On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:21:59 -0500, Jan Depner wrote: > On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 17:00, Steve Harris wrote: > > Yup, but I dont think we got consensus on the metadata format, which is > > kinda fundamnetal. For the record, I (still) think we should use a > > restricted subset of RDF/N3. > > > As long as you never, ever have to look at it. I could actually read > the XML stuff in the old Ardour presets files. From what I can see the > RDF/N3 format is somewhat similar to cuneiform or possibly Sanskrit ;-)
Heh, its actually pretty easy to understand (conceptually), its just got no syntaxic shortcuts and its a graph language, which is my its hard for humans to read. But yes, noone should ever have to write RDF/N3 by hand. A tool can be used to save the description out in RDF/N3 or RDF/XML (eg. protege, RDFe, emacs ;). If it only saves RDF/XML it can be trivially machine converted to RDF/N3. There are other options like Turtle, which has some shortcuts to make it easy for humans to read/write, but its equivalently harder to parse. Rock and a hard place :( - Steve
