W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Reflection on the special telco of CSVW

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:34:56 +0100
Message-ID: <54103760.3020001@apache.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 10/09/14 12:27, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On 10 Sep 2014, at 12:21 , Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> One aspect of this choice is whether a transformation of a CSV file to be published on the web so other people (other than the data publisher) run it?  Or is it the input for a toolkit to generate format X and then a file with format X is put on the web?
>>
>> If transforms are published, then there is a requirement for a programming-language, template-language independent solution.  I agree this is more work.
>
> But the point is that such programming languages already exist. Several of them. One could say that we should not define yet another one.
> If a template format is defined (complex or simple), then one can also publish the templates (e.g. [1,2]).

"""
*Alternative2.5:* define a *simple* template language *without* any 
if-then-else structure, any regexp based variables; essentially stopping 
at [5], and add the hooks for further processing just like in Alternative2
"""

I publish a template that uses clojure (say) as it's extension language.

(Rhetorcial) How much effort will you put in to run that template?

	Andy

>
> In other words, I am not sure I understand your point in terms of deciding whether we do templating or not.
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/experiments/simple-templates-jquery/simple_test/test-json.tmpl
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/experiments/simple-templates-jquery/simple_test/test-turtle.tmpl
>
>
>>
>> Assuming javascript is a possibility; while it is arguably the safest single choice, it does not work for many environments.  If you're in a lang-X programmer (e.g. R), you want to use lang-X skills.
>>
>> Otherwise, if it's a tool-input and not published to be run elsewhere, it does not need this portability requirement.  A language or a basic-transform+improve style is more reasonable.  The tool space is weaker (transforms are tool specific).
>>
>
>
> I do not understand. *If* we define a template language (simple or complex), it can be defined in different languages. I happened to have that done in Javascript, but it could have been done in Python without too much problems.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>> 	Andy
>>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 11:35:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:42 UTC