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

Re: Reflection on the special telco of CSVW

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:41:49 +0200
Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9D39A91F-B0A7-4993-9ECB-9E5D315EC235@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.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

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