25 Jan
2008
25 Jan
'08
2:47 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 14:50 +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
On 23 Jan 2008, at 14:35, Dave Robillard wrote:
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-
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:10 +0000, Krzysztof
Foltman wrote:
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? Steve Harris wrote:
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. 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".