Testing new output formats #1355

Open
RichardWallis opened this Issue Sep 7, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@RichardWallis
Contributor

RichardWallis commented Sep 7, 2016

Pull request (#1351) has introduced new output formats - csv for download files and csv, n-triples, rdf/xml, json-ld, turtle for per-term outputs.

These could benefit from a look over on webschemas.org, before release, by many eyes to check and comment.

Per-term outputs can be accessed in two ways. Firstly by adding the appropriate suffix (.csv, .nt, .jsonld, .rdf, .ttl) to the term URI:

Secondly they are available using content-negotiation, supplying the appropriate value for 'Accept' in the http request header (text/csv, text/plain, application/ld+json, application/rdf+xml, application/x-turtle).

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Sep 8, 2016

Contributor

For .rdf, http://rdflib3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq.html reports that "pretty-xml" could make the RDF/XML use some syntax shortcuts that reduces verbosity. Have you tried it?

Contributor

danbri commented Sep 8, 2016

For .rdf, http://rdflib3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq.html reports that "pretty-xml" could make the RDF/XML use some syntax shortcuts that reduces verbosity. Have you tried it?

@Dataliberate

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Dataliberate

Dataliberate Sep 8, 2016

Contributor

No but will take a look.

Contributor

Dataliberate commented Sep 8, 2016

No but will take a look.

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Sep 8, 2016

Contributor

PR (#1357) introduces "pretty-xml"

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Sep 8, 2016

PR (#1357) introduces "pretty-xml"

@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Sep 12, 2016

Contributor

What's the goal of this open issue? To ensure we've had review of all the formats?

Contributor

danbri commented Sep 12, 2016

What's the goal of this open issue? To ensure we've had review of all the formats?

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Sep 12, 2016

Contributor

Yes, and a place for comments to be collected - the individual elements are spread across several other issues.

This one can be closed when we are not inviting more comments.

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Sep 12, 2016

Yes, and a place for comments to be collected - the individual elements are spread across several other issues.

This one can be closed when we are not inviting more comments.

@JimSaiya

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JimSaiya

JimSaiya Sep 14, 2016

I noticed the page at http://webschemas.org/docs/developers.html#defs returns a file with extension .xml when format "RDF/XML" is selected. As noted in the original comment, you add .rdf to a term URI to get RDF/XML output. I'm guessing we want both methods to use the same extension.

If we have a choice, I'd prefer .rdf myself.

JimSaiya commented Sep 14, 2016

I noticed the page at http://webschemas.org/docs/developers.html#defs returns a file with extension .xml when format "RDF/XML" is selected. As noted in the original comment, you add .rdf to a term URI to get RDF/XML output. I'm guessing we want both methods to use the same extension.

If we have a choice, I'd prefer .rdf myself.

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Sep 14, 2016

Contributor

Thanks @JimSaiya - taken onboard in PR(#1366)

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Sep 14, 2016

Thanks @JimSaiya - taken onboard in PR(#1366)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment