W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Request for comments - Requirements analysis

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:58:44 +0200
Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DD8EBA94-8AB9-4045-9568-772284FD7C72@w3.org>
To: "Ceolin, D." <d.ceolin@vu.nl>


I do have a more general issue, though, something that I already touched upon in [1]: what does it mean for us as a group to say that a requirement is 'accepted'. I could see different meanings:

1. The requirement is valid, in the sense that it is clear what it means, and there are a number of data out there that carry this feature
2. Like #1 and, additionally, the WG will consider that item to be a necessary feature to be fully incorporated in everything we do (CSV+, metadata, conversion to other formats)
3. Like #1 and, additionally, the WG will consider that item to be mostly necessary, and a 80/20 cut has to be considered whether that feature is incorporated in CSV+, in CSV->JSON, etc.

This discussion came up (in [1]) in relations with the microsytax and its handling in an RDF conversion. If the usage of microsyntax is widely used out there, ie, it is in the 80 of the 80/20 cut, then we probably should put energy into a universal solution for the RDF conversion. However, if it is only in the '20', then we may decide to ignore this (at least in this version), or delegate it to the vague aspect of external machine (JS callback, SPARQL whatever), ie, leave it to the user.

I think we should have a clear idea of what we are doing at this point without making decisions that would bite us later... My feeling is that we need a finer categorization, and not only a binary one.




[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Apr/0101.html

On 28 Apr 2014, at 17:38 , Ceolin, D. <d.ceolin@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Eric, Jeremy and I had a first round of comments about the requirements and came up with a series of proposal, nicely organized by Eric. Please find them on github (in CSV or CLS format):
> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/use-cases-and-requirements/csvw-requirements-notes.csv
> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/use-cases-and-requirements/csvw-requirements-notes.xls
> Since we would like to have your opinions, to facilitate commenting, I've also ported the CSV on the wiki (I hope not to create troubles due to duplication of resources):
> https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Requirements_analysis
> We look forward to hearing what you all think,
> Davide

Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 07:59:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:39 UTC