W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: WebIDRealm RDFa

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:58:44 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <E0001749-7338-48C4-9B4A-9EC1205152F5@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 5 Jan 2012, at 00:45, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 1/4/12 6:25 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> I really don't know what to say.
>> You could say: "Good idea! Let's work on improving automatic validators. How can we do that easily?"
>> 
>>> >  Testing this stuff should be dead simple. There's a spec, there are implementations, and then QA test runs.
>> The spec is simple but as you see there are a lot of different pieces, and a lot of people joining who don't know all the pieces.
> 
> Err.. that isn't news. And as I've already stated, we haven't even got to the real challenges yet. Anyway, I am going to leave those issues to play out naturally.
> 
>>  You even have had trouble as witnessed on this list recently. And it even looks like you are not parsing xsd:hexBinary correctly as we discovered today.
> 
> What are you referring to?

Looks like there is a delay in your receiving mail form the list. See this mail:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2012Jan/0161.html

And I sent a follow up.

in short Virtuoso is parsing non spec compliant xsd:hexBinary as if it were spec compliant. Now perhaps that is a good thing that you are doing there.

> Which WebID is failing?
>> I am having other issues it seems.
> 
> Maybe.

No really there are issues. Not surpassingly my code is quite new.

> 
>>  So clearly its not THAT simple.
> 
> It could be that simple, but again, this is one of those things that will just have to play itself out. Eventually, you will find out that "deceptively simple" doesn't have to be "mercurially simple".

Well a good way to help people who are new join, is to have test suites they can try out their endpoints out on, to automate the job we are doing. Then things will play themselves out even faster! 

I am not sure if you follow the BrowserId work, but I can tell you that they are working on their test cases.

> 
>>  It's simpler than OpenId, but as we are moving to security space, things just are more complicated.
>> 
> 
> I haven't inferred anything about OpenID vs WebID.
> 
> OpenID is good for WebID, they are mutually beneficial in the real world. Same applies to OAuth.

yes, but OpenId has even more places things can go wrong. WebId is simpler than OpenId, but not so simple we
can do without tests.

But anyway, clearly you don't want to work on a common test suite to help new people join. Perhaps WebID would be just too simple then....

Henry

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:42:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:42:48 GMT