Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cldf validation of tables #56

Open
HedvigS opened this issue Feb 2, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

cldf validation of tables #56

HedvigS opened this issue Feb 2, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@HedvigS
Copy link

HedvigS commented Feb 2, 2022

cldf datasets come with a json metadata file which among other things report which tables within the dataset conform to which standards. It is probable that most cldf-datasets contain a file called "languages.csv", but it is not technically required. It is however required that the json file reports the standards and one of those may be something like:

dc:conformsTo == "http://cldf.clld.org/v1.0/terms.rdf#LanguageTable"

It would be great if there existed a standardised way in R to get cldf-datasets, specify which standardised table you want and have the function check the json metadata file for which table that is.

Currently I'm doing this the slightly roundabout way over in this script by for-looping through that part of the json, increase the index and then call on the table that way. It may not be the prettiest way of going about it, but it does work :P. It would be very useful for someone like me if there was a more general and robust function for this in a CRAN-package. Such a function could either exist in a package like glottospace, or for example in Simon's rcldf.

@HedvigS
Copy link
Author

HedvigS commented Feb 2, 2022

Sorry, my bad! rcldf::cldf() does do this!!

@HedvigS
Copy link
Author

HedvigS commented Feb 2, 2022

As exemplified by a script I already wrote.. I'm a dum-dum.

Anyway, it'd be great if glottoget used a similar approach to rcldf::cldf(), or even just called on rcldf.

SietzeN pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant