linuxaudio.org

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 22:35 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:

quoted text
> On 23 February 2011 22:11, David Robillard  wrote:

> > SLV2 is now based on two new libraries: Serd (RDF syntax) and Sord (RDF

> > store). Both are roughly 2 thousand lines of C, solid and thoroughly

> > tested (about 95% code coverage, like SLV2 itself). Serd has zero

> > dependencies, Sord depends only on Glib (for the time being, possibly

> > not in the future).

>

> Can you point me at the API or code?  I couldn't see it in a quick

> browse on your SVN server.

They're all in my LAD meta-repository:
http://svn.drobilla.net/lad/trunk/
Or, individually:
http://svn.drobilla.net/lad/trunk/slv2

http://svn.drobilla.net/serd/trunk/

http://svn.drobilla.net/sord/trunk/
All the usual disclaimers about unreleased software apply.
> I have a library (Dataquay,

quoted text
> http://code.breakfastquay.com/projects/dataquay -- preparing a 1.0

> release of it at the moment, so if anyone wants to try it, go for the

> repository rather than the old releases) which provides a Qt4 wrapper

> for librdf and an object-RDF mapper.

>

> It's intended for applications whose developers like the idea of RDF

> as an abstract data model and Turtle as a syntax, but are not

> particularly interested in being scalable datastores or engaging in

> the linked data world.

More implementation alternatives for working with that "micro-stack"

would be great, it's a good one...
> For my purposes, Dataquay using librdf is fine -- I can configure it

quoted text
> so that bloat is not an issue (and hey! I'm using Qt already) and some

> optional extras are welcome.  But I can see the appeal of a more

> limited, lightweight, or at least less configuration-dependent

> back-end.

You can compile a far more lightweight librdf yourself, but, well, users

don't, nor should they have to. That said, sure, it's still a good

option sometimes, but I am shooting for an extremely low barrier of

entry. Small C libraries with no dependencies are an easy sell, because

they're not a pain in anyone's ass.
The sord API is vaguely reminiscent of the specific subset of the librdf

API I needed at the time, but I made it as part of a hyper pragmatic

mission to get a Redland-free SLV2, not a librdf replacement in general.

The API probably still needs a bit of polish. In other words, I'm not

pitching Sord as a viable Redland replacement in general (nor is making

it one a priority), but if you're just interested in Turtle + in-memory

model, it may be. Let me know what you think.
> I've considered doing LV2 as a simple example case for Dataquay, but

quoted text
> the thought of engaging in more flamewars about LV2 and GUIs is really

> what has put me off so far.  In other words, I like the cut of your

> jib here.

So don't engage in it. Virtually all such nonsense on here is nothing

but the peanut gallery. Mentioning what you plan to do here before doing

it is usually not a good idea (dumbass on mailing list hinders progress,

film at eleven). Don't let L-A-D deter you from working on LV2 things.

If you need useful feedback before proceeding, the LV2 mailing list

 or IRC channel (#lv2 on

irc.freenode.net) are productive, on-topic, flame-free venues for LV2

related discussion/coordination. You can of course also just work

directly with another host/plugin author, which is typical, and is why

most of the LV2 noise here is just that.
Anyway, as for that simple example, a Qt based LV2 host based on a new

RDF stack would be great to see. It's a useful real-world example. I

don't know exactly how a flame against writing that would go, but I do

know it would be painfully stupid, and not worth your attention. Anchors

away!
-dr
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev