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

Re: Extension for metadata file

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:29:05 +0200
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E560572E-AC35-4BA3-97BF-28A1E45A034A@w3.org>
To: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:38 , Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:

> Hi - definitely agree with move to ".json" & need to recognise use of JSON-LD (which is itself JSON). Is there a filename suffix convention for JSON-LD or is (plain old) ".json" sufficient?
> 

Fortunately or unfortunately, but there is: .jsonld. I am not really sure that is wise: I do not expect, say, editors to recognize .jsonld automatically:-(

Maybe we should go for .json, but expect the /ld+json mime type to be used when the metadata is transferred through the Web? But even that is risky: I just tried to read in firefox (with a json viewer extension)

http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld.json
http://www.w3.org/ns/json-ld.jsonld

(they are set up with the right media type). The first one displays correctly in the browser, the second one (by default) just downloads.

I am afraid this is a typical case with the /A+B media types; most tools do not correctly handle that.

Bottom line: we are faced with a choice between 'correctness' (ie, referring to JSON LD the way it should be) and convenience (staying with pure JSON but, then, tools that want to consume JSON LD would have to 'know', somehow, that what they receive is JSON-LD). 

Sigh...

Ivan

> Jeremy
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
>> Sent: 15 June 2014 14:20
>> To: Jeni Tennison
>> Cc: public-csv-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Extension for metadata file
>> 
>> Another alternative would be to use .jsonld (I guess we agreed that the
>> metadata is, in fact, in JSON LD). The media type of JSON LD is
>> /ld+json; I am not sure how well the '+' approach is honoured by
>> different tools (I am not too optimistic...).
>> 
>> I do not feel strong about it, but I thought we should at least give it
>> some thought...
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> ---
>> Ivan Herman
>> Tel:+31 641044153
>> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>> 
>> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 15 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Ive created a pull request [1] for changing from using `.csvm` as
>> the extension for metadata files to using `.json`. The reason for the
>> change is that weve concluded (I think) that well use JSON as the
>> format for the metadata file, and its a lost easier for users if that
>> JSON is automatically displayed/formatted as JSON in editors etc, which
>> it will be if the `.json` extension gets used.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Jeni
>>> 
>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/csvw/pull/21
>>> --
>>> Jeni Tennison
>>> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>>> 
> 


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






Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 09:29:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:40 UTC