On Monday 28 May 2007 01:22:32 jamie wrote: > > He points out that the translation infrastructure (in Gnome) is already > > ready for .ini and xml files. > > > > Ok, I've been asking around the Gnome camp how we could support i18n > > of Turtle files. As far as I can tell it is not gonna be trivial. We > > will have to add the support to intltool, which only supports a > > hardcoded set of file types... Given we write this patch we still need > > to convince the maintainers of intltool to put it in which might be > > hard to convince them about, but I don't know yet. > > > > The complexity of implementing a Turtle parser in C is > > discussed. It seems unclear what the requirements for such a > > parser would be in our case where we don't need full Turtle. > > We haven't decided on a Turtle subset yet, so... > > > > Ok, I've been familiarizing myself with Flex/Bison which is also used > > for the Raptor Turtle parser and I'm not too scared to write one now. > > I think the i18n might be the biggest issue for me now actually... > > we should have another meeting on tuesday to discuss where we go - talk > of using turtle format is a bit premature until the intltool maintainer > agrees to support it. (and even then getting someone with good perl > skills to implement support for it) > > The replies from Gnome (1) suggest that its better to use an > intermediate format (xml or ini) for translations and then translate > into whatever ontology language thats needed.
So it sort of suggests that RDF(s)+XML is the best/easiest with a GUI editor/viz for people intimidated by either syntax or ontology size(which I suspect is the #1 problem even for hardcore devs). No need to support/translate/recode/whatever for any purposes. Btw KDE camp may be of help with translation. Somebody's gotta ask them as well. --Evgeny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
