- From: peter <peter.amstutz@curoverse.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:06:28 -0500
- 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 Thanks, - Peter
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 15:04:48 UTC