Describe microdata -> JSON-LD conversion?

[chaals]

See also #2, #5, #15 and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Aug/0101.html (which gives a sense of what is required as changes).

[chaals]

Ping @lanthaler

[gkellogg]

In a sense, microdata -> JSON-LD is a specific case of the Microdata to RDF algorithm, as JSON-LD is just an RDF serialization. But, it might be nice to have resulting JSON-LD structured in the same way as the original HTML and with a context definition created based on inferred term values.

I think @niklasl did something like this for RDFa to JSON-LD.

[lanthaler]

This should be fairly straightforward. I discussed this with Ian a couple of years ago but there was no interest at that time. The single biggest difference (apart from the missing context) is the use of the properties container instead of adding them to the object itself.

[lanthaler]

Should have clicked on the links beforehand. Looks like you already found the convo with Ian that actually explains the required changes.

[gkellogg]

The single biggest difference (apart from the missing context) is the use of the properties container instead of adding them to the object itself.

Note that in JSON-LD 1.1, a properties container is supported by use of the @nest mechanism. That presumes that the existing Microdata JSON schema needs to be preserved, rather than something that is a more natural JSON-LD expression.

[iherman]

@gkellogg I do not think we should use JSON-LD 1.1, though. JSON-LD 1.1 as a standard is probably some years away (there is not even a charter in preparation for a working group) and the microdata standard should not rely on it. (Actually, per process, if the JSON-LD conversion is normative, it must not rely on it.)

[chaals]

@lanthaler do you have the time to produce a PR for this? Note that I am also thinking, per #21, that we should explain how to convert to RDFa - not least because either format handles i18n far better than microdata.