W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2015

Re: yaml-ld?

From: peter <peter.amstutz@curoverse.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:06:28 -0500
Message-ID: <1422025588.10238.204.camel@curoverse.com>
To: "David I. Lehn" <dil@lehn.org>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, "common-workflow-language@googlegroups.com" <common-workflow-language@googlegroups.com>
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 13:05 -0500, David I. Lehn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:03 AM, peter <peter.amstutz@curoverse.com> wrote:
> > Has anyone tried using yaml (http://www.yaml.org/) as an alternate
> > serialization to express json-ld structured data?  Are there any
> > pitfalls to this approach?
> >
> Sometimes I convert between JSON-LD to YAML just because YAML is
> usually more compact and easier to read and write.  It's easy to
> convert back and forth.  One pitfall is that unfortunately you do need
> to quote all the keywords starting with '@'.  I've just used the basic
> syntax but more advanced features like types and linking could
> probably be used to do interesting things.  I have wanted to add YAML
> input/output support to the playground but haven't found time to do
> it.

Our use case is that we're working on defining a schema and semantics
for wrapping tools and defining workflows for analysis applications [1].
The schema is currently defined as plain JSON but we want to move to a
linked-data compatible schema.  However, JSON (and JSON-LD) has a couple
of significant pain points with the lack of support for comments and
multi-line strings, hence the desire to use YAML.  I wasn't aware that @
was a reserved character in YAML, so that's good to know.  That's
unfortunate, but probably an acceptable tradeoff.

[1] https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language

- Peter
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 15:04:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:43 UTC