Closed RickMoynihan closed 9 months ago
Seems reasonable but isn't the table schema a private interface for CSVW itself? If we want to add types, shouldn't that take place within the data itself?
Do you have an example use case?
Seems reasonable but isn't the table schema a private interface for CSVW itself?
What gives you that idea? I've seen no mention of this anywhere; the csvm files are a subset of json-ld.
If we want to add types, shouldn't that take place within the data itself?
I should probably have said that this may need to occur in our annotated mode, not the standard mode -- but regardless standard mode shouldn't choke on things it doesn't understand (i.e. it should be a tollerant reader :-) )
It's my understanding the spec prohibits this - see e.g. the metadata spec for schemas:
If included, @type is an atomic property that MUST be set to "Schema". Publishers MAY include this to provide additional information to JSON-LD based toolchains.
Yeah exactly, these are csvw:Column
s - their purpose is to annotate the table/ provide an RDF translation.
What sort of types would you want to add?
Closed because spec doesn't permit this.
I think you should be allowed to annotate parts of the CSVW metadata document with custom types.
I think this should be valid; and am assuming nothing in the spec prohibits adding your own types. RDF is open-world after all, i.e. the interpretation of the above schema file would be that the
tableSchema
is both acsvw:TableSchema
and anex:CustomTableType
.However if you do this you get errors like below; it would be very handy if we didn't.