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

Consider adopting tableschema pattern metadata #37

Closed
JDziurlaj opened this issue Jan 24, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #41
Closed

Consider adopting tableschema pattern metadata #37

JDziurlaj opened this issue Jan 24, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #41

Comments

@JDziurlaj
Copy link
Contributor

There are several patterns that have developed around tableschema use, but aren't formally part of the spec. The most important one in my view is the addition of metadata to the tableschema itself. Right now we are storing versioning information in the datapackage, but if #29 is implemented, it would have to go somewhere else. We can add the same metadata as in the datapackage using this unofficial vocabulary.
The rationale for doing this would be to better work with tooling that expects a tableschema. For example, data-curator creates its own datapackage from the metadata entered in its interface, but we would still like to know which version of the tableschema was used to validate the feed, as it will influence downstream transformations (i.e. upgrading the feed to be ingested).
(I'd also note that data-curator doesn't write out this unofficial metadata either, so we'd have to fork/PR that change)

@JDziurlaj
Copy link
Contributor Author

See also qcif/data-curator#1003

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant