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