W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2018

Re: [dxwg] Distribution definition [RDIDF]

From: Annette Greiner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:48:20 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-424150681-1537829299-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
You are right that CSV can offer less information than JSON, and is particularly likely to do so if there is relational information to be shared, though I would argue that your CSV example shows the relationship between the two values by including them on the same line. Clearly, one can publish informationally equivalent data in both formats, and one can also make the mistake of dropping information when translating from one to the other. One might caution publishers to avoid selecting CSV that drops relationships in any guidance document. One might also caution them against dropping out entire rows from a CSV, but one would not then assume that CSV needs to be treated as a form that is inconsistent in informational content. A little googling shows me two definitions of informational equivalence: (1) that information is equivalent if all the information in one representation can be inferred from the other, and (2) that information is equivalent if the same tasks can be performed with both. I don't claim to be expert in information theory (an MIMS degree notwithstanding), but this doesn't seem an intractable problem. (ref: https://books.google.com/books?id=A8TPF_O385AC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%27informationally+equivalent%27&source=bl&ots=fmVHmOjTXb&sig=sCSaAP1nfL8r-TKebXCNnZUvFyU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic5bef1tTdAhXzITQIHU_9C-0Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q='informationally%20equivalent'&f=false).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by agreiner
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/52#issuecomment-424150681 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 24 September 2018 22:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:25 UTC