- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:14:35 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rww@w3.org, business-of-linked-data-bold <business-of-linked-data-bold@googlegroups.com>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok079mM7cosDXEWF6HYvGFfWy-TUMCq6T1=yZWfLW5YN_w@mail.gmail.com>
Awesome. On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, 2:26 AM Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 8/24/16 9:08 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > On 24 August 2016 at 13:55, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> > wrote: > > On 8/24/16 3:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> > On 24 August 2016 at 04:17, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >> wrote: >> >> On 8/23/16 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >>> >> On 24 August 2016 at 00:28, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 8/23/16 5:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >>>> >>> yes, i was able to create a file, nice! >>>> >>>> On 23 August 2016 at 20:43, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8/23/16 2:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >>>>> >>>> On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Kingsley, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into >>>>>> Virtuoso. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am >>>>>> unsure of the best way to go about it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a >>>>>> no-brainer. Question remains one of business systems, rather than >>>>>> exclusively Tech. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some >>>>>> (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation). >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing >>>>>> but confusion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an >>>>> openlink backend and vice versa. >>>>> >>>>>  >>>>> >>>>> Melvin, >>>>> >>>>> So why don't I share a folder endpoint [1] and the you try to use >>>>> SoLiD to create a document in that folder? Naturally, I would need to grant >>>>> access to you via your WebID (which I assume to be: >>>>> https://melvincarvalho.com/#me) . >>>>> >>>>> Links: >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/ >>>>> [2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/ >>>>> [3] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl -- >>>>> ACL doc (your webid has access to this too!) >>>>> [4] https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/rdf-editor -- Editor that can be >>>>> used to compare experience re. creation of document in the sample/qa >>>>> folder. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Kingsley Idehen >>>>> Founder & CEO >>>>> OpenLink Software (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com) >>>>> >>>>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen >>>>> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com >>>>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen >>>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>>>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this >>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this >>>>> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to >>>>> business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more >>>>> options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this >>>> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to >>>> business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more >>>> options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> Melvin, >>>> >>>> Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not? >>>> >>> One test is passing at least, which is a good sign! >>> >>> I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite >>> and run tests. There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried >>> and tested. >>> >>> Melvin, >>> >>> I am trying to avoid "OpenLink doesn't support SoLiD" cycles that keep >>> on reoccurring. >>> >> Got it. But it requires testing and possibly some bug fixing. >>  >> >> If there is a pattern that fails it should be identified and >>> demonstrated. >>> >> This is where a test suite comes in handy. W3C working groups >> typically require 1-3 years for this. I think we need a similar >> process. There may be short cuts but it would normally require one >> dedicated tester. >> >> W3C process != Practical Commercial process. >> >> Having worked on interop for more than 20+ years re., standards like SQL, >> ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, HTTP, and others, the process has more to do with >> willingness to collaborate than anything else. >> >> Given a server application (server) that implements standard X, there >> should be N number of client application (client) users willing enough to >> test interop as part of a practical QA process. Right now, the big issue is >> that interop gets scoped to the wrong levels. >> > Presently I see people testing Solid against node-solid-server and gold. > Previously I have seen testing against LDPHP. I've only seen you and > sometimes me test against an openlink back end and that's when we have a > bit of time free. > > Yes, but once again, its a case of understanding the roles of compliant > servers and clients. Virtuoso is a compliant server. All you need is an > endpoint and away you go. It either works or it fails. If it fails simply > report what's failing. > > What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets >> lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform >> dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located >> and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code >> to perform basic interop. >> > I think you mean people do not have the time to work though and fix bugs. > > No, I mean it is being approached the wrong way. What you need is: 1. > List of compliant servers and their live endpoints 2. List of compliant > clients 3. Folks testing the clients and the servers (this doesn't always > have to be the developers of either client or server being tested). There > isn't a single guideline that states: To verify or have some else verify > SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant server and its > endpoint to the list in the page at <some-server-usage-doc-location-uri> . > To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your > SoLiD compliant client applications and a usage guide document link to the > page at: <some-client-app-usage-doc-location-uri> . Post your results or > share you experience via comments or reports to a document at: > <some-interop-results-doc-location-uri> . > > As it's a new technology inevitably there will be bugs, it needs a lot > of persistence to work through. Openlink is not immune to bugs either, I > have found and reported some myself. > > Do you have a link to SoLiD related bugs or issues? That's all we need. > > Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant >> server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 >> years. >> >> I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or >> customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are >> mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards >> compliance. >> > Then just do it! > > I am confused. What is it that we haven't done? > > I still believe the process we are using right now has not yielded fast > progress, but a working group where people actually commit to deliverables > does achieve interop. It's just a question of how much time each process > takes. The thing about a WG is that you generally commit 1 day a week or as > much as 0.5 of a FTE, per company involved. That's a more resource that is > currently being employed. > > There is subtle confusion about my point reflected in your last two > comments. If a SoLiD client fails to work with my Virtuoso instance, then > simply indicate what the issue is. You can also share a list of SoLiD apps > here and I can once again test them. That said, I have zero interest in > compiling anyting or heading out on module graph bounties. I just want to > install something and test. > > -- > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com) > > Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen > Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com > Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 17:15:17 UTC