Re: How the father of the World Wide Web plans to reclaim it from Facebook and Google

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 7:04:06 PM8/17/16
to Adrian Hope-Bailie, public-rww, public-webid, W3C Credentials Community Group, business-of-linked-data-bold
Hi Adrian,

On 8/16/16 8:51 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid?

There is always a business case for open standards, and it goes as follows:

Agility to mix and match "best of class" technologies that underlie solutions, at any given point in time.

When the Web's original open standards stack (URIs, URLs, HTTP, and HTML) arrived it unveiled the World Wide Web, an ecosystem that laid the foundation for Google, Facebook, Amazon, and many others. It also enabled behemoths like Apple (struggling badly at the time) to pivot and reinvent themselves.
 

Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on user data choose to let users take that away?

When the World Wide Web arrived, folks asked the question: Why would Microsoft allow anyone succeed without embracing their technology stack and related ecosystems.

SoLiD is just a collection of existing open standards and best practices.


Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos that attracts them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough money to survive competing with the biggest tech companies in the world?

See my comment about Microsoft and the World Wide Web.  This is what happens with technology and industry evolution. Google and Facebook aren't static behemoths and they also understand history. Don't presume myopia and ignorance on the part of any of these companies, they have too many smart people on their payrolls.

The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy the point is whether it has the potential to make anybody any money because if it doesn't then I think you will have a hard time persuading people to use it, no matter how well it scales.

SoLiD scales and it simply adds dimensions to the Web ecosystem to be exploited by behemoths, startups, and smartups.

New business and business models will coalesce around the Web's read-write dimension. That's an inevitability due to the nature of privacy.

Kingsley

On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <melvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:

Solid isn't finished yet.


Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0.

But I dont really know what more can be added to it to get it to v1.0.  Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine.  Some people are perfectionists I suppose :)

In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest of the web is, even if you only take small parts of it and use it.

You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in the sense that, the web will never be "finished".

Its definitely something that can be used today.
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adr...@hopebailie.com> wrote:
From the article: "The question is whether architecture will be enough."

The answer is no.
We live in world where few ideas succeed without a strong business case. The architecture is the easy part.

Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right.  The vast majority if systems start to fall over as they scale.  The web and REST are two architectures that buck that trend and just get stronger as they scale.

Solid is the next evolution in that architectural trend, imho, because it simply embraces the points that made the web great, and extends it a little bit, while being 100% backwards compatible.  Right now, it's the only system that I know of, with this property, in fact, nothing else is close.  So this in itself, the ability to scale to billions of users, is a business case.  Quietly facebook adopted the social graph approach to the web, and web architectural principles with their graph protocol, and also an implementation of WebID.

I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because simply, we have a lot of ideas and a lot of competition.  Having a business can help, but the right architecture is the magic sauce to get through those scalability barriers. 

I personally think Solid is the business opportunity of a lifetime, perhaps even bigger than the first web.  Im certainly investing on that basis.
 

On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Anders,

I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in creds; in addition to the below, with some lateral considerations.

See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are discussing in China AI [2].

I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst i've certainly been considering the issue; i have not fully considered it, and as modern systems become subject to government contracts as may be the case with enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM [3], may significantly lower the cost for government / enterprise, in seeking to achieve very advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full awareness of how these systems work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes when work by web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without their explicit and full consideration of the original designers for any extended use of their works, what the underlying considerations are by those who are concerned [6][7] and how these systems may interact with more advanced HID as i've kinda tried to describe recently to an audience here [8] and has been further discussed otherwise [9] [10].

I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing that seems to plague Manu's / Dave's original vision (that included WebDHT) to the consultative approach that i believed had alot of merit in how it may interact with the works of RWW at the time (alongside WebID) which have al progressed, yet, not seemingly to a solution that i think is 'fit for purpose' in attending to the issues before us.

I have considered the need for people to own their own biometric signatures.  I have considered the work by 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a good supporter of these future works, particularly given the manner in which these works support LDP and other related technologies...

But the future is still unknown, and what worries me most; is those who know most about A.I. may not be able to speak about it as a citizen or stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna carta, such as is the document that hangs on my wall when making such considerations more broadly in relation to my contributory work/s. 

i understand this herein; contains an array of fragments; yet, am trying to format schema that leads others to the spot in which i'm processing broader ideas around what, where and how; progress may be accelerated and indeed adopted by those capable of pushing it forward.

I remember the github.com/Linkeddata team (in RWW years) wrote a bunch of things in GO, which is what the IPFS examples showcase, and without providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been working in the field of inter-planetary systems [13], therein also understanding previous issues relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] ), which in-turn may also relate to other statements made overtime about my view that some of the works incubated by credentials; but not subject to IG or potential WG support at present - may be better off being developed within the WebID community as an additional constituent of work that may work interoperable with WebID-TLS related systems.

Too many Ideas!!! 

(perhaps some have merit...)

Tim.H.


[3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson 
[5] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704 
[8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in it: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing 
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <anders.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > Really good article, mentions Solid and other technologies.  WebID is mentioned by the author in the comments too ... > > http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/ One of the problems with the Web is that there is no easy way letting a provider know where you come from (=where your Web resources are).  This is one reason why OpenID rather created more centralization.  The same problem is in payments where the credit-card number is used to find your bank through complex centralized registers. Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having URLs + other related data such as keys in something like a digital wallet which you carry around. There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs special logic, keys, attributes etc. it seems hard (probably impossible), coming up with a generic Web-browser solution making such schemes rely on extending the Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code. Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere existence(!) of such work, the progress on native extensions schemes has actually been pretty good: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html This is approach to decentralization is BTW not (anymore) a research project, it is fully testable in close to production-like settings today: https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant The native extensions also support a _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_, something which is clearly missing in world where a single browser vendor has 80% of the mobile browser market! Anders

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 19, 2016, 8:59:21 AM8/19/16
to public...@w3.org, Credentials Community Group, publi...@w3.org, business-of-linked-data-bold
On 8/19/16 6:20 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
Kingsley,

I am playing devil's advocate here but I don't think you have answered my question.
Gaining agility is not a business case.

