Re: Meeting minutes for the 19th of February...

On 20/02/14 18:40, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> [[
> andys: some json reprs e.g. gregg's could lose order
> ]]
>
> Regarding Andy's comment that JSON might loose order, that's not necessarily the case. For data in a single row, if the headers map to the same property, and we describe the container type of that property to be @list, that could keep the data in order. For example, the following context snippet:

We were going through the issues in the tabular data doc.

The discussion was "issue-1" : "Should the order of columns be 
significant?"  I understood that to be a general issue of columns, not 
just repeated names. It may be convenience/presentational. it might be a 
time series, e.g. "2010", "2011", "2012" case or it may be multiple 
groupings "region","sales", "region","sales", ....

In your example:

{
   "name": "Markus Lanthaler",
   "homepage": "http://www.markus-lanthaler.com/",
   "image": "http://twitter.com/account/profile_image/markuslanthaler"
}

how are "home", "homepage" and "image" to retain order?

We could have metadata in the output that says "the order is (....)" but 
without that, any RDF representation that puts columns as 
property/values off a resource is going to loose the order.

RDF lists for every row would be a bad design!


I'll note/add that RFC 7111 [1] uses numerical addressing so if the RDF 
is to relate to the URI fragments, the CSV layout needs to be 
(optionally) preserved.  Whether that should be a design goal, or at 
least making them mappable, is another question.

[1] RFC7111
http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc7111
URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type
M. Hausenblas, E. Wilde, J. Tennison

>
> {
>    "@context": {
>      "Value1": {"@id": "ex:value", "@container": "@list"},
>      "Value2": {"@id": "ex:value", "@container": "@list"}
>    }
> }

 Andy

Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 09:32:29 UTC