These are chat archives for frictionlessdata/chat

Feb 2017
Feb 10 2017 15:54 UTC

hi there,
i have a quick question regarding data representation.

assuming i want to represent a form, which standard would i use?
the caveat being some of the fields are complex objects and best represented by the data package schema.

would i represent the form using the tabular data resource/table schema and wherever the field is complex i would use an object? or is there a more clever way given that these complex objects (files) are previously defined.

my apologies if this appears to be a silly question.

i would love to simply define my own types and extend the list of primitives, but i don't know if that would be permitted using this structure.

Rufus Pollock
Feb 10 2017 16:09 UTC

@jonathanKaplanTrendFinancial the basic approach I’d suggest to extending the list of types would be to define type of as object and then creating your own attribute that linked to your definition or defined it e.g.:

“myComplexTypeDescription”: { … }

That way existing tooling ignorant of your spec can go on working. If your type spec is general enough it could even become a pattern and then, perhaps, a spec itself!

Feb 10 2017 16:28 UTC
@rufuspollock thank you, is there a suggestion you have that i could define the object model somewhere else and reference it instead of duplicating the schema? the only difference being the name.
type": “myComplexTypeDescription”,
“name”: "instanceOfMyComplexTypeDescription"