W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2016

Re: How the father of the World Wide Web plans to reclaim it from Facebook and Google

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:15:44 -0400
Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, public-declarative-apps@w3.org
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61f224c6-a6af-40ef-b67e-303fcb31b222@openlinksw.com>
On 8/17/16 9:01 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>
> Dbpedia Is a rather good app.
>
> Openlink Virtuoso a very mature platform, with an array of access
> methods built-in. 
>
> Do RWW apps still work with Openlink?
>

Again, Virtuoso (the product by OpenLink) is based on open standards.
Thus, if you are doing RWW using open standards it works.

Examples of open standards for RWW include:

1. WebDAV
2. LDP
3. SPARQL Graph Protocol
4. SPARQL 1.1 INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE.

If you want to do that securely using verifiable Identity and
attributed-base acls, it also handles that using open standards such as:

1. HTTP URIs
2. TLS
3. Logic (expressed in RDF statements).

1-3 enable WebID+TLS+Delegation whereby you can actually work with ACLs
and not be encumbered by Web Browsers and TLS issues i.e., negate the
hurdles that have been problematic for basic WebID+TLS.

Live demos:

[1] http://osde.openlinksw.com -- an RDF Statement Editor
[2]
https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/web-logic-sentences-and-the-magic-of-being-you-e2a719d01f73#.ba5tlg2ds
-- RWW and ACLs .

Kingsley
>
> Or how about the oidc branch related works?
>
> Did we get anywhere with http-signatures?
>
> Timh.
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, 10:54 PM Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 17 August 2016 at 10:40, Martynas Jusevičius
>     <martynas@graphity.org <mailto:martynas@graphity.org>> wrote:
>
>         My 2 cents: Linked Data is great, but what it lacks is a
>         theoretical
>         model below it, on which other efforts can build. Of the W3C
>         specs,
>         only RDF has semantics, while SPARQL has an algebra. Why not
>         LDP? That
>         has produced a myriad of LD stacks with duplicating features
>         and low
>         interoperability, both in terms of composition of software
>         libraries
>         and run-time LD calls, mostly on the write side.
>
>         Someone has said earlier on this list, that (software)
>         engineering is
>         not science. Well, maybe we should turn it into science then.
>         And use
>         it to produce one generic Web API (read-write Linked Data),
>         instead of
>         the "API economy" which we currently have.
>
>         Basically, Linked Data should have provable semantics. We think we
>         have found a declarative way to do it, which actually brings
>         Linked
>         Data closer to the original ontology-driven Semantic Web
>         vision. But
>         it involves SPARQL, which many Linked Data people seem to have an
>         aversion for (yet many of the same people champion JSON, which
>         is an
>         immaterial and orthogonal implementation detail in this big
>         picture).
>
>         We call the approach Linked Data Templates, and are currently
>         working
>         on its semantics. Please take a look:
>         https://github.com/AtomGraph/Linked-Data-Templates/blob/master/XML%20London%202016%20paper/Linked%20Data%20Templates.pdf
>
>
>     I'm all for the declarative approach!
>
>     I think what some people have alluded to here is that to give
>     technology the best chance, you have to find a sweet spot.
>
>     It has to be generic enough to solve a large number of use cases
>     and practical enough to get a developer and user base.  It needs a
>     development team behind it and some specification work /
>     documentation.  The main issue I see is that there are very few
>     resources in this area.  One reason it's taken more than 10 years
>     (or 20?) to get as far as we have.
>
>     Inevitably it's about finding compromises to get to a spec good
>     enough to solve the important use cases (with large coverage), and
>     with enough mind share and developer momentum to be worth the time
>     investment.  Competing stacks are something we want to minimize
>     simply because we lack developers to really make a good go of each. 
>
>     LDP I think was good in that we needed to webize the file system,
>     and it was a pretty good attempt at that.  Of course, many people
>     will have differing views on what LDP is for.  This is really
>     useful and Solid simply adds access control to that, because a
>     file system without permissions is less useful.
>
>     But what we have in linked data now is just about a stack capable
>     of a whole new generation of apps.  Yes we are held back by legacy
>     technology which means developers have to work that much harder to
>     make the case.  But as soon as people start to see things working,
>     and what can be done, it is possible to solve our one major
>     problem which is lack of developers.  Id encourage those
>     interested in LD to try and collaborate more and work on interop. 
>     Of course this is really really hard, because in a distributed
>     environment there are more moving parts, and this increases the
>     testing complexity not double but an order of magnitude.  And
>     pretty much no one has time to do that kind of testing -- we need
>     a solution here -- and for years I've not been able to think of
>     any, other than to suggest having a 'head of integration' in teams. 
>
>     Until then I think we really need to try and get at least one
>     project to the degree of maturity where it can challenge and
>     overtake the best we've seen on web 1.0 + 2.0 and bring it to a
>     next generation distributed paradigm.  RDF is great.  Linked Data
>     is great.  SPARQL is a great query language.  LDP is a great tool
>     to work with file systems, of file system like things.  Solid is a
>     great tool to add identity and permissions, and realtime (which
>     sadly isnt working on android right now).  We dont really need
>     much more than this, just encourage people to build apps!
>      
>
>
>
>         Best,
>
>
>         Martynas
>         atomgraph.com <http://atomgraph.com>
>
>
>         On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Timothy Holborn
>         <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>         > Melvin / Henry (or TimBL)
>         >
>         > Can someone ask (or respond) and tell me what the key
>         principles are that
>         > TimBL wants to achieve in producing SoLiD (like?) alternatives.
>         >
>         > What are these key qualities...
>         >
>         > I imagine he would / could summarise it in a page or so, as
>         he has done with
>         > other concepts in the past.
>         >
>         > I do not believe he has a rigid view that SoLiD is the only
>         path for the web
>         > into the future.  A comment i am reminded of, is one of
>         creating pieces and
>         > not forcing the everything to be used; but hoping
>         counterparts can and will
>         > be.
>         >
>         > I see work that's been done over a VERY long period of time;
>         and i think the
>         > semantic inferencer that has somehting like HTTP signatures
>         protecting
>         > algorithms shared using something like
>         linked-media-fragments to services
>         > were people are storing their private and sensitive media
>         objects that they
>         > want to be processed by algorithms produced by incredible
>         scientists around
>         > the world - well, that kinda stuff is amongst the 'to-do'
>         list IMHO.
>         >
>         > TimH>
>         >
>         > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 09:31 Melvin Carvalho
>         <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>>
>         > wrote:
>         >>
>         >> On 16 August 2016 at 20:23, Kaliya IDwoman
>         <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net <mailto:kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>>
>         >> wrote:
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie
>         >>> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>         >>>>
>         >>>> What is the business case for a service provider to adopt
>         Solid?
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> 1) first off I'm super skeptical of any project that is
>         >>> university/research based it is notoriously difficult to
>         get those to escape
>         >>> the lab as it where. Everyone has incentive to "publish"
>         for their
>         >>> degrees/professorships - zero incentive to make a usable,
>         market
>         >>> worthy/ready product (I don't just mean in a business way
>         relative to market
>         >>> but adoptable in the marketplace of tools and software)
>         >>>
>         >>> 2) The Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium that I founded
>         in 2010
>         >>> http://www.pde.cc has a whole range of companies that have
>         been working on
>         >>> similar technology and ideas for well over 5 years. So it
>         isn't new - the
>         >>> ideas around personal data stores/banks etc and putting
>         people at the center
>         >>> of their own data lives go back at least to Johannes' 
>         Ernst work (See the
>         >>> top of my twitter for a diagram he drew in 2005-6.  And
>         the Augmented Social
>         >>> Network White Paper which itself and antecedents in other
>         work.
>         >>> http://asn.planetwork.net
>         >>>
>         >>> 3) Please show me what Tim has lead that has gotten to
>         market besides
>         >>> HTML back in the day?
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> Skepticism is healthy.  But can sometimes be overdone.
>         >>
>         >> Tim didnt just get html to market.  He also created the
>         first browser
>         >> (editor).  He created HTTP.  He created.  He created the
>         first web server.
>         >> And after that he created linked data.  And now Solid. 
>         This is all really
>         >> one project known as the world wide web.
>         >>
>         >> Fun fact: when presenting these things to the hypertext
>         conference when it
>         >> was all working, the paper was rejected from the main
>         conference and only
>         >> allowed "poster track"
>         >>
>         >> See:
>         >>
>         >> https://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/w3c10-HowItAllStarted/?n=16
>         >>
>         >> Simple fact is that Tim thought about the web for 2 decades
>         before
>         >> releasing it.  Almost no one got it then.  Solid is the
>         conclusion of that
>         >> work, and almost no one gets it now.  My hope is that
>         people will start to
>         >> appreciate it when they see it in action! :)
>         >>
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>> Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their
>         business on user
>         >>>> data choose to let users take that away?
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> They don't have a choice because the European regulatory
>         framework the
>         >>> General Data Protection Regulation that comes into force
>         in 2018 is
>         >>> mandating it.
>         >>> You also have a whole group of companies working on
>         building businesses
>         >>> around this premise and one finally finally got funding -
>         >>>
>         https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/30/digi-me-bags-6-1m-to-put-users-in-the-driving-seat-for-sharing-personal-data/
>         >>> Meeco https://meeco.me/ from Australia is doing awesome
>         work (Both there
>         >>> and in the UK) as is MyDex https://mydex.org/
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>> Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos
>         that attracts
>         >>>> them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough
>         money to survive
>         >>>> competing with the biggest tech companies in the world?
>         >>>>
>         >>>> The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy
>         the point is
>         >>>> whether it has the potential to make anybody any money
>         because if it doesn't
>         >>>> then I think you will have a hard time persuading people
>         to use it, no
>         >>>> matter how well it scales.
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> We have to really get into the weeds of figuring how value
>         flows in these
>         >>> networks to make it work for the parties involved and be
>         sustainable in the
>         >>> long run.  It will take way more then "architecture".
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> If you all want to dive into some of the nitty gritty I
>         invite you to the
>         >>> Internet Identity Workshop -
>         http://www.internetidentityworkshop.org
>         >>>
>         >>> :) Kaliya
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho
>         <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>>
>         >>>> wrote:
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn
>         <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>>
>         >>>>> wrote:
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>> Solid isn't finished yet.
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0.
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> But I dont really know what more can be added to it to
>         get it to v1.0.
>         >>>>> Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine.  Some
>         people are
>         >>>>> perfectionists I suppose :)
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest
>         of the web is,
>         >>>>> even if you only take small parts of it and use it.
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in
>         the sense
>         >>>>> that, the web will never be "finished".
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> Its definitely something that can be used today.
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho
>         >>>>>> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
>         <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie
>         >>>>>>> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>>
>         wrote:
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>> From the article: "The question is whether
>         architecture will be
>         >>>>>>>> enough."
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>> The answer is no.
>         >>>>>>>> We live in world where few ideas succeed without a
>         strong business
>         >>>>>>>> case. The architecture is the easy part.
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>> Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right. 
>         The vast
>         >>>>>>> majority if systems start to fall over as they scale. 
>         The web and REST are
>         >>>>>>> two architectures that buck that trend and just get
>         stronger as they scale.
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>> Solid is the next evolution in that architectural
>         trend, imho,
>         >>>>>>> because it simply embraces the points that made the
>         web great, and extends
>         >>>>>>> it a little bit, while being 100% backwards
>         compatible.  Right now, it's the
>         >>>>>>> only system that I know of, with this property, in
>         fact, nothing else is
>         >>>>>>> close.  So this in itself, the ability to scale to
>         billions of users, is a
>         >>>>>>> business case.  Quietly facebook adopted the social
>         graph approach to the
>         >>>>>>> web, and web architectural principles with their graph
>         protocol, and also an
>         >>>>>>> implementation of WebID.
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>> I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because
>         simply, we
>         >>>>>>> have a lot of ideas and a lot of competition.  Having
>         a business can help,
>         >>>>>>> but the right architecture is the magic sauce to get
>         through those
>         >>>>>>> scalability barriers.
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>> I personally think Solid is the business opportunity
>         of a lifetime,
>         >>>>>>> perhaps even bigger than the first web.  Im certainly
>         investing on that
>         >>>>>>> basis.
>         >>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>> On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn
>         >>>>>>>> <timothy.holborn@gmail.com
>         <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> Hi Anders,
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in
>         creds; in addition
>         >>>>>>>>> to the below, with some lateral considerations.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are
>         discussing in China
>         >>>>>>>>> AI [2].
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst
>         i've certainly
>         >>>>>>>>> been considering the issue; i have not fully
>         considered it, and as modern
>         >>>>>>>>> systems become subject to government contracts as
