W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > September 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: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:00:44 -0400
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: business-of-linked-data-bold <business-of-linked-data-bold@googlegroups.com>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
Message-ID: <82ef657e-762e-d629-997f-934bea8ad1fe@openlinksw.com>
On 9/2/16 8:54 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 25 August 2016 at 15:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com
> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 8/25/16 5:24 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On 25 August 2016 at 04:10, Kingsley Idehen
>>     <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         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.
>>>         Â 
>>>
>>>>                 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. 
>>>         Â 
>>>
>>>>             Â  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
>>>         Â 
>>>
>>>>                 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.
>>>         Â 
>>>
>>>>             Â  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 
>>
>>     Have you looked at this? https://github.com/solid/solid-spec
>>     <https://github.com/solid/solid-spec>
>
>     Melvin,
>
>     You know I've looked at that, and much more. We are having a
>     public discussion and its really important that you (and other
>     SoLiD supporters) embark on the following:
>
>     1. Articulate what problem SoLiD solves, uniquely
>
>     2. Demonstrate how SoLiD delivers on its value proposition via
>     simple Client and Server implementations that just work i.e., no
>     coding and compilation involved.
>
>     We have a maze of technologies and "best practices" all conflated
>     under SoLiD, unfortunately. That doesn't make for a sound interop
>     basis when you have failure points at the following levels:
>
>     [1] WebID Authentication using WebID+TLS protocol
>
>     [2] WebID+TLS authentication protocol and Browser UX issue --
>     which is solved by WebID+TLS+Delegation protocol
>
>     [3] Non-existent interop efforts across WebID+TLS,
>     WebID+TLS+Delegation compliant clients and servers
>
>     [4] Non-existent interop efforts across WebACL compliant clients
>     and servers
>
>     [5] All of the above for LDP compliant clients and servers; ditto
>     SPARQL Graph Protocol and SPARQL 1.1 compliant clients and servers.
>
>     Without 1-5 sorted out, you have nothing to work with, in a
>     practical sense.
>
Melvin, What problem does SoLiD solve, uniquely? Put differently, you
(and SoLiD) supporters have to answer the following clearly: What is
SoLiD? Why is it important? How do I use it?
> My suggestion to test solid compliance might be to see if this profile
> editor works with a given backend
> https://linkeddata.github.io/profile-editor/
> There's also an issue tracker linked to page
Here's an illustration of what I experience:
https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/solid-interop/ . WebID+TLS handling is
problematic, and that's more to do with WebID+TLS interop issues
associated with the chosen WebID+TLS authentication module used in the
framework to build that editor. You've already successfully created
resources in my Data Space where authentication is WebID+TLS and/or
WebID+TLS+Delegation based, leveraging a WebACL. That's has nothing to
do with SoLiD and everything to do with a Read-Write leveraging existing
open standards etc.. What is WebID+TLS? A an open standards-based
protocol for authenticating Agent identity, at Web-scale . Why is it
important? It enables Read-Write operations across Data Spaces on an
HTTP network using an HTTP user agent (or client). How do I use it?
Simply perform the following steps: 1. Make a profile document on your
local computer 2. Publish the profile document to an HTTP-accessible
location 3. Generate an X.509 Certificate using information from the
HTTP-accessible profile document     -- during this process, use the
HTTP URL of the profile document + "#i" to create a WebID which is then
used a the value of the Subject Alternative Name field 4. Test WebID+TLS
authentication protocol using the product of 1-3. Tools: 1.
http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html -- Example of a tool for
WebID+TLS protocol testing 2. http://id.myopenlink.net/youid/ -- Example
of a tool for X.509 Certificate endowed with WebID in SAN generation
(choose the WebID-Profile Document from the Profile data Provider
drop-down).

-- 
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 Friday, 2 September 2016 14:01:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 14:01:12 UTC