Re: ZULIP interop

Hi Sina,

zulip is apache licensed.  You can set-up a free hosted install
https://zulipchat.com/  test-out the apps https://zulipchat.com/apps/ (and
in app stores for mobile) or set-up a server on a VPS with support of the
documentation provided:
https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/production/index.html

I've set up a server that's permissively accessible, for Web Civics, which
is working on providing 'solid based' tooling for humanity in a particular
kinda way.

the less effort i need to put into producing a zulip integration for solid
(note: https://zulipchat.com/integrations/ ) the better.  Yet given one
doesn't exist,

I've noted my interest in seeking to find those who may be interested in
helping to make it happen; and if that happens via my 'web civics' works,
then i've got a permissive space in which i safely work, which has
different characteristics to the corporate infrastructure and rules
most-commonly associated with W3C patent-pool providing (incorporated)
members; whilst similarly, seeking to ensure support for those who
contribute.


On Thu., 23 May 2019, 10:37 pm Sina Bahram, <sina@sinabahram.com> wrote:

> Lots of potential for inclusion here. I don’t wish to encroach on a
> POC-specific effort, but if there’s a community building around inclusion
> as a broader topic with shared values of openness and increasing
> participation by underrepresented folks, then I would possibly be
> interested.
>
>
certainly kinda fits into the description you've illustrated, but i
wouldn't want to suggest that its in any way specific to the zulip
integration work specifically; rather, that i'm using zulip as a means to
address broader issues of 'web slavery' as is seemingly nuanced from the
days of exodus, and the biblical references that thereafter related;
alongside many other illustrations throughout history.

I think, the ability to build community is essential; and i'm using zulip,
which is not to be exclusionary nor it is intended, in anyway, to detract
from my substantive levels of personal support for solid, its purpose, and
a rich heritage of overcoming very difficult problems along a long journey.

I'm still working on making
https://webcivics.github.io/CooperativeProjects/ work
(alongside http://webcivics.org/dev/index.html produced many years ago
(note - use dummy data to see past the WebID-OIDC, as now exists, UI
example)); whilst noting, those who built libraries were not expected to do
so freely.  it did not mean they owned the library, nor did they charge for
its use in perpetuity.  In terms of the views put upon the world by the
vast majority of W3C members; i'm fairly isolated.  I might help them solve
problems they didn't solve themselves, but that doesn't mean i should be
sacrificed to them...    even though, we're not living in small communities
where the impacts might be better felt, in relation to principles that date
back to roman times, the origin of the term 'corpus' and thereafter
'corporation'; and its relationship to, the city of london and thereby also
- holborn, as is the case in many ways.

The thing about human rights - is that we all have them.  So, if you're
interested in pursuing the meaningful utility of them with me - let me
know. if you make tooling that's better, faster than me - that's awesome
too.  Yet i see no point, in duplicating good work for any purpose that
wouldn't stand-up to a good semantic web implementation, that supports
provenance and the means to enshrine human dignity through the advent of a
knowledge age, as to solve the issues of this information orientated one -
where apparently, there's a scarcity of work; when in fact, there's a
scarcity of people willing to pay for it, or make the tools required to
enable payment for it.  billions of people on the planet, trillions of
things...

Yet, some may say we're better off acting as a resource as to escalate
matters in a way that the privacy acts otherwise prevent; by collating our
data, and empowering someone to 'sell it for us'...  i disagree.  but to do
so, wouldn't be illegal.

therein - not suggesting i've got it all right - just stating clearly - we
all have human rights,

i'm working on a specific form of curated 'share values' that provides me
some level of certainty that i'm involving others in a speculative
adventure that is well-meaning, but might well fail.

hope that helps, at a minimum - towards the efforts illustrated in ensuring
there's some bridge created between solid, and Zulip.  Fundamentally, it
provides some level of 'ontological support' as a consequence of its topic
based orientations, which should in-turn offer an opportunity for many who
may be considering 'testing out' solid; without necessarily seeking to
depend upon its success (or 'definition'), at this stage.

Timothy Holborn.



>
>
> President, Prime Access Consulting, Inc.
>
> Phone: 919-345-3832
>
> https://www.PAC.bz
>
> Twitter: @SinaBahram
>
> Personal Website: https://www.sinabahram.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 7:37 AM
> *To:* public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
> *Subject:* ZULIP interop
>
>
>
> I've found zulip, which is a chat server that's apache licensed.
>
>
>
> Interested in a cost to build a solid extension.  Both for
> interoperability with solid users and the auth method used by solid users
> (probably Webid-oidc)
>
>
>
> Note:
>
> https://zulipchat.com/api/rest
>
>
>
> Note also,
>
>
>
> The chat environment supports topic based semantics. Objectively the hope
> would be to form interoperability between this useful group tool, and the
> means to federated contributions towards solving various topics, by people
> who are different, and permitted to (safely) participate in different
> groups.
>
>
>
> Let me know if interested.
>
>
>
> I have an.install, but am being selective at this stage about who gets
> involved.
>
>
>
> POC work, essentially.
>
>
>
> Timo.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>