-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Standardize data structure definition #6
Comments
Thanks for the ping @septs. I will think about this a bit. Currently on holiday until Nov. 30th -- will try to answer after I am back. |
@codehag i need you re-design an new data structure definition. thanks |
Hi @septs, thanks for the ping again. I did indeed forget during the vacation -- if there are other places that need my attention please ping me there too. Ok. Data structures. This is mirrored in a gist: https://gist.github.com/codehag/677fab08889190124851b9b93490915b Proposals repo data structureCurrent data structure
Proposed Data structureThis is an ideal, not necessarily what we will achieve at first. The links are place holders. Some notes:
Here is the proposed schema in json:
And an example of what I have in mind:
Individual Proposal repo data structureThis is what I currently imagine. It will roughly correspond to the above but will include extra data such as example and description, which are not necessary for all aggregators, but are for the website. We may also add localization fields for the title and descriptions? what do you think? I've made this also a list instead of an object, as some proposals merge. (see class fields proposal)
|
One thing I didn't touch on were the member categories. The delegates in tc39 can be pulled from our github list, I don't know if we need a separate data structure for that. The members are also held by ecma, and I am not sure how important it will be for us to duplicate that info -- do you have a use case in mind? It might make sense, I just don't know yet how we will use this information. |
also, additional bonus for the proposals list would be "implementations" (ie, "spidermonkey", "jsc", "v8", "xs" etc) but I don't what the best way of getting that programmatically would be. On my end I keep a list: https://github.com/codehag/proposals/ which updates 2 weeks after plenary. |
about "snippet-paths": {
"use-case-one": "./snippet-use-case-one.js",
"use-case-two": "./snippet-use-case-two.js",
// etc
} |
|
polyfill (workaround only) + implementations (engine only) "polyfills": [
"url-1",
"url-2",
// etc
],
"implementations": [
"v8",
"engine262",
// etc
], |
inactive stage, no number. (standardize it?, e.q: {
// ...
"tags": ["ECMA-262", "inactive"],
"stage": "inactive",
// ...
} such? |
i think, standardize this idea to proposal name is |
It may be useful to have information about the stage at which something became inactive, in case it starts being worked on again. The stage a proposal reaches can be useful information. We could have an additional field to identify withdrawn and inactive and have those as booleans? |
I like the suggestions around implementations and polyfills -- those will likely require work data entry from maintainers. But we can figure that out, I currently do that for Firefox. I agree that we should verify champions against the delegates list. Authors shouldn't be verified against the delegates list, as authors can be from outside of the committee. |
I didn't quite understand this idea, can you explain a bit more? |
|
I like option 2 there -- "use tags" |
Provide an data schema catalog in tc39. like https://schema.org or https://www.schemastore.org/json Provide JSON Schema file and specification file. |
|
I am still not really sure what a data scheme catalogue will mean -- does this mean that we would publish it externally? One worry I have is that it will tie us to a certain scheme and make it harder for us to change to address our needs. Since we are just starting this work, I would like to make sure that our data structure is right for our needs before providing support. At least, this is what I understood from the comments, let me know if you had something else in mind. With an eye to moving this to TC39: We don't necessarily need to update anything here before transferring it. That is, so long as the resources you use will still be able to use it. Then we can evolve the project. What do you think? |
Start a new project, OK? |
Works for me, does "dataset" make sense as a name? So TC39/dataset? |
Would it be alright if I copy the contents of this repository for now? |
I want to rewrite this project. (use new data structure) |
@codehag create a |
Ok, on it |
I do not have permission create repo on @tc39, thanks |
Yep, I am aware. I need to get an ok from the chairs. I got one so far, will check again. |
Do you have access to https://github.com/tc39/dataset/ now? |
OK |
JSON Schema version, data structure definition. |
CC @codehag any idea?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: