- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:41:49 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <9D39A91F-B0A7-4993-9ECB-9E5D315EC235@w3.org>
On 10 Sep 2014, at 13:34 , Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > 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, we seem to have some fundamental misunderstanding... Alternatives on templates is whether *we formally define* a template language or not and, in case we decide to do so, *which complexity of templates* we define. We may decide *not* to do so and leave the community relay on existing languages. That is the decision we have to make. Ivan > > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > ---- 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 11:42:28 UTC