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 4:02 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
>  The fail is a exam test fail -- that I cannot deliver the publicaton 
> part of the spec (using native windows or some normal config of 
> IIS/windows). This is my latest test. (I've given up on using native 
> windows as the validating agent in this project, given windows native 
> SSL's problems with handling _unregistered_ self signed client certs 
> over https.)
> Henry is demanding I implement (quite properly). But, the very 
> platform is in the way, Im finding. This time, its not even subtle 
> security stuff with legacy certs that is the problem. The platform 
> just doesnt meet the minimum requirements assumed by the core 
> publication component of the spec.  It cannot even provide a stream 
> for the URIs we expect validation agents to emit!!

But, at this time, you shouldn't be emitting URIs with fragment Ids and 
then sending those URIs over the wire.

You should have:

1. a URI in SAN
2. GET against the URI in SAN.

If you are in control of the HTTP payload, make a reference to a 
Resource Address (i.e., modulo Fragment Id)  in your GET. That's what 
the rest of the world does. Otherwise, and this isn't a fail, wait until 
after the holiday week (now) and you'll have a server that handles URIs 
with Frag Ids. across the wire. We just need to make this exception rule 
and install into our server.

> is this a problem with the spec (and its minimum assumptions) or 
> Windows (implementing what the damn RFC actuallys says)?

Yes, and the rest of the world doing otherwise etc.. It's a mess!

> Yes, say I, head held low: Ive failed to publish a document using the 
> 2 URIs Jurgen demanded as a minimum baseline (with and without 
> fragment). To be fair, he is spot on demanding that this be the baseline.

But, there is a translation issue here.

I hope he means: use an URI that unambiguously names a subject in as the 
WebID in the SAN of an X.509 cert. You can do this with # or slash URIs. 
If using slash URIs a WebID verifier has to follow 303 as part of 
explicit (rather than implicit) indirection via HTTP message exchange 
re. Name/Address disambiguation.

I hope he isn't saying, just use an URI where role is ambiguous. That's 
utterly wrong!

> is excellent 
> (and could be a foundation course for our work, here). It even 
> mentions IIS rewrite rules, for several generations of IIS. But, it 
> doesnt provide them (as does no other blog post, or windows support 
> page). It doesnt show it ON windows. It just talks "about" it. And, 
> the limited context for the rewriting going on is obvious (and IIS has 
> done for a decade, mapping a path element to a script file with 
> extension). None of deals with the fragment.

Because most aren't even aware of the problem :-)

> Surely in the semweb community, there must be SOMEONE that already 
> delivers an RDFa page from IIS? ...responding to a server-initiated 
> GET that has the #this ...on the wire? (ignoring what the RFC says 
> SHOULD not happen).

Hmm. don't know, but as I said, a rule can be made for IIS. A rule can 
be made for any other Linked Data server. We used to even have such a 
rule in the early Linked Data days. I'll just get it reinstated after 
the holidays.

> or perhaps someone can say: you MUST use the beta of windows 8 server 
> edition (which I can go download)... if there are confidentility 
> issues going on.

Depends. The issue needs coverage either way.

> Folks on the list ARE HEARING THAT IT MUST be supported (for the 
> semantic of secure de-referencing) its a critical SEF that is 
> (securitiy enforcing function). Otherwise, we are limited to 
> Bergi-style validation (which produces a different security answer to 
> FOAFSSL and ODS). He implements a lower assurance SEF, that does not 
> enforce correct de-referencing.

Any verifier that doesn't disambiguate Name/Address usage re. URIs that 
serve as WebIDs in the SAN of an X.509 cert. are implementing the WebID 
protocol devoid of Linked Data principles. Net effect, a major Dud!!

Ambiguity != Security. It's the ultimate loophole .

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:08:29 -0500
> From:
> To:
> 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 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: .
> Kingsley
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: <>
>     To: <>;
> <>
>     CC: <>
>     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: <>
>     > To: <>
>     > CC: <>;
> <>
>     > 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:
>     > Personal Weblog:
>     <>
>     > Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
>     > Google+ Profile:
>     > LinkedIn Profile:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
> -- 
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:
> Personal Weblog:  <>
> Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:
> LinkedIn Profile:



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 29 December 2011 21:19:23 UTC