Re: neither FCNS nor FOAFSSL can read a new foaf card (hosted in Azure). RDFa validators at W3C and RDFachecker say its fine...

On 12/29/11 2:23 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
> Get it down to specifics.
>
> As it stands, I, as dumb programmer doing bog standard stuff, cannot 
> make an RDFa file on (native) windows work with webid validators. This 
> is my second fail (self signed certs being the first). Running third 
> party servers on windows is NOT an option (for us).

What's the fail right now about? Fragment Identifiers over the wire? Or 
adding "#this" to cheaply make an unambiguous object name that 
implicitly bound to its description resource (document) address?

>
> With two fails, the project is out (under normal rules).

Yes, but what's the failure? You can make an IIS re-write rule to handle 
fragment identifiers that come over the wire. You simply work from the 
resource outwards using "reflection". Basically, your rule is about a 
resource that has a sense of "self" that's discernible from its 
consistency (i.e., the eav/spo based structured data it bears). Thus, 
you can deduce from the content the fact that a resource is a descriptor 
for an unambiguously named subject. This rule isn't common due to the 
fact that the rest of the world has adopted the notion that fragment 
identifiers don't cross the wire. This isn't a dead end.

If you look at how Facebook has adopted Linked Data (which has nothing 
to do with Turtle support) you'll recognize the "reflection" pattern 
approach re. self describing resource. Thus, Facebook has unleashed 
somewhere in the region of 850 million + self describing structured data 
bearing resources that describe unambiguously named subjects, using HTTP 
URIs.

If you make the "#this" addition to URL that I suggested earlier, you 
should see this manifest with clarity.

I've dropped a note on G+ (my preferred blogging platform these days) 
that outlines a simple example of Linked Data deployment using our 
particular Linked Data Deployment platform which is integral to 
Virtuoso: http://goo.gl/fC8Rv .


Kingsley
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: home_pw@msn.com
> To: kidehen@openlinksw.com; mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk
> CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: RE: neither FCNS nor FOAFSSL can read a new foaf card (hosted 
> in Azure). RDFa validators at W3C and RDFachecker say its fine...
> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:12:18 -0800
>
>
> The history is obviously convoluted, as usual with tech.
>
> I know 2 facts:
>
> Kingsley as an experienced person with semweb in enterprise theatres 
> implies that  linked data clients are proper for putting fragments on 
> the wire (and Henry's server is proper for NOT implementing the SHOULD 
> reject rules in the RFC).
>
> I could not make a trivial RDFa page on a windows website (after 15 
> years of doing the same thing...) working with both cases Jurgen 
> suggested (implying I need to act my basic act together, rather than 
> solve an insoluble-for-me windows problem)
>
> Now, Im giving folks a break. my normal  CISO/CIO management position 
> in this situation is... I go away for 5 more years (till microsoft 
> makes the platform that fits, us, as a windows shop, and its 3+ years 
> old, since we only adopt a version out of date). We pay Microsoft to 
> make and support stuff that fits our interests (working as we do in 
> the commodity world, needing low error rates and very HIGH stability). 
> I also expect them to meet internet standards with hardware and OS 
> solutions (in which IS status is a longterm goal track, in which HTTP 
> still has not made "internet standard"). Obviousy, HTTP has good 
> reasons for not being an internet standard yet: it aint stable, and 
> hardware-ready. I wont be the same in 10 years time...(yet).
>
> I give the break as I see a community on the trasition from R&D to 
> mass commercialization, and that needs some support. it nt proiper 
> that one of the most late-adopters (realty) is a driving use case, but 
> I have not see any others...come to the fore as NEEDING a distributed, 
> de-centralized identity management solution. Everyone else is 
> perfectly happy with hub-and-spoke.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:46:56 -0500
> > From: kidehen@openlinksw.com
> > To: Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk
> > CC: home_pw@msn.com; public-xg-webid@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: neither FCNS nor FOAFSSL can read a new foaf card 
> (hosted in Azure). RDFa validators at W3C and RDFachecker say its fine...
> >
> > On 12/29/11 4:04 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> > > hold on a second.
> > >
> > > is somebody saying fragment identifiers SHOULD be included in a 
> request somewhere?
> > >
> > > HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 very explicitly say otherwise (and as far as 
> I can tell, HTTPbis WG outputs haven't changed that), and last I 
> checked nothing about linked data changes that? part of the point of 
> linked data is that it doesn't require anything "special"
> > >
> > > AFAICT, a server is perfectly within its rights to return a 4xx 
> response to request containing a fragment, and that includes a 400 
> (Bad Request), given that an unescaped '#' isn't permitted in a 
> Request-URI.
> >
> > Its a loooong story.
> >
> > Fragment Identifiers not going of the wire arose from a typo (I hear) a
> > long time ago during spec development. It lead to the common (and
> > eventually accepted) practice of not sending Fragment Identifiers over
> > the wire, but Microsoft didn't initially adopt this i.e., they stuck to
> > pre typo definition.
> >
> > Its also one of the reasons why DBpedia adopted slash rather than hash
> > URIs since the project's goal was about: just working, in a browser
> > agnostic way.
> >
> > >
> > > if there's a spec somewhere which says otherwise, I'd love to know 
> about it (not least so I can tweak my own servers), but the current 
> httpbis-p1-messaging draft even goes as far as to say:
> > >
> > > "Note: Fragments ([RFC3986], Section 3.5) are not part of the 
> request-target and thus will not be transmitted in an HTTP request."
> > >
> > > To the best of my knowledge this is a point of clarification, 
> rather than a change in specification, it's just that some folk hadn't 
> read the URI ABNF properly.
> >
> > It's a mess. But for now, I think Microsoft has tweaked its HTTP
> > products (browers, servers, and proxies) thereby reducing perpetuation
> > of this problem. They were the last hold out.
> >
> > I might dig up some reference links if I get some time.
> >
> > Kingsley
> > >
> > > M.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


-- 

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