- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:16:14 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 20/05/14 05:52, Ivan Herman wrote: > But also... If my application needs (forgive me:-) RDF/XML, but the > author of the metadata has put in the row-level template using > JSON-LD as a base syntax, then I need a JSON-LD parser to make any > sense of it, right? In other words, the field-level template approach > is RDF syntax independent. That seems to be another major difference, > too... > We're defining the correct output of a conversion process when the input is the metadata (without any user templates). We aren't requiring the processor does exactly and only those steps. It outputs whatever format(s) it supports. Adding user templates is 'advanced' and if we want to allow control of the shape of the RDF emitted (c.f. Jeremy's example) we do need to have a language for describing shape. However, that's not the required mechanism for implementation of metadata\templates to RDF. Andy > Ivan
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 10:16:44 UTC