I would strongly urge Brandon to provide an example of how this information could be (better) provided in an RDF format

Thanks for considering.

Bo

[Edited Message Follows]

Thanks a lot guys for your contribution so far! This is great! A few comments and answers to the questions above:

@ALL (IMPORTANT):

1. Please remember to update the file _Overview_of_available_correspondence_files.csv with all the required metadata when uploading and / or modifying the correspondence tables (as explained in the readme file).
2. I have added a field ("Author") to this file. I can see that there are already a few new correspondence files that have not been registered in _Overview_of_available_correspondence_files.csv . This is required to track what correspondence tables we have and their status (and maybe also to collect the metadata for conversion in frictionless data format?).
3. If you modify the location or replace the file _Overview_of_available_correspondence_files.csv remember to update the link to it in the readme file. I found that the link was already broken.
4. I added the (before missing) file name to the respective rows in _Overview_of_available_correspondence_files.csv (thanks Miguel A. for letting me know)

@Stefano: The status of the correspondence table is incomplete. Remember to check the file _Overview_of_available_correspondence_files.csv

@Arthur: please send me your GitHub name. All contributors shall have access to the GitHub

@Mighuel A.: you have created a new folder distinguishing raw and final (correspondence) tables. That's fine but could you add in the readme a description of what these file contains, their difference and how to use them? Also, should the file _Overview_of_available_correspondence_files.csv now include both files in the raw and in the final tables folder? (I'd say so maybe specifying in the status why we have two if it is necessary to keep both?)

--