Enabling, enhancing,  and achieving agility via data access, integration, and management is a fundamental business case. If that weren't the case, why would markets for Analytics, Recommendation Systems, AI-driven Bots, Big Data etc., exists?

It is always about data-driven agility.

I am all for open standards, I spend the majority of my time working to promote them but I am still trying to understand what the economic incentive is for any service provider to adopt SoLiD as opposed to controlling their user's data.

The economic benefit of open standards are as follows, always:

1. Flexibility -- when choosing platform components i.e, you can mix and match a combination components in line with needs
2. Vendor lock-in prevention
3. Technology longevity -- you can always go back to a full spec for a specific platform component.

SoLiD isn't a standard, it is a combination of open standards and best practices. Thus, its benefit is an open standards based approach for a read-write web that benefits end-users and vendors.



Google, Apple and  Microsoft control the end-user experience for the majority of users on the Web by giving them free browsers, email, social etc. In return they make money from controlling the data those products and services generate.

Correct! And history shows, companies don't adopt standards just because they exists. They adopt standards as part of an "opportunity cost" prevention or control mechanism, first.


Are you surprised that the browser vendors all actively block initiatives at W3C that would promote an open identity system that would unlock their user data silos?

I am not convinced they are blocking initiatives per se. From my vantage point, there is a general communication problems between all the parties involved. For instance, there has been a lot of fanfare about how browsers implement TLS and its impact on the something like WebID+TLS protocol. That situation is rectified by WebID+TLS+Delegation, but folks don't generally see or promote that, on the pro WebID side of the argument.

Bottom line, you can't declare standards adoption. You have demonstrate the virtues of standards via applications that are adopted by end-users and technology vendors.

There are always politically astute excuses but let's be honest, if the browsers wanted to they could have made adopting WebID an easy user friendly experience and the world would be full of people who all have their own WebID that is used to log into all the services they use on the Web.

They don't need to. That's the problem. Here's a breakdown of the issue, as I've come to understand it after hours of study and experimentation:

You have a digital highway provided by the Internet. That highway (like in the real-world) enables movement of data from one point to another where security is scoped to the agents (software) transporting said data i.e., just like cars and car registration numbers.

The Web is an Internet abstraction that introduces the ability to identify the user of an agent (like a car driver) distinct from an agent (the software). Thus, you can demand reworking the highway just because car drivers are now identifiable using their driver's licenses. That will never wash in the real-world, so why would it work in cyberspace.

Example:
I want to transport some goods from Boston to New York.
The scenario above includes toll booths and a final destination.

On the highway, my car registration is the identity focal point, with regards to toll payments. When I reach my destination, my personal identity card (license or something else) is how I prove I am the delivery person expected at the final destination.

Another example: I drive my car to a pub. At the pub my personal ID is what's important. En route to the pub, my Car registration is what's important. There are two distinct scenarios requiring different kinds of identity.

WebID+TLS doesn't have the fidelity required for traversing the existing highway without asking its current maintainers (Certificate Authorities and Browser Vendors) to change infrastructure and practices.

WebID+TLS+Delegation simply adds the "On-Behalf-Of" relationship type to the mix (i.e., in the data) which distinguishes the user from the software they use (drive) thereby enabling one toggle WebIDs without browser restarts (due to TLS requirements) [1].


I am certainly not assuming that these companies are ignorant or myopic, quite the opposite. I think they will continue to keep users locked into their semi-open ecosystems by competing to offer the best browsers (that mostly adhere to open standards) and other free services. But they will never change the many services they offer to allow users to export and control their own data.

Power is never given. It has to be taken. End-users need to want to take control of their identity by being curious about what that means and how its is achieved. Currently, most aren't interested, so the vendors have full control.

As history teaches us, repeatedly, there will be an event that triggers an inflection, and folks will become more interested in their privacy en route to discovering Web-scale verifiable identity.


In fact, I'd go as far as to say that for them to do that would be in contravention of their legal obligations to their shareholders because it would be such a blatantly bad commercial move.

You are oversimplifying a little bit. The issue, as per my comments above, is more to do with end-users than vendors. The obligation of the vendor is simply about ability in regards to market inflections :)

[1] https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/web-logic-sentences-and-the-magic-of-being-you-e2a719d01f73#.l0b1rvdsp -- Demonstrates WebID toggling without Browser Restarts, courtesy of WebID+TLS+Delegation


Kingsley

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 19, 2016, 9:30:38 AM8/19/16
to Adrian Hope-Bailie, public-webid, Credentials Community Group, publi...@w3.org, business-of-linked-data-bold
On 8/19/16 9:15 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> End-users need to want to take control of their identity by being curious about what that means and how its is achieved. Currently, most aren't interested, so the vendors have full control.

> As history teaches us, repeatedly, there will be an event that triggers an inflection, and folks will become more interested in their privacy en route to discovering Web-scale verifiable identity.


+1000

You hit the nail on the head.

The pressure must come from the users. I have called it the "privacy backlash" in the past but I agree that there needs to be an inflection point where users care more about their privacy than the quality of the service they use because it will be very difficult to offer a competitive service without the user-data generated revenue to fund it.

All of this is very difficult while the vendors of the existing services also provide the majority of browsers.

Naturally.


In the absence of the "privacy backlash" creating demand for new vendors it would be valuable if the proponents of  stacks like SoLiD were able to demonstrate the business value to vendors so they feel it's worth building on and trying to compete.

Yes, applications are the key. The have to take the "magic" route initially. A car driver doesn't need education on mechanical engineering en route to purchase. They just want to know why this car is better than others, at a very high level.


And it's worth differentiating between the value to the vendor and the user because vendor lock-in is not a value to the vendor.

Vendors build around stacks, so not being locked into an entire stack or its components affects their agility.

Sidenote: I believe there could be something that comes from a new browser like Brave that offers micropayments built-in and can therefor compete commercially and offer users privacy and a better experience. Perhaps a better identity experience built-in would also be a key differentiator?

You can improve the identity experience of existing browsers, as is. We do that already.

[1] http://osds.openlinksw.com -- Open Structured Data Sniffer (note: the WebID toggling feature that works without browser TLS session restarts).

Kingsley

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 12:12:24 AM8/20/16
to Timothy Holborn, public...@w3.org, Credentials Community Group, publi...@w3.org, business-of-linked-data-bold
On 8/19/16 8:09 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
I saw some use-cases, couldn't help myself - i had to respond...

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 23:00 Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/19/16 6:20 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
Kingsley,

I am playing devil's advocate here but I don't think you have answered my question.
Gaining agility is not a business case.

Enabling, enhancing,  and achieving agility via data access, integration, and management is a fundamental business case. If that weren't the case, why would markets for Analytics, Recommendation Systems, AI-driven Bots, Big Data etc., exists?

It is always about data-driven agility.

I am all for open standards, I spend the majority of my time working to promote them but I am still trying to understand what the economic incentive is for any service provider to adopt SoLiD as opposed to controlling their user's data.

The economic benefit of open standards are as follows, always:

1. Flexibility -- when choosing platform components i.e, you can mix and match a combination components in line with needs
2. Vendor lock-in prevention
3. Technology longevity -- you can always go back to a full spec for a specific platform component.

SoLiD isn't a standard, it is a combination of open standards and best practices. Thus, its benefit is an open standards based approach for a read-write web that benefits end-users and vendors.



Google, Apple and  Microsoft control the end-user experience for the majority of users on the Web by giving them free browsers, email, social etc. In return they make money from controlling the data those products and services generate.

Correct! And history shows, companies don't adopt standards just because they exists. They adopt standards as part of an "opportunity cost" prevention or control mechanism, first.


Are you surprised that the browser vendors all actively block initiatives at W3C that would promote an open identity system that would unlock their user data silos?

I am not convinced they are blocking initiatives per se. From my vantage point, there is a general communication problems between all the parties involved. For instance, there has been a lot of fanfare about how browsers implement TLS and its impact on the something like WebID+TLS protocol. That situation is rectified by WebID+TLS+Delegation, but folks don't generally see or promote that, on the pro WebID side of the argument.

Bottom line, you can't declare standards adoption. You have demonstrate the virtues of standards via applications that are adopted by end-users and technology vendors.

There are always politically astute excuses but let's be honest, if the browsers wanted to they could have made adopting WebID an easy user friendly experience and the world would be full of people who all have their own WebID that is used to log into all the services they use on the Web.

They don't need to. That's the problem. Here's a breakdown of the issue, as I've come to understand it after hours of study and experimentation:

You have a digital highway provided by the Internet. That highway (like in the real-world) enables movement of data from one point to another where security is scoped to the agents (software) transporting said data i.e., just like cars and car registration numbers.

The Web is an Internet abstraction that introduces the ability to identify the user of an agent (like a car driver) distinct from an agent (the software). Thus, you can demand reworking the highway just because car drivers are now identifiable using their driver's licenses. That will never wash in the real-world, so why would it work in cyberspace.
Ok. 

So, identifiers for the 'senario' of 'driving' (or being driven) down a highway.

HWY Identifier Ontology (may include who fixed what, sensor data, GIS data, payments data, etc.)

CAR ontology (make, model, functionality, who's in it, sensor info, ability to communicate with surrounding environment, ability to present media to occupants, etc.)

NOTE: A part within the vehicle may have it's own agent / ontology.  IE: the communications platform may be managed by a different vendor to the power-plant / drive-train of a vehicle, who may in-turn have access to each element as a counterpart of their role?) \

If owner of vehicle is subject to court order (ie: not allowed within x distance of x place, or cannot drive whilst intoxicated, etc.) then some other rule may apply...

Occupants (whether self-driving car or simply the old-school method).

- Occupants may have authority to direct the vehicle. 
- Occupants may have authority to drive the vehicle 
- Occupants may have authority to sell the vehicle.

Multiple occupants may be in the vehicle; who may have multiple authorities at one time. 

In this example, multiple occupants are the point. A car has a single driver. Of course, it may have many passengers where each person has their own identity card (license, passport, or something else).

My simple example:

A Car is like your Browser (a Software Agent). It has a registration number.

You are identified by your Driver's License.

I've you skip toll payment, authorities triangulate back to you via your car registration. Even if they have a photo of you, the toll matter boils down to triangulation from the vehicle to its driver.

When you reach you destination, other forms of identity become relevant e.g., use of your Driver's License as proof of age in a pub. Basically, the critical credential in this context.

ie: if the owner of the vehicle is intoxicated; then another person may be able to drive the vehicle on their behalf, whether or not they've previously been authorised to drive the vehicle - so long as the owner is in the car (and not in the boot) for instance...

 


Example:
I want to transport some goods from Boston to New York.
The scenario above includes toll booths and a final destination.

