Re: [LAD] minimal LV2

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Paul Davis <paul@...>
Cc: Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 - 12:23 am

--001485f6d8304d988a0488f27fc7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Paul Davis wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:17 PM, wrote:

I'd just like to clarify that I don't find the whole rdf syntax to be
confusing. Although at first it took a little bit to understand, everything
I understood was logical and intuitive. It makes sense that you would have
to have some system for naming and identifying plugins, features, etc in a
human readable way. Obviously a string makes sense. Where I was thrown off
is that a URL was chosen to be the identifier. Now, I'm not claiming to be
an expert on URIs, but from what I just looked up, it seems that URLs are
supposed to be used to tell you *how* to get an item, while URNs are
supposed to uniquely identify an object. URNs would especially be an
improvement because they are clearly distinguishable from dereference URLs.
And if I'm wrong about URNs or they don't fit the requirements, I think
there are plenty of great systems for creating unique human readable
identifiers. Something like Java packages, or even a custom format, such as
"Feature:Paul.Davis:Control.Port" would all be great, simply because they
don't cause you to look at at and think "I can type that into Firefox". I
think you'd be hard pressed to find a programmer who looks at a URL and
doesn't immediately think "Somewhere, somehow, you can wget that". And
that's the problem with URLs: They already have a well established and
universally recognized use, and this use doesn't fall under that category.

Jeremy

--001485f6d8304d988a0488f27fc7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Paul Da=
vis <pau=
l@linuxaudiosystems.com
> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:17 PM, =A0<fons@kokkinizita.net> wrote:

use of

i think that the problem here is not an unusual one. there is a
disconnect between people who have thought a little bit about
something, and people who have thought a lot about the same thing.
this doesn't mean that the latter group is right and the former group
is wrong. but look, issues of how to add metadata to online/software
entities have been a focus of various parts of academia and industrial
R&D-ish types for many, many years. the design of LV2's metadata
reflects some part of the general conclusions that this sort of work
(nowadays "the semantic web") have come up with.

if you want to argue that this design is wrong in general, i think you
have an uphill battle (although you will find allies in parts of the
semantic web world). if you want to argue that its overblown in this
particular case, then i think its fairly important to show why the
considerations that lead to this RDF/turtle-ish kind of thing don't
apply to the case of describing plugins.

you know, as a beginner to quite a lot of things, i found them
confusing. as i got more experienced with them, in many (most?) cases
i ended up understanding why the design was the way it was.
confusing-for-beginners is not really a particularly compelling
argument against something that really isn't supposed to be the focus
of a beginner's experience anyway. but people being people, they find
the one or two things that seem confusing and then zoom in on that,
ignoring its real significance and purpose in the general scheme of
things.

the fact that a generation or more of programmers have grown up not
really grasping the difference between a URL and a URI is a problem,
and its not one that LV2 is here to solve.

> I'm more and more convinced that people creating these sort of

people who don't understand any field of formal jargon say the sa=
me
thing about that jargon. these descriptions are formal jargon. you're
not meant to "just get them" by just looking at them. they are al=
so
not there to convey meaning to a human, although an interested human
could discover something from them.

--p
I'd just like to clarify that I don&=
#39;t find the whole rdf syntax to be confusing. =A0Although at first it to=
ok a little bit to understand, everything I understood was logical and intu=
itive. =A0It makes sense that you would have to have some system for naming=
and identifying plugins, features, etc in a human readable way. =A0Obvious=
ly a string makes sense. =A0Where I was thrown off is that =A0a URL was cho=
sen to be the identifier. =A0Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert on U=
RIs, but from what I just looked up, it seems that URLs are supposed to be =
used to tell you *how* to get an item, while URNs are supposed to uniquely =
identify an object. =A0URNs would especially be an improvement because they=
are clearly distinguishable from=A0dereference=A0URLs. =A0And if I'm w=
rong about URNs or they don't fit the requirements, I think there are p=
lenty of great systems for creating unique human readable identifiers. =A0S=
omething like Java packages, or even a custom format, such as "Feature=
:Paul.Davis:Control.Port" would all be great, simply because they don&=
#39;t cause you to look at at and think "I can type that into=A0Firefo=
x". =A0I think you'd be hard pressed to find a programmer who look=
s at a URL and doesn't immediately think "Somewhere, somehow, you =
can wget that". =A0And that's the problem with URLs: =A0They alrea=
dy have a well established and universally recognized use, and this use doe=
sn't fall under that category.

Jeremy

--001485f6d8304d988a0488f27fc7--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 10:25 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Igor Brkic, (Sat Jun 12, 11:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Olivier Guilyardi, (Sun Jun 13, 3:46 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Jun 12, 10:40 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 11:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Jun 12, 11:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Sat Jun 12, 11:10 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 11:26 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Sun Jun 13, 10:55 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Jeremy, (Sun Jun 13, 4:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 8:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Mon Jun 14, 7:04 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 10:04 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Jun 14, 11:27 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Mon Jun 14, 11:25 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 12:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Jun 14, 11:52 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Paul Davis, (Sun Jun 13, 9:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Jeremy, (Mon Jun 14, 12:23 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Geoff Beasley, (Mon Jun 14, 12:46 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Mon Jun 14, 12:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 12:53 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Mon Jun 14, 12:55 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Patrick Shirkey, (Mon Jun 14, 7:34 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Mon Jun 14, 8:55 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 9:40 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, drew Roberts, (Mon Jun 14, 3:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Jun 14, 3:39 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 9:15 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Jun 14, 10:15 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Paul Davis, (Sun Jun 13, 10:02 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Olivier Guilyardi, (Sun Jun 13, 10:36 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, James Morris, (Sun Jun 13, 8:51 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Mon Jun 14, 6:31 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sun Jun 13, 3:09 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 1:04 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sun Jun 13, 4:09 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Paul Davis, (Sun Jun 13, 1:11 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 1:43 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Sun Jun 13, 2:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sun Jun 13, 2:10 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 11:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Jun 12, 11:07 pm)