Re: Conversion templates as examples of concrete implementation

On 22/05/14 04:29, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> During the call earlier today I mentioned a distinction that may be
> useful for the mailing list. There are two ways to look the conversion
> templates we are working on. One way is that they will be the
> canonical way to convert between CSV and the specified formats (XML,
> RDF, JSON, etc.). A second way would be to develop generic conversion
> guidelines and use these formats as a way to illustrate those with
> concrete implementations. I am tending to lean towards #2.
>
> Thanks,
> Yakov
>

Hi Yakov,

#2 is, I think, the ideal we're working towards, with a more definite 
definition for RDF/JSON/XML.  At the moment, there is some general text in

http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#converting-tables

that gives the conversion framework.

There is a charter requirement:

[[
4. Standard mapping mechanisms transforming CSV to other formats (e.g., 
RDF, JSON, or XML).
]]
and deliverable:
[[
Mapping mechanism to transforming CSV into various Formats (e.g., RDF, 
JSON, or XML) (Recommendation)
]]

If the graph-template style is adopted as the general underlying 
definitional framework (with code callouts, with a way to use metadata 
without templates and also without any metadata), we will have a way 
forward.

That said, each syntax also adds it's own idiosyncrasies.

We are a bit resource-constrained as well.

	Andy

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2014 10:48:45 UTC