>         may be the case with
>         >>>>>>>>> enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM
>         [3], may significantly
>         >>>>>>>>> lower the cost for government / enterprise, in
>         seeking to achieve very
>         >>>>>>>>> advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full
>         awareness of how these systems
>         >>>>>>>>> work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes
>         when work by
>         >>>>>>>>> web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without
>         their explicit and full
>         >>>>>>>>> consideration of the original designers for any
>         extended use of their works,
>         >>>>>>>>> what the underlying considerations are by those who
>         are concerned [6][7] and
>         >>>>>>>>> how these systems may interact with more advanced
>         HID as i've kinda tried to
>         >>>>>>>>> describe recently to an audience here [8] and has
>         been further discussed
>         >>>>>>>>> otherwise [9] [10].
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing
>         that seems to
>         >>>>>>>>> plague Manu's / Dave's original vision (that
>         included WebDHT) to the
>         >>>>>>>>> consultative approach that i believed had alot of
>         merit in how it may
>         >>>>>>>>> interact with the works of RWW at the time
>         (alongside WebID) which have al
>         >>>>>>>>> progressed, yet, not seemingly to a solution that i
>         think is 'fit for
>         >>>>>>>>> purpose' in attending to the issues before us.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> I have considered the need for people to own their
>         own biometric
>         >>>>>>>>> signatures.  I have considered the work by
>         'mico-project'[11] seems to be a
>         >>>>>>>>> good supporter of these future works, particularly
>         given the manner in which
>         >>>>>>>>> these works support LDP and other related
>         technologies...
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> But the future is still unknown, and what worries me
>         most; is those
>         >>>>>>>>> who know most about A.I. may not be able to speak
>         about it as a citizen or
>         >>>>>>>>> stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna
>         carta, such as is the
>         >>>>>>>>> document that hangs on my wall when making such
>         considerations more broadly
>         >>>>>>>>> in relation to my contributory work/s.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> i understand this herein; contains an array of
>         fragments; yet, am
>         >>>>>>>>> trying to format schema that leads others to the
>         spot in which i'm
>         >>>>>>>>> processing broader ideas around what, where and how;
>         progress may be
>         >>>>>>>>> accelerated and indeed adopted by those capable of
>         pushing it forward.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> I remember the github.com/Linkeddata
>         <http://github.com/Linkeddata> team (in RWW years) wrote a
>         >>>>>>>>> bunch of things in GO, which is what the IPFS
>         examples showcase, and without
>         >>>>>>>>> providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been
>         working in the field of
>         >>>>>>>>> inter-planetary systems [13], therein also
>         understanding previous issues
>         >>>>>>>>> relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14]
>         ), which in-turn may
>         >>>>>>>>> also relate to other statements made overtime about
>         my view that some of the
>         >>>>>>>>> works incubated by credentials; but not subject to
>         IG or potential WG
>         >>>>>>>>> support at present - may be better off being
>         developed within the WebID
>         >>>>>>>>> community as an additional constituent of work that
>         may work interoperable
>         >>>>>>>>> with WebID-TLS related systems.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> Too many Ideas!!!
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> (perhaps some have merit...)
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> Tim.H.
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> [1]
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Aug/0045.html
>         >>>>>>>>> [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s
>         >>>>>>>>> [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson
>         >>>>>>>>> [4] http://webscience.org/
>         >>>>>>>>> [5]
>         https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
>         >>>>>>>>> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
>         >>>>>>>>> [7]
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence
>         >>>>>>>>> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch
>         of ideas in
>         >>>>>>>>> it:
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing
>         >>>>>>>>> [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI
>         >>>>>>>>> [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g
>         >>>>>>>>> [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/
>         >>>>>>>>> [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ
>         >>>>>>>>> [13]
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
>         >>>>>>>>> [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36
>         >>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren
>         >>>>>>>>> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>         >>>>>>>>>> > Really good article, mentions Solid and other
>         technologies.
>         >>>>>>>>>> > WebID is mentioned by the author in the comments
>         too ...
>         >>>>>>>>>> >
>         >>>>>>>>>> >
>         http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with the Web is that there is
>         no easy way
>         >>>>>>>>>> letting a provider know where you come from (=where
>         your Web resources are).
>         >>>>>>>>>> This is one reason why OpenID rather created more
>         centralization.  The same
>         >>>>>>>>>> problem is in payments where the credit-card number
>         is used to find your
>         >>>>>>>>>> bank through complex centralized registers.
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having
>         URLs + other
>         >>>>>>>>>> related data such as keys in something like a
>         digital wallet which you carry
>         >>>>>>>>>> around.
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs
>         special logic,
>         >>>>>>>>>> keys, attributes etc. it seems hard (probably
>         impossible), coming up with a
>         >>>>>>>>>> generic Web-browser solution making such schemes
>         rely on extending the
>         >>>>>>>>>> Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code.
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere
>         >>>>>>>>>> existence(!) of such work, the progress on native
>         extensions schemes has
>         >>>>>>>>>> actually been pretty good:
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> This is approach to decentralization is BTW not
>         (anymore) a
>         >>>>>>>>>> research project, it is fully testable in close to
>         production-like settings
>         >>>>>>>>>> today:
>         >>>>>>>>>> https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> The native extensions also support a
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_,
>         something which is
>         >>>>>>>>>> clearly missing in world where a single browser
>         vendor has 80% of the mobile
>         >>>>>>>>>> browser market!
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>>> Anders
>         >>>>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>>>>
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>
>         >
>


-- 
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, 17 August 2016 18:16:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:42 UTC