- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:49:00 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 27/04/14 13:26, Ivan Herman wrote: >>>>> For the syntax question: I think my litmus test also means >>>>> that a JSON syntax is almost a must: >>> >>> The doc is "CSV2RDF":-) >>> >>> Did you have in mind that your small JS library is working in the >>> RDF data model or JSON? So while I agree JSON is a "must" for >>> the WG, for your case, the CSV->JSON is the need. This doc you >>> reviewed may not be the one you want. >>> >>> Maybe we end up with a lot of sharing (good) but we don't know >>> yet. > By 'syntax' I meant the syntax used for the templates themselves. Ie, > still a CSV->RDF (whether producing turtle or JSON-LD is a secondary > issue at this point). > Ah - you had 2 litmus tests. I agree - JSON for the metadata and templating. Sharing between the output syntaxes is more important than potential(unproven) data integration possibilities of using RDF (and as someone who does use Turtle/RDF for configuration file, the reuse/share angle is indeed small). Ideally, part of the metadata and templating is JSON-LD. Andy
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2014 16:49:30 UTC