Re: javascript implementation update

Hi Gregg,

Thanks for your email.

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
> Yes, that algorithm is pretty stable at this point. However, we just resolved issue #314 [3] which reduces the search for metadata to merge. It is now basically the embedded metadata along with the first metadata file found, or that started with. For the embedded metadata we've described, this amounts to merging columns and validating against any titles defined for those columns within metadata. Other standards may specify more complicated embedded metadata which could still invoke the recursive nature of the merge algorithm.

Super, this sounds a lot more manageable than what I remember looking at. I’ll check it out.

> Agreed that this should be spelled out in the use cases. At this point, for the embedded metadata we've described, merging is important to validate the metadata against the actual data so that a transformation does not emit garbage when the columns don't match up. The UCR does describe validation and other relevant requirements:
> 
> R-CsvValidation
> R-CanonicalMappingInLieuOfAnnotation
> R-CommentLines

Ok, thanks for the pointers. I’m late to the party, but it seems like the metadata merging functionality is a compromise of sorts between having CSVW work with only with embedded or only with external metadata. I can’t help but think that CSVW could be greatly simplified if you punted altogether on embedded metadata, but I guess this would alienate some people who would like to use it.

Thanks again for your help in understanding the CSVW work.

//Ed