On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Alfredo Serafini <seralf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi what about adopting json-d for this? > I mean: json-ld can be seen as a good compromise because it offers a "natural" RDF conversion, while it is actually a specific JSON dialect. As it is almost impossible to provide mapping for every kind of json dialect (and CSV formats too!), the usage of a specific json syntax as a reference might simplify things, and json-ld already embeds RDF logic. If we end up going with CSV-LD, the result of a transformation _would_ be JSON-LD. This can then be turned into triples (or quads) or framed into more structured JSON. Gregg > Alfredo > > > 2014-03-12 15:54 GMT+01:00 Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>: >> (FAO: Rufus Pollock) >> >> >> >> At today’s teleconf we raised the issue that the current set of use cases lack an explicit motivation to convert from CSV to JSON or XML. >> >> >> >> There is a clear requirement to transform from CSV to RDF – which implies that is should be possible to convert CSV to one or more of the RDF encodings (incl. TTL, RDF/XML and JSON-LD) … >> >> >> >> But there’s a risk that this RDF-centric approach misses a concern simply about, say, converting CSV to simple JSON. >> >> >> >> In particular, we noted how “CSV-2-JSON” appears to be central to the work of Rufus Pollock et al. >> >> >> >> Rufus – are you able to comment and, preferably, provide a use case which illustrates the utility of CSV-2-JSON conversion? >> >> >> >> Many thanks, Jeremy >> >
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 17:50:38 UTC