- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:23:48 +0100
- To: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, "public-csv-wg@w3.org" <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 02/06/14 10:19, Tandy, Jeremy wrote: > Hi Andy - thanks for the comments. Some further clarification required; see below ... > > Jeremy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy@apache.org] >> Sent: 31 May 2014 15:07 >> To: public-csv-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: New i18n use case [WAS: CSV use case] >> >> On 30/05/14 20:36, Tandy, Jeremy wrote: >>> Oh - and I should say that I focused on the HXL example rather than >> the "360 giving" one because it touched on both the issues raised in >> the email from Tim Davies. >>> >>> Jeremy >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Tandy, Jeremy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk] >>>> Sent: 30 May 2014 18:04 >>>> To: Jeni Tennison; public-csv-wg@w3.org >>>> Cc: Tim Davies (Web Foundation); david.megginson@megginson.com >>>> Subject: New i18n use case [WAS: CSV use case] >>>> >>>> Hi - following Jeni's earlier message, I have now added another use >>>> case to the document to describe the concerns raised: " Use Case #23 >>>> - Collating humanitarian information for crisis response" >>>> <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/use-cases-and-requirements/#UC- >>>> CollatingHumanitarianResponseInformation> ... >>>> >>>> You'll see this has introduced two new requirements: >>>> >>>> - <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/use-cases-and-requirements/#R- >>>> MultilingualContent> >> >> "specify the language / locale relevant to each field" >> >> Minor terminology point (Rufus has mentioned something similar), >> "field" >> here is referring to all the cells in a column? (I'm reading from the >> general context it isn't a particular (x,y) cell though that isn't >> unimaginable). > > Fixed > >> >>>> - <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/use-cases-and-requirements/#R- >>>> ListsAsRepeatedFields> >> >> It could be either list or repeated objects (in RDF speak)? > > When thinking about this I wasn't projecting any ideas about the target > RDF implementation. I hadn't considered the use of RDF Collections > <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab> ... although I suppose > I was thinking that the RDF would be simple repeated properties, so assuming > all the 'geocode' columns map to, say, > <http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ontology/admingeo/gssCode> and the geocodes > Themselves are somehow mapped to a URI (not really part of this example, but > makes for a more "real" transformation), then the example ... > > geocode #1,geocode #2,geocode #3 > 530012, 530013, 530015 > > ... becomes ... > > ex:resource > <http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ontology/admingeo/gssCode> ex:530012, ex:530013, ex:530015 . > > > Do you have any recommendations about modifying the text of the requirement? > Certainly, I can include this trivial mapping. But I guess choice of target > RDF is down to how the template is implemented? A possible change: R-ListsAsRepeatedFields ==> R-RepeatedFields JSON conversion may have a parallel concern of [] vs values. And XML, whether there is an enclosing element to wrap multiple items together or just repeated elements. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 09:24:19 UTC