Re: [LAD] LV2 adoption

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 14:50 +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2008, at 14:35, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:10 +0000, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> >> Steve Harris wrote:
> >>
> >>> To my mind it's better for us to develop a large suite of tools and
> >>> plugins to demonstrate the viability and advantages before we go
> >>
> >> I think we indeed need lots of testing tools - like debugging
> >> hosts/plugins spiked with lots of pre/postcondition checks, or even
> >> some
> >> validity checking libraries that could be easily inserted (#ifdef'ed)
> >> into "real" hosts/plugins, to check plugin/host behaviour in "real
> >> world".
> >
> > IMO all the descriptions of restrictions in lv2.ttl that are currently
> > in comments should be in machine readable form for this reason.
> > Having
> > that stuff in comments only is pretty silly, really.
>
> That's a good idea, obviously - but it can be hard to express those
> kinds of restrictions in a machine readable form, even in RDF :)
>
> Also, it will tend to complicate the schema, which is currently quite
> simple.
>
> Perhaps it would make a good adjunct file? tv2-restrictions.ttl or
> something?

Yeah, I already have one (using owl restrictions), but not quite done
yet. I'll probably just throw it online separately if it's larger than
the restrictions-in-comments versions, otherwise I guess we can fight
about it :)

I was hoping there would be tools that would mean such an LV2 ontology
would make for a "free" plugin validator, but owl tools have... some
issues. Many of them reject an ontology if it has triples the validator
doesn't understand (ie the maintainer etc info in lv2.ttl).

Eeeeeevil * 9999. So anti-RDF :/ Logic people write good ontologies
and shitty software. I guess this isn't exactly a world shattering
surprise :)

Anyway, even if an LV2 specific validator will be written, it's
definitely better to do it based on restrictions in RDF and not
assumptions in code.

I might try building some of this into SLV2, but it's not a huge
priority ATM. If your plugins don't work, they're not valid. :)

-DR-

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sat Jan 26 00:15:01 2008