These are chat archives for frictionlessdata/chat

10th
Feb 2017
jonathanKaplanTrendFinancial
@jonathanKaplanTrendFinancial
Feb 10 2017 15:54

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
@rufuspollock
Feb 10 2017 16:09

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

type":object,
“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!

jonathanKaplanTrendFinancial
@jonathanKaplanTrendFinancial
Feb 10 2017 16:28
@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"