Luis Henrique Fagundes
lhfagundes at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 18:52:48 PST 2013
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:54 PM, David Robillard <d at drobilla.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 19:13 -0200, Luis Henrique Fagundes wrote:
> > Hi Everybody,
> Cool. A decent way of shipping descriptions over JSON would certainly
> be nice.
Yes, I've struggled a lot since that question in Stackoverflow and this is
the first time I feel happy about some code :-).
> To be easy to use you will have to bake in some specifics I'm sure, but
> you really want to avoid having to explicitly model everything in the
> API, it's not extensible and means your interface will be restrictive.
> For example, I don't think an AudioInputPort etc. class for every
> possible port type is a good idea, just have a Port class which has
> (several) types, i.e. directly reflect reality. You don't really win
> anything that way, when in doubt make it general. Same goes for
> vocabulary classes like Foaf, rdflib.Namespace already supports this
> directly without having to list every "allowable" URI in the API.
Hmmm, thinking now about a general LV2 utility, this model seems
restrictive. But in my context, it fits perfectly: I don't need it to be
extensible (in fact I think the extensibility is what makes RDF/LV2 to be
difficult to deal with). I need the data to be very well structured to
match my application needs, and if it's flexible it might not be that
useful. For example, in RDF you might have one or several objects with same
predicate and subject, so it's very difficult to generally decide if that
should be structured as a list or not. I started with that and ended up
with unreliable JSON data, full of information that was garbage for my
application. What I appreciate now is that I can model exactly what I want
to extract, with a simple perception of everything in one single place.
So, maybe the concept I should propose here is not a general purpose LV2 to
JSON, but the RDFModel as a toolkit with LV2 examples for developers to
customize for their application. My goal here is to make it easier for
developers to get into LV2, and writing models for that is a much easier
task than looking for triples.
> Also, could you please rename this? The name "lv2" is reserved by the
> actual LV2 specification/package, and is not an appropriate name for
> third party packages.
Sure. I didn't think that much about the name, just wanted to release it in
some way to get feedback.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel