According to 10.1 of the specification:
It is RECOMMENDED that instances described by a schema/profile provide
a link to a downloadable JSON Schema using the link relation
"describedby", as defined by Linked Data Protocol 1.0, section 8.1
[W3C.REC-ldp-20150226]. (emphasis mine)
This would appear to describe exactly the behaviour you require, however, a casual perusal of the Linked Data Protocol section 8.1 leaves us none the wiser:
The relationship A describedby B asserts that resource B provides a
description of resource A. There are no constraints on the format or
representation of either A or B, neither are there any further
constraints on either resource (emphasis mine)
After a quick google search, I found this question, which at first glance would appear to be duplicated by your question. However, upon deeper inspection, the question is actually about inheritance within schemas, not the referencing of a schema from it's supported instances.
One of the answers, rather intriguingly, provides a solution which draws on the JSON-Hyper-schema standard - an attempt to extend the JSON-schema standard to support the definition of application-level semantics.
The way it achieves this is by use of the links collection:
{
...
"links":[
{
"rel":"describedby",
"href":"{+fileType}"
}
]
}
It turns out that this is based on another standard RFC5988 - Web Linking which happens to be the same standard which allows us to load CSS into HTML pages.
As @Jason points out in his comment -
Your first quote, the one from the spec, is the right way to do it.
The linked data definition of describedby does not contradict the JSON
Schema spec. It's a purposefully broad definition so it can be applied
to any media type that describes data. That includes JSON Schema, XML
Schema, or anything else.
So, it would appear that including a links collection in your schema instance would be the correct way to reference the schema. So in your specific case, you could do this:
{
...
"links":[
{
"rel":"describedby",
"href":"url/schema.json" // I assume!!
}
]
}
Even though this may be correct, I don't know how many JSON parsers will respect this when resolving to an actual schema via the link.