Re: Planning the tam-tam for a CSVW document review

@iherman said:

> That is also interesting… do you think it would be possible to provide
some schema specific metadata samples for various sub-vocabularies of [
schema.org]? Then people may use a csv file to describe the data and trust
some conversion to, say, JSON-LD. That may be interesting...

We already have one to start with: the music event listing used as a full
example in csv2rdf and csv2json. That said, the serialisation is TTL not
JSON-LD; but the conversion to JSON-LD should be trivial ...

Jeremy


On 14 April 2015 at 13:32, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> <skip>
> >>
> >> I guess the first two are really important for us; I do not really see
> privacy or accessibility issues with these documents, but better ask.
> >
> > Our charter mentions Privacy, "Ensure that the privacy concerns are
> > properly included in the CSV metadata either via reference or via
> > direct vocabulary elements".
> >
>
> Yep, so we must do this.
>
> > Accessibility imho is important as CSV could prove to be an
> > interesting approach to structured data authoring. See
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php and nearby. If a suitable
> > collection of csv2rdf (or json) mappings are available, actual
> > authoring of data can happen in various tools that allow tables to be
> > edited.
> >
>
> Ah. That is interesting although… I am not sure it is relevant in terms of
> the review of these specs. The horizontal review is really to assess
> whether the documents abide to the requirements of accessibility.
>
>
> >> Furthermore, we would probably want to ask for an explicit review from
> the Data on the Web Best practices group:
> >>
> >>  * public-dwbp-wg@w3.org, chairs Deirdre Lee (Deirdre.Lee@deri.org),
> Hadley Beeman (hadley@linkedgov.org), Yaso Cordova (yaso@nic.br), and
> Steve Adler (adler1@us.ibm.com); staff contact Phil Archer (phila@w3.org)
> >>
> >> Otherwise a separate mail to the Data Coordination Group (
> member-dacg@w3.org), the SWIG (semantic-web@w3.org) and the LOD mailing
> list (public-lod@w3.org)
> >
> > (definitely those 2, yes)
> > as well as, maybe, an announcement to chairs@w3.org
> > (yes to that too)
> > would be fine. Finally, we would need a Home Page News announcement
> > as well as a Blog on the Data Activity blog.
> >>
> >> Any groups outside the core W3C circles? Dan, do you think it is worth
> using the schema.org list (I do not think so, but you tell me).
> >
> > I was thinking that it is well worth posting something in
> > blog.schema.org (or at least the new CG for sure). In that context I
> > would be tempted to frame it alongside recent explorations of using
> > Web Components (custom elements etc.) as "exploring new ways of
> > publishing schema.org".
> >
>
> That is also interesting… do you think it would be possible to provide
> some schema specific metadata samples for various sub-vocabularies of
> schema? Then people may use a csv file to describe the data and trust some
> conversion to, say, JSON-LD. That may be interesting...
>
>
> > We should also make sure to bounce it around various open data / civic
> > hackery / govt transparency lists. Jeni and Rufus probably have their
> > fingers on the right pulses there. DWBP are also a good route to those
> > audiences.
>
> Beyond DWBP a big yes for other govt lists. Leave that to Jeni & Rufus...
>
> >
> > Given our charter http://www.w3.org/2013/05/lcsv-charter.html says
> > "The output of the mapping mechanism for RDF MUST be consistent with
> > either the RDF Direct Mapping or R2RML" we really owe implementors of
> > those specs at least a high level explanation of why we've taken a
> > relatively different approach.
>
> That is correct; I am not sure how of us could/should write that.
>
> > On that front we could re-iterate the
> > idea of opening a dedicated Community Group on advanced mappings, now
> > that the csv2rdf basic design looks stable. We could explore the idea
> > that our JSON format is an authoring-friendly shorthand (pure subset?)
> > of R2RML (or RML)?.
>
> I think it would be a stretch to bind it to R2RML. The whole idea of URI
> template makes it very different, there is nothing like that in R2RML.
> Also, R2RML (or the Direct Mapping) do not have any notion of validation of
> the data, which is a very important part of what we have done.
>
> Note, however:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/455
>
> showing that it is easy to reproduce, for a specific csv file, the Direct
> Mapping output with a suitable metadata file. If that approach works, it
> could be an important part of our answer to this.
>
> >
> > The charter also mentions Forms ("Coordinate on the possible usage of
> > CSV XPath expressions" - did anything happen there?) and XML. We
> > didn't go the XML route and this is a fair point at which to explain
> > why (and redirect followups to w3.org/community/ ?).
>
> The short answer is: no. But that falls under the issue that we have no
> XML mapping in the first place. And, at this stage, we are sure there won't
> be….
>
> (B.t.w., the XFOrms WG has been closed, afaik…)
>
> >
> > We also need to communicate carefully and appropriately to the IETF,
> > given that they specify the underlying CSV format we began with. We
> > shouldn't assume an IETF audience is necessarily up to date with any
> > recent changes in W3C process, or has followed our group in detail.
> >
>
> Yeah. It is unfortunate that Yakov is not active any more; I wonder whom
> we could contact on this (if there is anybody still active on this)
>
>
> > BTW how are we looking on the Working Drafts for today? If I recall
> > right they should be with W3C webmaster by tonight?
>
> We are ahead of schedule:-) the documents are ready on our site, and the
> request to the webmaster has been sent!
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> >
> > From an airport -  back online later,
> >
> > Dan
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>