- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:10:59 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, business-of-linked-data-bold <business-of-linked-data-bold@googlegroups.com>
- Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <258589b2-1192-8efc-623b-9b9c608886b3@openlinksw.com>
On 8/24/16 2:00 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > On 24 August 2016 at 18:25, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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/ >>>>> <http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/> >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/ >>>>> <https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/> >>>>> [3] >>>>> http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl >>>>> <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 >>>>> <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 >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about> >>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen> >>>>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this >>>>> <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 >>>>> <mailto:business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. >>>>> For more options, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>> <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 >>>>> <mailto:business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. >>>>> For more options, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>> <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://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. > > Is virtuoso Solid compliant? Compliant to what? Has it been tested? What do you mean by any of those questions? Put differently, why don't you provide cURL based examples of what doesn't work, based on your expectations? > Does it handle globbing? cURL example please. > Does it handle websockets? You now it does. > Does it comply to the ACL spec? How did you end up creating a resource in a folder if it didn't comply with ACLs scoped to your WebID? > Does it support inboxes? What is an inbox? Put differently, how is it different from folder where you store documents? > Does it support Linked Data Notifications. No it doesn't . > Does it comply to the sections of the latest solid spec? What are those? > What browser coverage does it have, what breaks? These are questions > we are going through on a daily basis with other backends. Instead of asking these questions you could demonstrate your point with a SoLiD client and/or curl interaction examples. > > >> 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> . > > We are doing this constantly in the gitter channel. Behind that lies > the github solid repo which has active issue tracking. > > >> 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. > > Various repos under: https://github.com/solid > Pretty much all have issue tracking > > >> 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? > > Any kind of serious testing. My original point. If solid apps work > on virtuoso that's going to be a big win. Write a backend, write > apps. Test on virtuoso, test on node solid server, test on gold. > That is the test of compliance. Failing that, work on passing a test > suite. > > >> 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. > > Yes, I think we're talking high level perspective vs low level > perspective. The devil is in the detail. > I will be working on my own back end "solid live" and the acid test > for me will be whether solid apps can work with it. Your description of SoLiD, as exemplified by this exchange, isn't how you make progress. First off, you need to be able to actually describe what SoLiD actually is, clearly. Simply declaring things as compliant vs non compliant, without any clarity isn't the way to generate uptake and interop activity. What is the fundamental goal of SoLiD? What is does it actually offer right now, that uniquely distinguishes it with regards to using HTTP, WebDAV, LDP, Web ACLs, WebID+TLS, WebID+TLS+Delegation, SPARQL Graph Protocol, SPARQL 1.1 etc. to perform Read-Write operations? Answering this question is crucial :) Kingsley > > > -- > 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 > <https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen> > Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this > <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 > <mailto:business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 02:11:31 UTC