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

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:15:53 -0400
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1306944953.2913.392.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:10 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2011-06-01, at 15:45, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 01/06/11 14:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> >> We implement this in Anzo. It's very useful.
> >> 
> >> But, we don't have the bandwidth to produce a new recommendation. I
> >> can't in good conscience support this work at this time.
> >> 
> >> Lee
> > 
> > I'll do it.
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/results-csv-tsv.html
> > 
> > We can at least do a NOTE but for this, given deployed experience, the additional REC cost is lower than it might otherwise be.  Testing is one such cost but we have to do JSON results testing so adding a parallel .csv and .tsv versions would be enough and there are already tools to produce the formats.
> > 
> > There is no need for content type registration if we go with existing content types.  There are text/csv and text/tab-separated-values.
> I'm happy to help out, as I think it's important.
> I think I agree with Lee that Rec track would be unwise though.

Can we compromise in the new charter by making this a time-permitting
feature, optionally on the Rec Track?  So we'll try to do it as Note,
but if somehow circumstances give us the time, we're allowed to make
this a Rec.  And maybe have a WG Resolution that it'll be a Note, to
make it clear we wont even discuss it being Rec until/unless the chairs
decide there's enough new information to re-open the issue.

    -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 16:16:03 UTC

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