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 [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
