that all Annotations now have a list of observations, the elements of which can be dense observations themselves
• the import_labs function has been moved from the util module to the core module. In a future PR it should be modified to be a constructor for JObjects
• Fixed serialization JAMs for bools, lists and dicts
• Updated jsonschema to latest version - necessary for determining namespaces based on a const namespace property
• Local namespaces are no longer supported - a necessity to become jsonschema compliant
• Version bumped
• Tests updated to adhere to new schema for objects with DenseObservations
• Removed spurious validation and schema methods / attributes in jams.core module
• add_namespace and is_dense is removed from the jams.schema module. All namespaces are now available in the jams.schema.NAMESPACES dictionary
• schema for each observation type is now available in the jams.schema.OBSERVATIONS_SCHEMA dictionary

[justinsalamon]

Hey! Is this in response to an issue? Was there a side convo I’m missing?

[justinsalamon]

Ah, #208

this seems like a pretty substantial design change 😬 we typically try to hash those out in issues before implementing 😅

I believe @bmcfee has some fairly concrete thoughts on dense vs sparse annotation types.

My primary concern is ensuring major changes don’t break Scaper.

Let’s discuss!

[bmcfee]

this seems like a pretty substantial design change grimacing we typically try to hash those out in issues before implementing sweat_smile

@MCMcCallum and I had actually hashed this out quite a bit before the implementation, but it was out-of-band.

Sorry that I haven't had time to dig into this PR thoroughly btw. Teaching in a pandemic, you know 😬

My primary concern is ensuring major changes don’t break Scaper.

The plan in #208 , phase 1, is to retain backward compatibility to the previous schema. However, dynamic namespace support will eventually dropped, and scaper will likely need to adapt in response.