Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA 2 decision points

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:54:02 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 21:32 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:05:18PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > nonono :) I think metadata outside the plugin is without a doubt the
> > > right way to go. I meant I'm just not a huge fan of the particular
> > > syntax of this Turtle stuff (as opposed to normal well-formed XML).
> > > Mostly because it means we need special tools and who knows what
> > > libraries to deal with it.
> >
> > you cant usefully read RDF/XML with just an XML parser anyway. It's quite
> > a lot of work to transform from the XML tree to the RDF graph.
> >
> > But yes, Turtle support is less widespeard than RDF/XML, but there are
> > still Free/Open parsers for every language I can think of (C(++), perl,
> > java, python, ruby, javascript, etc.)
>
> As long as it's part of the SDK (and the SDK doesn't have ridiculous
> requirements), I say it's fine.

I think a C header, RDF Schema, and bit a of example code is sufficient.
That's all the LADSPA 1.1 SDK is. If I was writing the example code, I'd
link to rasqal (http://librdf.org/rasqal/) which can query RDF/Turtle
files from disk efficiently.

Of course if people want to bundle up some tools and helper functions for
convienince then that's great, I dont think we want an SDK library though.
 
> Speaking of SDK, the LADSPA2 SDK should include the above, and a (strict
> as possible) demolition equivalent - not to mention example plugins that
> are actually correct :)

Yeah, that would help :-/

- Steve
Received on Sun Apr 23 12:15:14 2006