RDF mappings for the different value types (and property data types) is currently located in two big classes, SimpleValueRdfBuilder and ComplexValueRdfBuilder. They should be split up by data type, to improve maintainability and testability. This would also make it more streight forward to add mappings for new data types.
|· · ·|
|Resolved||daniel||T112083 [Task] Allow RDF bindings for different data types to be registered dynamically.|
|Resolved||daniel||T118500 [Task] Split RDF mapping code into separate classes per type|
|· · ·|
@Tobi_WMDE_SW I split this out of the original patch for T112083. It's unclear to me whether we want to commit to this in the current sprint. I'm confident that I can get the code finished on monday, but we'll not get this through review before the sprint ends. So, what do you recommend? Commit to this and keep working on it Kanban-style, or push it into the next sprint Scrum-style?