On the highway, my car registration is the identity focal point, with regards to toll payments. When I reach my destination, my personal identity card (license or something else) is how I prove I am the delivery person expected at the final destination.

isn't it simply your face? some sensor identifies something about you, and it's all very low-friction.  Question is - where do you store your permissions for how those systems work - or are they your permissions?  or something else's permissions about you?

In my example I trying to illustrate how a simple highway toll booth system works. One that's oriented towards vehicles driven (or controlled by) a driver .

In my example, Car registration is the credential of relevance i.e., what the system is built around.


Another example: I drive my car to a pub. At the pub my personal ID is what's important. En route to the pub, my Car registration is what's important. There are two distinct scenarios requiring different kinds of identity.

WebID+TLS doesn't have the fidelity required for traversing the existing highway without asking its current maintainers (Certificate Authorities and Browser Vendors) to change infrastructure and practices.

WebID+TLS+Delegation simply adds the "On-Behalf-Of" relationship type to the mix (i.e., in the data) which distinguishes the user from the software they use (drive) thereby enabling one toggle WebIDs without browser restarts (due to TLS requirements) [1].

IMHO: Credentials add's via HTTP Signed documents containing RDF; the ability to produce another important counterpart to the identity lifecycle mix, but only if humans are active actors in the creation and management process of credentials use. 

You are an active participant in the creation of your Driver's License :)

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 5:55:49 AM8/20/16
to Adrian Hope-Bailie, Kingsley Idehen, public-rww, public-webid, W3C Credentials Community Group, business-of-linked-data-bold
On 19 August 2016 at 12:20, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adr...@hopebailie.com> wrote:
Kingsley,

I am playing devil's advocate here but I don't think you have answered my question.
Gaining agility is not a business case.

I am all for open standards, I spend the majority of my time working to promote them but I am still trying to understand what the economic incentive is for any service provider to adopt SoLiD as opposed to controlling their user's data.

Google, Apple and  Microsoft control the end-user experience for the majority of users on the Web by giving them free browsers, email, social etc. In return they make money from controlling the data those products and services generate.

Are you surprised that the browser vendors all actively block initiatives at W3C that would promote an open identity system that would unlock their user data silos? There are always politically astute excuses but let's be honest, if the browsers wanted to they could have made adopting WebID an easy user friendly experience and the world would be full of people who all have their own WebID that is used to log into all the services they use on the Web.

I am certainly not assuming that these companies are ignorant or myopic, quite the opposite. I think they will continue to keep users locked into their semi-open ecosystems by competing to offer the best browsers (that mostly adhere to open standards) and other free services. But they will never change the many services they offer to allow users to export and control their own data.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that for them to do that would be in contravention of their legal obligations to their shareholders because it would be such a blatantly bad commercial move.

I appreciate you are playing devils advocate here, but on the web shareholder value is not achieved by the typical wall street / VC style short-term-ism.  The web has the potential to be around and thriving decades from now.  So a long term strategic view is advantageous.  You may consider a share price in one valuation technique to be the net present value of all future dividends.  Now do you want a company making 2 billion in dividends for 10 years, or a company making 1 billion in dividends for 50 years.  The latter has created 5 times more shareholder value.  Even the most capitalist of capitalist companies, Goldman Sachs, has a core business principle, "If we serve our customers well, our own success will follow.".  We should not assume the best web companies are out to scalp their customers.  It's very possible that the best and most long term web companies will gain competitive advantage by offering the best possible service.  I think there's a need for it.  And from what I've seen so far (tho im possibly looking about 1 year ahead through prototyping), Solid is the best bet to fit that bill.  Tho I'd be very happy to see other technologies that allow universal, interoperable, data browsing and editing on the web in realtime.
 



On 18 August 2016 at 01:04, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 11:23:42 AM8/20/16
to Timothy Holborn, public...@w3.org, Credentials Community Group, publi...@w3.org, business-of-linked-data-bold
On 8/20/16 12:39 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:

In this example, multiple occupants are the point. A car has a single driver. Of course, it may have many passengers where each person has their own identity card (license, passport, or something else).

My simple example:

A Car is like your Browser (a Software Agent). It has a registration number.

You are identified by your Driver's License.

I've you skip toll payment, authorities triangulate back to you via your car registration. Even if they have a photo of you, the toll matter boils down to triangulation from the vehicle to its driver.

When you reach you destination, other forms of identity become relevant e.g., use of your Driver's License as proof of age in a pub. Basically, the critical credential in this context.

Another use-case that may provide additional 'human centric' support via inferencing; might be along the lines of,

- A Friend / Family Member / Employee has use of your vehicle at some dateTime. 
- The Vehicle is caught speeding.  
- A lawEnforcementFine is issued that may incur driversLicenseDemitPoints which in-turn may lead to lossOfLicense
- Your mobilePhone has GPS records + calendar information (et.al) shows that you were elsewhere at the time. 

resulting in the ability to produce something like: 

Reasoning and Inference introduce more functionality with our own imaginations as the only limiting factor :)



  

ie: if the owner of the vehicle is intoxicated; then another person may be able to drive the vehicle on their behalf, whether or not they've previously been authorised to drive the vehicle - so long as the owner is in the car (and not in the boot) for instance...

 


Example:
I want to transport some goods from Boston to New York.
The scenario above includes toll booths and a final destination.

On the highway, my car registration is the identity focal point, with regards to toll payments. When I reach my destination, my personal identity card (license or something else) is how I prove I am the delivery person expected at the final destination.

isn't it simply your face? some sensor identifies something about you, and it's all very low-friction.  Question is - where do you store your permissions for how those systems work - or are they your permissions?  or something else's permissions about you?

In my example I trying to illustrate how a simple highway toll booth system works. One that's oriented towards vehicles driven (or controlled by) a driver .

