W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: while we are rechartering.... (csv)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:33:50 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <FA483B3A-29C4-446A-8D5C-5684B075979C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 1 Jun 2011, at 15:09, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Sandro : +1
> Bijan: Is this CSV "ready to go" enough?
> 4Store [1] has TSV, Jena/ARQ [2] and Redland [3] have support for CSV and TSV formats.
> The CSV format is pragmatic and lossy - the terms are printed without syntax stuff so URIs don't have <>, literals are the lexical form, without quotes, and any quoting is purely for CSV reasons.
> CSV:
> One row of variable names, without the "?"
> Then rows of strings and numbers.
> No lang tags or datatypes on literals, no markers to tell strings and
> URIs apart.
> End of line is \r\n as required by RFC 4180

Yes, almost certainly.

> The TSV format is lossless so you do get <http://example/> and "foo"@en, 123 etc etc  It can be read back in as a result set without loss.
> The first row is variable names with ?
> Then rows of RDF terms in SPARQL/Turtle format.
> Literals have quotes, and lang tags/datatypes are added.
> URIs have <> round them.

The main advantage for use is this would be more compact and probably a bit easy to munge into regular CSV. I don't know if that would be such a huge win that we'd actually use it, but I'd have to ask around.

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 15:34:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC