- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:38:17 -0700
- To: Colin Maudry <colin@maudry.com>
- Cc: public-csv-wg@w3.org, Axel Haustant <axel.haustant@data.gouv.fr>
> On Oct 12, 2015, at 6:57 AM, Colin Maudry <colin@maudry.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > For a given column, we would like to be able to define a fixed list of values that this column is supposed to contain. In SQL terms that's an ENUM type. > > One of the solutions offered here [1] is to use the "format" property, followed by a regex: > > "format" : "value1|value2|value3" > > However, we see several problems with this solution: > > - it's not easy to reuse somewhere else as a reusable object > - the value of "format" requires parsing > - we can't document the values with comments > > A potential and cleaner solution would be to create schema:Enumeration objects. Problem: I don't know how to connect the csvw:Column object with the schema:Enumeration [2] object. Any idea? You might consider the use of a foreign key constraint against another table, for which output may be suppressed. Check out example 27 in the csv-metadata for an example [1]. Following your suggestion, if the column value can easily be turned into a URI using valueUrl, then you could create something like `ex:Male` from the column value “Male” by setting valueUrl to something like “http://example.org/{col}” where “col” is the name of the column containing the values you want to map. You could add an annotation to define `ex:Genders` using a common property. This might look something like the following: { “@type”: “Table”, “schema:valueReference”: [{ “@id”: “http://example.org/Genders”, “rdfs:subClassOf”: “schema:Enumeration" }, { “@id”: “http://example.org/Female”, “@type”: "http://example.org/Genders" }, { “@id”: “http://example.org/Male”, “@type”: "http://example.org/Genders" }, { “@id”: “http://example.org/Other”, “@type”: "http://example.org/Genders" }], “tableSchema”: { “columns”: [{“name”: “col”, “valueUrl”: “http://example.org/{col}”}] } } You could even combine the two, so that a validator would ensure that only URIs in the target vocabulary were used. > The thread mentioned above [1] seems to end up recommending using XSD schema files to declare enumerations, but I'm not comfortable with doing so outside of the JSON-LD/RDF realm. I think it would make the validation script more complex because less web-friendly. I'd rather declare them in a separate JSON-LD file. > > FYI, values of an enumeration and their schema:Enumeration object are expressed this way: > > ex:Genders rdfs:subClassOf schema:Enumeration . > ex:Female rdf:type ex:Genders . > ex:Male rdf:type ex:Genders . > ex:Other rdf:type ex:Genders . Gregg Kellogg [3] http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#foreign-key-reference-between-tables > [1] https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/223 > [2] http://schema.org/Enumeration > > Thanks! > Colin
Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 16:38:49 UTC