csvw:table predicate vs resources annotation vs resources property

[JeniT]

In the metadata document, we use a resources property to hold table description objects. In the data model, we use a resources annotation to hold the list of tables within a table group. But in the RDF generated, the name of the predicate is csvw:table and in the JSON generated there's a table property. Is there a reason for using a different name for the predicate or should these be brought into line? Should we standardise on "table(s)" or "resource(s)"? (The term "resources" originates from the data packaging spec.)

[6a6d74]

Use of csvw:table in RDF and table in JSON aspires to provide descriptive terms ... resources is a bit ambiguous & there's only one type of resource that can be included (tables!).

(I wasn't aware of the intent to retain the terminology from the data packaging spec)

I wouldn't strongly object to a change ... but consistency is important.

[gkellogg]

Perhaps it would make more sense to change reaourses to table in the TableGroup description.

[iherman]

I must admit the term "resources" was always a bit strange to me but not sufficiently to really raise an issue around it. But using the term "tables" seems to be a better descriptive term. So I am in favour of changing that (though it will be a bit of a pain to change it in all our examples... but a good screen editor may be our friend).

The only place where we use the term "resource" (in singular) is for a foreign key reference. I believe it is fine to keep it that way. But the fact that we use the (almost) similar term for two very different purposes may be another good argument to change "resources" to "tables".

Ivan

On 07 Apr 2015, at 21:21 , Jeni Tennison notifications@github.com wrote:

In the metadata document, we use a resources property to hold table description objects. In the data model, we use a resources annotation to hold the list of tables within a table group. But in the RDF generated, the name of the predicate is csvw:table and in the JSON generated there's a table property. Is there a reason for using a different name for the predicate or should these be brought into line? Should we standardise on "table(s)" or "resource(s)"? (The term "resources" originates from the data packaging spec.)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[iherman]

Changes to be done in the documents:

• resources -> tables
• title -> titles

(See http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-csvw-irc#T14-28-24)

[gkellogg]

Also:

• notes => csvw:note
• foreignKeys => csvw:foreignKey (not used in csv2*)

[gkellogg]

Open for review by @JeniT.

[JeniT]

Looks OK; there were a few things missed but I'll include those when I do other editorial changes.