In my example, Car registration is the credential of relevance i.e., what the system is built around.


Another example: I drive my car to a pub. At the pub my personal ID is what's important. En route to the pub, my Car registration is what's important. There are two distinct scenarios requiring different kinds of identity.

WebID+TLS doesn't have the fidelity required for traversing the existing highway without asking its current maintainers (Certificate Authorities and Browser Vendors) to change infrastructure and practices.

WebID+TLS+Delegation simply adds the "On-Behalf-Of" relationship type to the mix (i.e., in the data) which distinguishes the user from the software they use (drive) thereby enabling one toggle WebIDs without browser restarts (due to TLS requirements) [1].

IMHO: Credentials add's via HTTP Signed documents containing RDF; the ability to produce another important counterpart to the identity lifecycle mix, but only if humans are active actors in the creation and management process of credentials use. 

You are an active participant in the creation of your Driver's License :)

Yes. However many RDBMS systems are developed in a manner that can have unintended consequences; and more-often than not, it is the vulnerable who are most impacted by what is often knownIssues, considered to have lowerPriority mostOften dueTo a lackOfStructuredData

:)

Tim.H.

SQL RDBMS engines, in basic form, are ill-equipped for this kind of task. They lack the semantic fidelity for this situation. 

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 8:49:09 AM8/22/16
to Timothy Holborn, public...@w3.org, Credentials Community Group, business-of-linked-data-bold, publi...@w3.org
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

Kingsley

I would encourage the development of a forum to aid with the development of installable solutions that have a "human rights" styled licensed, which in-turn is something that has been discussed in various forms, but as yet does not exist.

Creative commons is a great precident, but isn't fit for purpose.

Timh.

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 2:25:50 PM8/23/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold, Timothy Holborn, public-webid, Credentials Community Group, publi...@w3.org
On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an openlink backend and vice versa.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 2:29:32 PM8/23/16
to Timothy Holborn, public...@w3.org, Credentials Community Group, business-of-linked-data-bold, publi...@w3.org
On 8/23/16 11:46 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> yet it's much easier to install apache2 or cpanel than it is to figure
> out virtuoso atm.

Protocols have known ports.

Servers are available to clients via hostname + port combos that
identify access points on a network.

Data Access between clients and servers occurs using protocols.

Data Processing occurs by handling data representation format
transmitted using relevant protocols.

All you do with Virtuoso is start your server and speak to it using the
relevant protocols (e.g., HTTP, HTTP-WebDAV, HTTP-LDP, HTTP-SPARQL,
ODBC, JDBC, HTTP-CalDAV, HTTP-CardDAV, IMAP4 etc... It either works or
it fails, nothing in between.

We have some wrapper services that include UI e.g, ODS-Briefcase for
working with WebDAV, LDP etc.. All you do is install the VAD package and
you are set.

BTW -- I do agree with the issue about our docs. They do need
improvement and that's being addressed as I type :)


Link:

[1]
http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/dataspace/doc/dav/wiki/Main/OdsBriefcase
-- a bit dated, but valid (just missing stuff on LDP).

[2]
https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/http-read-write-operations-using-ldp-protocols-virtuoso-http-s-server-bdaa2736169f#.p2p3flf9s
-- post I just knocked up

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 2:43:47 PM8/23/16
to Melvin Carvalho, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-webid, Credentials Community Group, publi...@w3.org
On 8/23/16 2:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:


On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an openlink backend and vice versa.
 
Melvin,

So why don't I share a folder endpoint [1] and the you try to use SoLiD to create a document in that folder? Naturally, I would need to grant access to you via your WebID (which I assume to be: https://melvincarvalho.com/#me) .

Links:

[1] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[3] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl -- ACL doc (your webid has access to this too!)
[4] https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/rdf-editor -- Editor that can be used to compare experience re. creation of document in the sample/qa folder.

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 5:36:29 PM8/23/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold
yes, i was able to create a file, nice!

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 6:28:48 PM8/23/16
to business-of-li...@googlegroups.com, publi...@w3.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-d...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 6:56:35 PM8/23/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold, publi...@w3.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?


One test is passing at least, which is a good sign!

I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite and run tests.  There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried and tested.

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 10:17:51 PM8/23/16
to business-of-li...@googlegroups.com, publi...@w3.org
On 8/23/16 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 00:28, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 5:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
yes, i was able to create a file, nice!
On 23 August 2016 at 20:43, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 2:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an openlink backend and vice versa.
 
Melvin,

So why don't I share a folder endpoint [1] and the you try to use SoLiD to create a document in that folder? Naturally, I would need to grant access to you via your WebID (which I assume to be: https://melvincarvalho.com/#me) .

Links:

[1] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[3] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl -- ACL doc (your webid has access to this too!)
[4] https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/rdf-editor -- Editor that can be used to compare experience re. creation of document in the sample/qa folder.


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?

One test is passing at least, which is a good sign!
I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite and run tests.  There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried and tested.

Melvin,

I am trying to avoid "OpenLink doesn't support SoLiD" cycles that keep on reoccurring. If there is a pattern that fails it should be identified and demonstrated.

As per this demo, my view point is simply as follows:

[1] Start you Virtuoso instance

[2] Perform RWW operations over HTTP using SoLiD patterns

If something fails, it should be reported.

Note my instance at idehen.net is a little unstable right now due to a plethora of QA activities on other fronts.

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 3:52:08 AM8/24/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold, publi...@w3.org

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?

One test is passing at least, which is a good sign!
I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite and run tests.  There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried and tested.

Melvin,

I am trying to avoid "OpenLink doesn't support SoLiD" cycles that keep on reoccurring.


Got it.  But it requires testing and possibly some bug fixing. 
 

If there is a pattern that fails it should be identified and demonstrated.

This is where a test suite comes in handy. 

W3C working groups typically require 1-3 years for this.  I think we need a similar process.

There may be short cuts but it would normally require one dedicated tester.
 

As per this demo, my view point is simply as follows:

[1] Start you Virtuoso instance

[2] Perform RWW operations over HTTP using SoLiD patterns

If something fails, it should be reported.

Note my instance at idehen.net is a little unstable right now due to a plethora of QA activities on other fronts.

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 7:55:30 AM8/24/16
to Melvin Carvalho, business-of-linked-data-bold, publi...@w3.org
On 8/24/16 3:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 04:17, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 00:28, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 5:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
yes, i was able to create a file, nice!
On 23 August 2016 at 20:43, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 2:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an openlink backend and vice versa.
 
Melvin,

So why don't I share a folder endpoint [1] and the you try to use SoLiD to create a document in that folder? Naturally, I would need to grant access to you via your WebID (which I assume to be: https://melvincarvalho.com/#me) .

Links:

[1] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[3] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl -- ACL doc (your webid has access to this too!)
[4] https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/rdf-editor -- Editor that can be used to compare experience re. creation of document in the sample/qa folder.


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?

One test is passing at least, which is a good sign!
I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite and run tests.  There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried and tested.

Melvin,

I am trying to avoid "OpenLink doesn't support SoLiD" cycles that keep on reoccurring.

Got it.  But it requires testing and possibly some bug fixing. 
 

If there is a pattern that fails it should be identified and demonstrated.

This is where a test suite comes in handy.  W3C working groups typically require 1-3 years for this.  I think we need a similar process. There may be short cuts but it would normally require one dedicated tester.

W3C process != Practical Commercial process.

Having worked on interop for more than 20+ years re., standards like SQL, ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, HTTP, and others, the process has more to do with willingness to collaborate than anything else.

Given a server application (server) that implements standard X, there should be N number of client application (client) users willing enough to test interop as part of a practical QA process. Right now, the big issue is that interop gets scoped to the wrong levels.

What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code to perform basic interop.

Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 years.

I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards compliance.

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 9:08:38 AM8/24/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold, publi...@w3.org
Presently I see people testing Solid against node-solid-server and gold.  Previously I have seen testing against LDPHP.  I've only seen you and sometimes me test against an openlink back end and that's when we have a bit of time free. 
 

What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code to perform basic interop.

I think you mean people do not have the time to work though and fix bugs.  As it's a new technology inevitably there will be bugs, it needs a lot of persistence to work through.  Openlink is not immune to bugs either, I have found and reported some myself. 
 

Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 years.

I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards compliance.

Then just do it!  I still believe the process we are using right now has not yielded fast progress, but a working group where people actually commit to deliverables does achieve interop.  It's just a question of how much time each process takes.  The thing about a WG is that you generally commit 1 day a week or as much as 0.5 of a FTE, per company involved.  That's a more resource that is currently being employed.
 

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 12:25:25 PM8/24/16
to publi...@w3.org, business-of-linked-data-bold
On 8/24/16 9:08 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 13:55, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/24/16 3:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 04:17, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 00:28, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 5:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
yes, i was able to create a file, nice!
On 23 August 2016 at 20:43, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 2:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an openlink backend and vice versa.
 
Melvin,

So why don't I share a folder endpoint [1] and the you try to use SoLiD to create a document in that folder? Naturally, I would need to grant access to you via your WebID (which I assume to be: https://melvincarvalho.com/#me) .

Links:

[1] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[3] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl -- ACL doc (your webid has access to this too!)
[4] https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/rdf-editor -- Editor that can be used to compare experience re. creation of document in the sample/qa folder.


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?

One test is passing at least, which is a good sign!
I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite and run tests.  There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried and tested.

Melvin,

I am trying to avoid "OpenLink doesn't support SoLiD" cycles that keep on reoccurring.

Got it.  But it requires testing and possibly some bug fixing. 
 

If there is a pattern that fails it should be identified and demonstrated.

This is where a test suite comes in handy.  W3C working groups typically require 1-3 years for this.  I think we need a similar process. There may be short cuts but it would normally require one dedicated tester.

W3C process != Practical Commercial process.

Having worked on interop for more than 20+ years re., standards like SQL, ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, HTTP, and others, the process has more to do with willingness to collaborate than anything else.

Given a server application (server) that implements standard X, there should be N number of client application (client) users willing enough to test interop as part of a practical QA process. Right now, the big issue is that interop gets scoped to the wrong levels.

Presently I see people testing Solid against node-solid-server and gold. Previously I have seen testing against LDPHP.  I've only seen you and sometimes me test against an openlink back end and that's when we have a bit of time free.
Yes, but once again, its a case of understanding the roles of compliant servers and clients. Virtuoso is a compliant server. All you need is an endpoint and away you go. It either works or it fails. If it fails simply report what's failing.

What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code to perform basic interop.

I think you mean people do not have the time to work though and fix bugs.
No, I mean it is being approached the wrong way.  What you need is: 1. List of compliant servers and their live endpoints 2. List of compliant clients 3. Folks testing the clients and the servers (this doesn't always have to be the developers of either client or server being tested). There isn't a single guideline that states: To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant server and its endpoint to the list in the page at <some-server-usage-doc-location-uri> . To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant client applications and a usage guide document link to the page at: <some-client-app-usage-doc-location-uri> . Post your results or share you experience via comments or reports to a document at: <some-interop-results-doc-location-uri> .
  As it's a new technology inevitably there will be bugs, it needs a lot of persistence to work through. Openlink is not immune to bugs either, I have found and reported some myself. 
Do you have a link to SoLiD related bugs or issues? That's all we need.

Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 years.

I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards compliance.

Then just do it!
I am confused. What is it that we haven't done?
  I still believe the process we are using right now has not yielded fast progress, but a working group where people actually commit to deliverables does achieve interop.  It's just a question of how much time each process takes. The thing about a WG is that you generally commit 1 day a week or as much as 0.5 of a FTE, per company involved. That's a more resource that is currently being employed.
There is subtle confusion about my point reflected in your last two comments. If a SoLiD client fails to work with my Virtuoso instance, then simply indicate what the issue is. You can also share a list of SoLiD apps here and I can once again test them. That said, I have zero interest in compiling anyting or heading out on module graph bounties. I just want to install something and test.

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 2:00:48 PM8/24/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
Is virtuoso Solid compliant?  Compliant to what?  Has it been tested?  Does it handle globbing?  Does it handle websockets?  Does it comply to the ACL spec?  Does it support inboxes?  Does it support Linked Data Notifications.  Does it comply to the sections of the latest solid spec?  What browser coverage does it have, what breaks?  These are questions we are going through on a daily basis with other backends. 
 

What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code to perform basic interop.

I think you mean people do not have the time to work though and fix bugs.
No, I mean it is being approached the wrong way.  What you need is: 1. List of compliant servers and their live endpoints 2. List of compliant clients 3. Folks testing the clients and the servers (this doesn't always have to be the developers of either client or server being tested). There isn't a single guideline that states: To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant server and its endpoint to the list in the page at <some-server-usage-doc-location-uri> . To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant client applications and a usage guide document link to the page at: <some-client-app-usage-doc-location-uri> . Post your results or share you experience via comments or reports to a document at: <some-interop-results-doc-location-uri> .

We are doing this constantly in the gitter channel.  Behind that lies the github solid repo which has active issue tracking. 
 
  As it's a new technology inevitably there will be bugs, it needs a lot of persistence to work through. Openlink is not immune to bugs either, I have found and reported some myself. 
Do you have a link to SoLiD related bugs or issues? That's all we need.

Various repos under: https://github.com/solid

Pretty much all have issue tracking
 

Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 years.

I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards compliance.

Then just do it!
I am confused. What is it that we haven't done?

Any kind of serious testing.  My original point.  If solid apps work on virtuoso that's going to be a big win.  Write a backend, write apps.  Test on virtuoso, test on node solid server, test on gold.  That is the test of compliance.  Failing that, work on passing a test suite.
 
  I still believe the process we are using right now has not yielded fast progress, but a working group where people actually commit to deliverables does achieve interop.  It's just a question of how much time each process takes. The thing about a WG is that you generally commit 1 day a week or as much as 0.5 of a FTE, per company involved. That's a more resource that is currently being employed.
There is subtle confusion about my point reflected in your last two comments. If a SoLiD client fails to work with my Virtuoso instance, then simply indicate what the issue is. You can also share a list of SoLiD apps here and I can once again test them. That said, I have zero interest in compiling anyting or heading out on module graph bounties. I just want to install something and test.

Yes, I think we're talking high level perspective vs low level perspective.  The devil is in the detail. 

I will be working on my own back end "solid live" and the acid test for me will be whether solid apps can work with it. 
 

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 24, 2016, 10:11:03 PM8/24/16
to Melvin Carvalho, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
What do you mean by any of those questions?  Put differently, why don't you provide cURL based examples of what doesn't work, based on your expectations?
Does it handle globbing? 
cURL example please.
Does it handle websockets? 
You now it does.
Does it comply to the ACL spec?
How did you end up creating a resource in a folder if it didn't comply with ACLs scoped to your WebID?
Does it support inboxes? 
What is an inbox? Put differently, how is it different from folder where you store documents?
Does it support Linked Data Notifications. 
No it doesn't .
Does it comply to the sections of the latest solid spec?
What are those?
What browser coverage does it have, what breaks?  These are questions we are going through on a daily basis with other backends. 
Instead of asking these questions you could demonstrate your point with a SoLiD client and/or curl interaction examples.
 

What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code to perform basic interop.

I think you mean people do not have the time to work though and fix bugs.
No, I mean it is being approached the wrong way.  What you need is: 1. List of compliant servers and their live endpoints 2. List of compliant clients 3. Folks testing the clients and the servers (this doesn't always have to be the developers of either client or server being tested). There isn't a single guideline that states: To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant server and its endpoint to the list in the page at <some-server-usage-doc-location-uri> . To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant client applications and a usage guide document link to the page at: <some-client-app-usage-doc-location-uri> . Post your results or share you experience via comments or reports to a document at: <some-interop-results-doc-location-uri> .
We are doing this constantly in the gitter channel.  Behind that lies the github solid repo which has active issue tracking. 
 
  As it's a new technology inevitably there will be bugs, it needs a lot of persistence to work through. Openlink is not immune to bugs either, I have found and reported some myself. 
Do you have a link to SoLiD related bugs or issues? That's all we need.
Various repos under: https://github.com/solid
Pretty much all have issue tracking
 

Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 years.

I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards compliance.

Then just do it!
I am confused. What is it that we haven't done?
Any kind of serious testing.  My original point.  If solid apps work on virtuoso that's going to be a big win.  Write a backend, write apps.  Test on virtuoso, test on node solid server, test on gold.  That is the test of compliance.  Failing that, work on passing a test suite.
 
