--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "common-workflow-language" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to common-workflow-la...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to common-workf...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/common-workflow-language/CAEXjzRuDO3qFRZ81eCEUQqHhA4jBSMQRHrnKZVCBdd69QrgWFg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Looks good, thanks!
>> email to common-workflow-language+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> common-workf...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/common-workflow-language/CAEXjzRuDO3qFRZ81eCEUQqHhA4jBSMQRHrnKZVCBdd69QrgWFg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> Michael R. Crusoe: Programmer & Bioinformatician cru...@ucdavis.edu
> The lab for Data Intensive Biology; University of California, Davis
> https://impactstory.org/MichaelRCrusoe http://twitter.com/biocrusoe
Yes, that's fair. The schema language ended up taking on a life of its own and I would like to split it out into its own project (with its own documentation, specification, etc) but have not had the time to do so yet. If someone would like to volunteer to help I would be happy to chat about it.
I don't think this should block finalizing draft 2, validation is useful but not essential to write a working implementation, so this can be a goal for draft 3. Would you like to file an issue?
Thanks,
Peter
On Jul 17, 2015 8:04 PM, <stefan.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
These are great questions, and just reminds me that I need to pull the schema language out into its own project.
> I've been going through the reference implementation (specifically, how the Avro schema is "extended" for linked data) and I'm kind of confused how extending models are tracked (via extended_by). Let's say we have three records:
> Record A
> Record B (Extends A)
> Record C (Extends B)
> What would the expected extends property be for each of those records? Does record C extend B? A? A and B?
B extends A, C extends B
"extends" mainly means that field definitive are copied from parent to child during processing.
> What about the inherited_from property? I assume that is applied at the per-field level, so record C might have fields from record A -- those would be marked as inherited_from: A. Is that a fair assumption?
That's correct. That's only used for generating documentation currently.
> Also -- what's the purpose of the first_def function? When we generate the schema, I see that we're interested in filtering out abstract and doc nodes. Is that the only functional purpose of first_def?
This is to do support converting to "pure" Avro schema. Avro supports recursive definitions but only if the recurrence of the definition is nested in the original definition. This gets complex when the recurrence is indirect. First_def expands type definitions the first place they are used and ensures the type symbol in each subsequent occurrence.
If I recall correctly, this is also involved in converting instances of abstract types into a union of concrete subtypes.
> Thanks and looking forward to contributing to the project!
Welcome!
>
> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:00:07 PM UTC-7, stefan.lo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Are there any notes or documentation on avro-ld? I'm interested in developing a Ruby implementation to contribute towards the project.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:03:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Amstutz wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, that's fair. The schema language ended up taking on a life of its own and I would like to split it out into its own project (with its own documentation, specification, etc) but have not had the time to do so yet. If someone would like to volunteer to help I would be happy to chat about it.
>>>
>>> I don't think this should block finalizing draft 2, validation is useful but not essential to write a working implementation, so this can be a goal for draft 3. Would you like to file an issue?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peter
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "common-workflow-language" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to common-workflow-la...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to common-workf...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/common-workflow-language/6c82db9c-9a5d-4ce1-ae85-bb735da9e04e%40googlegroups.com.