W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: javascript implementation update

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:23:25 +0000
To: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>, Ingram, William A <wingram2@illinois.edu>
Message-ID: <etPan.54ff52bd.2ca88611.2fae@jenit.local>
Hi Ed,

Yes. We talked about it at the last F2F in fact.

The way processing is currently defined, there *has* to be a merge of metadata that’s extracted from within a tabular data file (in the simplest case, the headers from a CSV file, but in the general case this metadata could be a lot richer than just the titles of columns) with the metadata in an external JSON metadata document.

We also think it’s quite likely that people processing tabular data files are going to want to override metadata that they get from elsewhere, for example to provide the details for converting into a different vocabulary from that originally intended by the author of provided metadata. Again, that implies merging (user-specified) metadata with extracted metadata with provided metadata.

So our conclusion was that we can't get away from defining and implementing the merging of metadata from these different sources, even if we were to say that implementations only needed to look at one other source (ie take the first of the Link header, the file-specific metadata or the directory-specific metadata).

We’ve tried to simplify the merge algorithm quite a bit since the F2F. I think the only other option wrt merging would require us to limit the types of tabular data that could be processed (ie assume that the only embedded metadata is column titles) and leave unspecified the ability to override processing by the browser, both of which would be possible to do but are (from my perspective) a pretty high price.

Cheers,

Jeni
--  
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

On 10 March 2015 at 18:27:21, Ed Summers (ehs@pobox.com) wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, has there ever been any hushed talk about removing metadata merging,  
> or not making it a MUST?
>  
> > On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > That sounds great!
> >
> > Our goal is to get new drafts out by the end of the month, and we’d be hopeful that there  
> wouldn’t be many changes between then and Recommendation. The “deadline” for implementations  
> will be July I think, so there’s time to get everything working.
> >
> > The implementation needs to be conformant to the specs, which means they need to do everything  
> that’s listed as a MUST, and that includes merging metadata…
> >
> > Have you got any tests that you can contribute into the test suite?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jeni
> > --
> > Jeni Tennison
> > http://www.jenitennison.com/
>  
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:23:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:23:51 UTC