- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:17:28 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: 'Linked JSON' <public-linked-json@w3.org>, public-csv-wg@w3.org, public-csv-wg-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <530727B8.2050503@w3.org>
Markus Lanthaler wrote: > +CC public-csv-wg(-comments) > > > On Friday, February 21, 2014 6:33 AM, David Booth wrote: >> Personally, I would prefer not to overload JSON-LD this way. This >> essentially amounts to a transformation rule. And although >> transformation rules are useful and neede, I would prefer to have them >> specified as a separate layer. > > I've raised an issue regarding IRI templates 2 years ago [1] and we > concluded back then to "not add any normative language relating to IRI > templates or other transformations". > > As is, framing is not really suitable for this as it expects the input to > already be valid JSON-LD. I think what you want is a generic mechanism to > map CSV to RDF. You can then easily serialize it (and frame it) in JSON-LD. > > I haven't followed the work in the CSV WG at all till now but it appears to > me that there exists already an (almost complete) solution that you could > leverage: R2RML [2] (I'm sure this has already been discussed). If you add a > way to reference a JSON-LD context or frame, you are quite close to what you > want to achieve I think: > CSV -> RDF -> JSON-LD Just to reflect on this: the current thinking was actually the opposite (but we are still early in the process). Indeed, there is a need for a CSV->JSON transformation, too, for users who simply want to use the data directly, without going through RDF. Defining that JSON mapping by, essentially, defining a CSV->JSON-LD mapping, and relying on a separate @context to yield RDF if necessary seems to be an attractive proposition... Ivan > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/108 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-r2rml-20120927/ > > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > >> On 02/20/2014 08:50 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >>> As part of work on the CSV WG, I've put forward the concept of CSV-LD >>> [1]. As I've discussed before, the idea is to use something like a >>> JSON-LD frame to map column values in a CSV to turn it into JSON-LD. >>> >>> I discussed the idea of IRI Templates (really @id templates) on the >>> mailing list [2]. The idea is that fields in a CSV may be used to >>> identify entities, but they may not explicitly include an identifier. >>> In some cases, it may take two columns to determine a unique >>> identifier, for example when a database dump has a composite primary >>> key. >>> >>> The idea I had is that one or more column values might be used to >>> create a template for an IRI or Blank Node. This concept might be >>> more generally useful for JSON-LD framing, but I wanted to get some >>> reaction from this list. From the email: >>> >>> [[[ I've been hand-waving around this, but one way to do this might >>> be to extend the context definition to describe identifier >>> templates: >>> >>> { "region_id": {"@id": "_:{Sales Region}", "@type": "@idTemplate"} } >>> >>> I'm sure we can do much better, but the basic idea is that column >>> values can be used within a template used to construct an IRI or >>> BNode identifier, using some suitable rules. We could then use >>> "region_id" in the frame, with the understanding that it will be >>> expanded using the template defined in the context. >>> >>> { "@id": "region_id", "@type": "ex:SalesRegion", "Sales Region": >>> null, "ex:period": { "@type": "ex:SalesPeriod", "Quarter": null, >>> "Sales": null } } ]]] >>> >>> The idea would be that if a term is of type @idTemplate, it could be >>> used as a key or value (in this case, the value of @id), and it would >>> be processed based on other properties of the associated node ("Sales >>> Region" here). Obviously, this would require some normalization as >>> well, so that the result would be legal. A more complete example >>> would be the following: >>> >>> { "@context": { "dc": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/", "rdf": >>> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#", "ex": >>> "http://example/", "Sales Region": "dc:title", "Quarter": >>> "dc:title", "Sales": "rdf:value", "region_id": {"@id": "_:{Sales >>> Region}", "@type": "@idTemplate"} }, "@id": "region_id", "Sales >>> Region": null, "ex:period": { "Quarter": null, "Sales": null } } >>> >>> I suppose that filling in the template term would be part of >>> compaction, and the @idTemplate would allow such a term to be used as >>> the value of @id. This could presumably be done in a CSV-LD spec, but >>> it might be more generally useful as part of JSON-LD Framing. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/CSV-LD [2] >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Feb/0119.html >>> >>> >>> > >
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 10:17:58 UTC