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

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

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:08:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK-fbs7_PXmovL4cPHwrKS1b3ocm=ZpRgas6NDxgFUf_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: business-of-linked-data-bold <business-of-linked-data-bold@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
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,ÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> ÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> 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.Â
> Â
>
>> 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.


> 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.
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.


> 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 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.


> --
> 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.
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 13:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 24 August 2016 13:09:07 UTC