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

Convert JSON-LD to YAML-LD using standard YAML libraries #12

Open
pchampin opened this issue May 30, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Convert JSON-LD to YAML-LD using standard YAML libraries #12

pchampin opened this issue May 30, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
UCR Issue on Use Case/Recommendation
Milestone

Comments

@pchampin
Copy link
Contributor

As a developer,
I want to be able to convert JSON-LD documents to YAML-LD by simply serializing the document using any standard YAML library,
So that the resulting YAML is valid YAML-LD, resolving to the same graph as the original JSON-LD.

Conversely, I would be very surprised (and annoyed) if such a simple conversion did not work.

This is why, although I do not oppose $-keywords (#11) for authoring YAML-LD from scratch, I want @-keywords to be also supported.

@pchampin pchampin added the UCR Issue on Use Case/Recommendation label May 30, 2022
@gkellogg gkellogg mentioned this issue Jun 22, 2022
gkellogg added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 2, 2022
@ioggstream ioggstream added this to the -00 milestone Jul 5, 2022
@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

gkellogg commented Aug 1, 2022

Having worked with this, and some standard YAML libraries in Ruby, I think we want to tread lightly and reduce requirements to basic/expanded profile considerations:

In the Basic Profile:

In the Extended Profile:

These should allow the simple use of existing libraries for turning the Internal Representation into YAML with standard controls.

@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

gkellogg commented Aug 3, 2022

This issue was discussed on the Aug 03 meeting.

@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

gkellogg commented Aug 17, 2022

This issue was discussed in the August 17th meeting.

General feel that it can be merged, but more detail is still necessary.

(Really for #70, duplicated there.)

@gkellogg gkellogg added the spec Issue on specification label Aug 17, 2022
@gkellogg gkellogg removed the spec Issue on specification label Oct 4, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
UCR Issue on Use Case/Recommendation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants