Author: Adam Oellermann
Date: 03:35:53 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2001 at 20:10:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 10, 2001 at 19:55:18, Bob Green wrote: > >>On September 10, 2001 at 13:37:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2001 at 13:19:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>The PGN standard seems to be owned by Steven J. Edwards. The standard is >>>>extremely important, and he hasn't made any changes to it for the past several >>>>years, so there is now an attempt to declare him unimportant and change the >>>>spec. >>>> >>>>A post detailing these changes was submitted to r.g.c.c. a few days ago. The >>>>changes are being authored by: >>>> >>>>Alan Cowderoy (Palamede), Ben Bulsink (DGT Projects), Andrew >>>>Templeton(Palamede/Palview), Eric Bentzen (Enpassant.dk, Palamede), Mathias >>>>Feist >>>>(Chessbase), Victor Zakharov (Chess Assistant). >>>> >><big snip/> >>>> >>>>Is this the way the PGN standard should go? >>> >>>I have not read the posts on r.g.c.c yet. The above change does not seem to >>>hold much value, that I can see. I suggest the following: >>>1. Attempt to contact SJE, and propose changes. >>>2. Try to work with him instead of ignoring him. >>> >>>I doubt if you can simply toss him aside and create a new PGN standard. I am >>>speaking of copyright priviledge. After all, he is the author of the document. >>> >>>On the other hand, a new standard could be created from scratch. >> >>First off, I'm an XML bigot. But that doesn't necessarily make the following >>wrong :) >> >>I think PGN could be improved and made **much** more flexible by creating a new >>standard from scratch using XML Schema. Converting a text-based XML document to >> information usable in your program (viewer, game engine, whatever) is very >>easy; there are XML parsers in every language known to (pick the diety of your >>choice.) >> >>XML obviates the issue above - you don't "break" the existing XML standard when >>you extend it to include new features - the "X" in XML is for eXtensible after >>all. >> >>For those of you unfamiliar with XML your could take the simple example from the >>beginning of the PGN standard found at: >> >>http://www.schachprobleme.de/chessml/faq/pgn/ >> >>which is: >> >>[Event "F/S Return Match"] >>[Site "Belgrade, Serbia JUG"] >>[Date "1992.11.04"] >>[Round "29"] >>[White "Fischer, Robert J."] >>[Black "Spassky, Boris V."] >>[Result "1/2-1/2"] >>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 >>O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. c4 c6 12. cxb5 axb5 13. Nc3 Bb7 14. Bg5 b4 15. >>Nb1 h6 16. Bh4 c5 17. dxe5 Nxe4 18. Bxe7 Qxe7 19. exd6 Qf6 20. Nbd2 Nxd6 21. >>Nc4 Nxc4 22. Bxc4 Nb6 23. Ne5 Rae8 24. Bxf7+ Rxf7 25. Nxf7 Rxe1+ 26. Qxe1 Kxf7 >>27. Qe3 Qg5 28. Qxg5 hxg5 29. b3 Ke6 30. a3 Kd6 31. axb4 cxb4 32. Ra5 Nd5 33. >>f3 Bc8 34. Kf2 Bf5 35. Ra7 g6 36. Ra6+ Kc5 37. Ke1 Nf4 38. g3 Nxh3 39. Kd2 Kb5 >>40. Rd6 Kc5 41. Ra6 Nf2 42. g4 Bd3 43. Re6 1/2-1/2 >> >>and convert it to XML after first defining the schema by which the XML document >>should follow. However, the following XML document should be readable and >>understandable by most (including every computer with an XML parser!): >> >><game> >> <event> >> <evntName>F/S Return Match</evntName> >> <round>29</round> >> </event> >> <date>1992.11.04</date> >> <site> >> <city>Belgrade</city> >> <country>Serbia JUG</country> >> </site> >> <white> >> <firstName>Robert</firstName> >> <middleName>J</middleName> >> <lastName>Fischer</lastName> >> </white> >> <black> >> <firstName>Boris</firstName> >> <middleName>V</middleName> >> <lastName>Spassky</lastName> >> </black> >> <result>1/2-1/2</result> >> <turn>1 >> <Wmove>e4</Wmove> >> <Bmove>e5</Bmove> >> </turn> >> <turn>2 >> <Wmove>Nf3</Wmove> >> <Bmove>Nc6</Bmove> >> </turn> >> ... >></game> >> >>Yep, this standard would be a **whole** lot more chatty...that is the biggest >>downside of XML. But the fact that any ol' computer can read it w/o writing a >>bunch of code is the upside and humans can still follow it pretty well. >> >>The existing PGN notation schema (i.e. the rules to follow when writing a PGN >>document) could be converted to an XML Schema fairly simply - let's call this >>new XML language PGN-XML. Since it is a new language we could throw in some >>bones to non-chess games as well (no problem since XML is intrinsically >>extensible.) An add some tags for clock control...optional naturally. >> >>Then some sharp cats could write a PGN to PGN-XML converter. >> >>In any event, this is a radical approach to a simple extention to the PGN >>standard. Does anyone besides me see some merit in this? > >Instead of XML, why not make a SQL definition? > >SQL->XML conversion already exists, so the XML stuff would be free. >and XML is *way* too chatty. Any LZ type compression shrinks XML waaay down. So why not have an XML standard with an optional binary version which is just a compressed version of the XML - using something like zlib which is pretty much universally available? - Adam
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.