[XESAM] Minutes of meeting 2007-05-23

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On Monday 28 May 2007 01:22:32 jamie wrote:

> > He points out that the translation infrastructure (in Gnome) is already
> > ready for .ini and xml files.
> >
> > Ok, I've been asking around the Gnome camp how we could support i18n
> > of Turtle files. As far as I can tell it is not gonna be trivial. We
> > will have to add the support to intltool, which only supports a
> > hardcoded set of file types... Given we write this patch we still need
> > to convince the maintainers of intltool to put it in which might be
> > hard to convince them about, but I don't know yet.
> >
> >         The complexity of implementing a Turtle parser in C is
> >         discussed. It seems unclear what the requirements for such a
> >         parser would be in our case where we don't need full Turtle.
> >         We haven't decided on a Turtle subset yet, so...
> >
> > Ok, I've been familiarizing myself with Flex/Bison which is also used
> > for the Raptor Turtle parser and I'm not too scared to write one now.
> > I think the i18n might be the biggest issue for me now actually...
>
> we should have another meeting on tuesday to discuss where we go - talk
> of using turtle format is a bit premature until the intltool maintainer
> agrees to support it. (and even then getting someone with good perl
> skills to implement support for it)
>
> The replies from Gnome (1) suggest that its better to use an
> intermediate format (xml or ini) for translations and then translate
> into whatever ontology language thats needed.

So it sort of suggests that RDF(s)+XML is the best/easiest with a GUI 
editor/viz for people intimidated by either syntax or ontology size(which I 
suspect is the #1 problem even for hardcore devs). No need to 
support/translate/recode/whatever for any purposes.
Btw KDE camp may be of help with translation. Somebody's gotta ask them as 
well.

--Evgeny