W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2011

Re: henry and code

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:30:14 +0100
Cc: <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F14FE3B1-4BF9-4D0D-86E2-7995549D81EF@bblfish.net>
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>

On 17 Nov 2011, at 04:16, Peter Williams wrote:

> Now, there are 15 other implementations to review, too. so I see what everyone else has done. I can compare and contrast these. Ill write it all up on my blog site, as I find them. I can soon assess the maturity, if they are in source. Ill be as critical as I can, so we can see what its true and what is hype. Ill try to match the third quartile, in demonstrability of what the webid spec actually says. Hows that?

Doing reviews of other people's code before you have the following two pieces seems a bit odd. Furthermore we are going to automate the review process of endpoints, so you would be wasting your time doing that.

There are two things you should have:

1. Your own webid - written by hand even - I'd suggest doing this first. Get yourself a server space, you'll need that if you are serious with 2.
2. A server that is running you service that is webid enabled that we can authenticate against 

If you do 2, then the next thing is to have some page  on that server produce EARL output as explained here
 
  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Test_Suite

Then we can develop test suites to automatically review your implementations and produce reports on them. You can already use Bergi's code to verify your endpoint now. This needs to be turned into a service.

  Henry


Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:30:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:30:50 GMT