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

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

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:14:57 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTinUitMDzUTQfUw=30USMqfpiB0SLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I am not sure my last mail got through since our domain has changed
from comlab.ox.ac.uk to cs.ox.ac.uk and the list does not like that,
so I trz again using the old mail address:

I agree that CSV/TSV is a useful format, but I am also worried that we
are already much over the original schedule and there are always
little issues that will take more time than anticipated. Making it
time permitting for now and aim for a note plus the possibility of
upgrading it to REC later is ok with me.

On 1 June 2011 19:15, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 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

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 14:15:26 UTC

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