Re: #URIs and redirections

On 30 Nov 2012, at 13:28, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 11/30/12 5:07 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2012, at 23:37, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/29/12 5:17 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>> In the case of the Apple keychain, there is a well known way to get that fixed: send them a bug report.
>>>> The reason it has not been fixed yet, is perhaps that you have not, and secondly that very very very few poepl e - including the Apple testers have thought of clicking on that link I presume.
>>> It doesn't matter.
>>> 
>>> The goal is for it to just work.
>> Yes, and the best thing is for Apple to fix the UI interface for viewing the content of certificates,
>> which is something that most people don't know about.
>> 
>>> No finger pointing.
>> If I remember correctly that is how one talks to 5 year olds on the street. "No finger pointing",
>> means: don't show you are speaking about someone on the street, as they might take offence.
> 
> Not in my context, not what I am expressing at all. I am saying, focus on the goal of just having a solution that works, no excuses. By finger pointing, I am referring to situations where a user has (what they see) a bad experience and the vendor responds by pointing to the imperfections in some other part of the ecosystem.
> 
>> 
>> So that seems like a reason for removing the Apple KeyChain issue, since it is clearly pointing
>> at Apple and saying loudly that they have a bug.
> 
> Yes, and in my world of software production and delivery, I don't look to waiting for Apple if the technology in question provides me with a workaround. That's my fundamental point.

Ok, so can we remove those finger-pointing-at-apple examples? Or is there some use case you
absolutely need the user to click on the WebID in the key chain for? And what has that got
to do with WebID spec we are writing. This is not about WebID-TLS right? And even in WebID-TLS
clicking on the URI in the keychain is part of what use case?

> 
>>  The right process there is clearly to file a
>> bug report at their site discreetly.
> 
> Yes, but impractical when it comes to rolling out solutions that should just work. Too many moving parts, and we are short on time.
> 
> As I've already told you, we had to deal with these issues in 2006-2007 re. DBpedia with the LOD cloud bootstrap in mind. At that time IE was today's Keychain, it was sending the fragment identifier over the wire. Basically, IE exclusion wasn't an option, we weren't going to be pointing fingers at Microsoft.
> 
> Our approach to this matter differs from yours, clearly, but don't discard history and track record. There's no reason to compromise the ability to "just work under across all platforms" since AWWW serves that on a platter, gratis.
> 
> Kingsley
>> 
>>> This is exactly how the DBpedia project came to be. Simple goal: show the power of Linked Data, surmount idiosyncrasies, finger pointing simply not an option.
>>> 
>>> I would like to believe DBpedia is a resounding success and ultimate demonstration of what Linked Data is about.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Kingsley Idehen	
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/