- From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:37:21 -0800
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, public-xg-webid <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
The legal terms are posted clearly: it's as is. Classical language. Yes I don't buy into web doctrine on licensing. It's as is, and this has worked fine for the last 100 years. I cannot say its public domain as some of the code fragments come from web page Samples (typical sdk help generally) and I don't have the legal skills to evaluate their licenses. For example I learned how to use the San API from some google search result. It just uses Msft classes (that I've paid for), but who know who might claim ip. It's 50 lines of script, plus lots of windows setup. Ideally you would be a certified it admin on windows enterprise (since these are the skills required). I have an mcitp certification, and on cert server in particular one -does- need that level of expertise/training. It's not for students. I don't run a public service on port 80 as my ISP doesn't allow me to (or rather blocks the ports). This is normal in the us, for broadband users. No other reason. Just dealing with reality. (I cannot afford the business class ISP service that does not prohibit running public servers). But, someone else can do so. I'm happy to run a 4 h one on one tutorial, so the study is replicated. On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:22 AM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > On 17 Dec 2011, at 18:11, Peter Williams wrote: > >> My implementation is on the web. A zip can be mailed to someone making contact, as publicly offered. I'd love someone to repeat the experiment. It can mot br henry, though. S/He needs a browser reading .p12 files, a blogger account, and a professional windows server on a development mode, with uptodate Microsoft tool chain and sdks. The implementation is incomplete, in the sense that not all webid assumptions hold, on the native windows platform. >> >> No I will not do open source. No i will not run a public service (though someone else is free to do so, using my sub routine). While w3c promotes open source validly, many of its members have proprietary business models, and are welcome in w3c. > > That is true. So you are putting code out on the web under a non open source licence then? If so don't be surprised that nobody looks at it, since in that case they would be beholden to you for not much gain. If you don't have code that is open source then you could put a service up, but you don't want to do that either. > > Neither do you propose text to make the spec or other documents better. > Neither do you come to meetings. > Neither do you stop interrupting threads with completely irrelevant topics. (What do academics have to do with the Wiki?) > Neither do you stick to your original promise to me to not overwhelm the mailing list with mails from yourself. (I think you produce 50% of e-mails here, please allow others to participate, but thinking before your post. Just ask yourself does what I have to say got anything to do with the thread I am posting to) > > >> Stop being a open source bully, Henry. You sound like a stallman, at times. In 3 years, we have made 50 foaf cards, collectively. The debate topics (format wars) are identical To the topics of 3 years ago. It just goes round and around. The spec is more focussed, but the assumptions seem just as unstable as ever. > > Sometimes you say it is great. Sometime you say it is unstable. but you never produce anything. Can you please go on holiday. You seem to have been pulled back by the fact that the list was going on without you is my feeling. > > >> We need to get to adoption, and not "do science". If we are doing science projects, we all need to go away for 17 years, as that how long it typically for (true) university research to make it to the mass market. > > Instead of making some general point like the one above look at the context of what we wrote. What is good is that we are getting an idea of which formats are supported by different platforms. So that helps us move the discussion away from meaningless generalities you love to indulge in, towards some real fact based statements. > > But now I see what is bothering you. Is that we are moving in a fact based way! > > Henry > > >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 17, 2011, at 8:41 AM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 17 Dec 2011, at 17:05, Peter Williams wrote: >>> >>>> What has another production ready semweb community done? >>>> >>>> If this is still at the academic debating/posturing level, it tells me that the technology has not matured - any where on the public web (since format wars like codec wars become unimportant, simply hindering use). >>> >>> A few weeks ago you said you were going to leave this list. Last week you said you were going for two weeks. >>> Can you please stop being the local drama queen, and just do some coding? >>> >>> We are still waiting for your implementations, open source and running on a service, and testable. >>> >>> Henry >>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhonen >>>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2011, at 6:38 AM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 16 Dec 2011, at 14:53, elf Pavlik wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Folks =) >>>>>> >>>>>> What a intense thread, please check out this very short video first: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EGTETc5oFU >>>>> >>>>> :D >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Excerpts from Kingsley Idehen's message of 2011-11-27 23:03:40 +0000: >>>>>> <snip /> >>>>>>> I have a simple question for you: who are these massive adopters and >>>>>>> implementers of RDF/XML? Who are these people sitting on the side >>>>>>> waiting to implement a spec that RDF/XML specific? What is there to gain >>>>>>> by all of this? Parser developer satisfaction? If so, who are these >>>>>>> parser developers? >>>>>> >>>>>> I've just looked at: >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Implementations >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think about making an open pool on all those formats and inviting all the implementers and others who have code in development to express their preferences? I've started list here: >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Implementations#People_working_on_implementations >>>>> >>>>> I agree. The idea is to work from what is working with all of us, and see what implementers want to communicate. We can change what is a MUST as things progress, add new formats, remove others, until at some point it does not become that important anymore. At first these MUSTs are really just there so that people who don't come from semweb spaces, don't get too big a shock. >>>>> >>>>> As for RDF/XML vs Turtle for example it's really a question how the linked data community feels. If they feel it's time to move >>>>> then we could make that move. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ho Ho Ha Ha Ha ;) >>>>> >>>>> You have it right. These MUSTs are there as a clever joke :D >>>>> >>>>> Ho Ho Ha Ha ! >>>>> >>>>> Hehehehehe.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ~ elf Pavlik ~ >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> (living strictly moneyless already for over 2 years) >>>>>> http://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper >>>>>> http://moneyless.info >>>>>> http://hackers4peace.net >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Social Web Architect >>>>> http://bblfish.net/ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 17:37:57 UTC