  I still believe the process we are using right now has not yielded fast progress, but a working group where people actually commit to deliverables does achieve interop.  It's just a question of how much time each process takes. The thing about a WG is that you generally commit 1 day a week or as much as 0.5 of a FTE, per company involved. That's a more resource that is currently being employed.
There is subtle confusion about my point reflected in your last two comments. If a SoLiD client fails to work with my Virtuoso instance, then simply indicate what the issue is. You can also share a list of SoLiD apps here and I can once again test them. That said, I have zero interest in compiling anyting or heading out on module graph bounties. I just want to install something and test.
Yes, I think we're talking high level perspective vs low level perspective.  The devil is in the detail. 
I will be working on my own back end "solid live" and the acid test for me will be whether solid apps can work with it. 
Your description of SoLiD, as exemplified by this exchange, isn't how you make progress. First off, you need to be able to actually describe what SoLiD actually is, clearly. Simply declaring things as compliant vs non compliant, without any clarity isn't the way to generate uptake and interop activity. What is the fundamental goal of SoLiD? What is does it actually offer right now, that uniquely distinguishes it with regards to using HTTP, WebDAV, LDP, Web ACLs, WebID+TLS, WebID+TLS+Delegation, SPARQL Graph Protocol, SPARQL 1.1 etc. to perform Read-Write operations? Answering this question is crucial :) Kingsley
 

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 5:24:08 AM8/25/16
to business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
Have you looked at this?

https://github.com/solid/solid-spec
 
 

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 9:36:29 AM8/25/16
to Melvin Carvalho, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
On 8/25/16 5:24 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 25 August 2016 at 04:10, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/24/16 2:00 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 18:25, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/24/16 9:08 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 13:55, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/24/16 3:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 04:17, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 00:28, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 5:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
yes, i was able to create a file, nice!
On 23 August 2016 at 20:43, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/23/16 2:25 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 22 August 2016 at 14:49, Kingsley Idehen <kid...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
Kingsley, 

Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.

They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.


I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure of the best way to go about it.

I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.


If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than exclusively Tech.

Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g., WebID+TLS+Delegation).

We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but confusion.

What will be really amazing is when Solid apps are tested to run on an openlink backend and vice versa.
 
Melvin,

So why don't I share a folder endpoint [1] and the you try to use SoLiD to create a document in that folder? Naturally, I would need to grant access to you via your WebID (which I assume to be: https://melvincarvalho.com/#me) .

Links:

[1] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[2] https://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid/
[3] http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/solid%2Cacl -- ACL doc (your webid has access to this too!)
[4] https://linkeddata.uriburner.com/rdf-editor -- Editor that can be used to compare experience re. creation of document in the sample/qa folder.


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Business Of Linked Data (BOLD)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to business-of-linked-data-bold+unsubs...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Melvin,

Does that imply things are fine re. SoLiD or not?

One test is passing at least, which is a good sign!
I think to say things are 'fine' we really need to develop a test suite and run tests.  There may be other ways, but that seems to be tried and tested.

Melvin,

I am trying to avoid "OpenLink doesn't support SoLiD" cycles that keep on reoccurring.

Got it.  But it requires testing and possibly some bug fixing. 
 

If there is a pattern that fails it should be identified and demonstrated.

This is where a test suite comes in handy.  W3C working groups typically require 1-3 years for this.  I think we need a similar process. There may be short cuts but it would normally require one dedicated tester.

W3C process != Practical Commercial process.

Having worked on interop for more than 20+ years re., standards like SQL, ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, HTTP, and others, the process has more to do with willingness to collaborate than anything else.

Given a server application (server) that implements standard X, there should be N number of client application (client) users willing enough to test interop as part of a practical QA process. Right now, the big issue is that interop gets scoped to the wrong levels.

Presently I see people testing Solid against node-solid-server and gold. Previously I have seen testing against LDPHP.  I've only seen you and sometimes me test against an openlink back end and that's when we have a bit of time free.
Yes, but once again, its a case of understanding the roles of compliant servers and clients. Virtuoso is a compliant server. All you need is an endpoint and away you go. It either works or it fails. If it fails simply report what's failing.
Is virtuoso Solid compliant?  Compliant to what?  Has it been tested? 
What do you mean by any of those questions?  Put differently, why don't you provide cURL based examples of what doesn't work, based on your expectations?
Does it handle globbing? 
cURL example please.
Does it handle websockets? 
You now it does.
Does it comply to the ACL spec?
How did you end up creating a resource in a folder if it didn't comply with ACLs scoped to your WebID?
Does it support inboxes? 
What is an inbox? Put differently, how is it different from folder where you store documents?
Does it support Linked Data Notifications. 
No it doesn't .
Does it comply to the sections of the latest solid spec?
What are those?
What browser coverage does it have, what breaks?  These are questions we are going through on a daily basis with other backends. 
Instead of asking these questions you could demonstrate your point with a SoLiD client and/or curl interaction examples.
 

What do I mean by "wrong levels" ? The fact that this kind of testing gets lost in presumptive patterns rife with compilation and platform dependencies e.g., open source and all the modules required to be located and built. After that, testers then find out that they have to right code to perform basic interop.

I think you mean people do not have the time to work though and fix bugs.
No, I mean it is being approached the wrong way.  What you need is: 1. List of compliant servers and their live endpoints 2. List of compliant clients 3. Folks testing the clients and the servers (this doesn't always have to be the developers of either client or server being tested). There isn't a single guideline that states: To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant server and its endpoint to the list in the page at <some-server-usage-doc-location-uri> . To verify or have some else verify SoLiD based interop, simply add your SoLiD compliant client applications and a usage guide document link to the page at: <some-client-app-usage-doc-location-uri> . Post your results or share you experience via comments or reports to a document at: <some-interop-results-doc-location-uri> .
We are doing this constantly in the gitter channel.  Behind that lies the github solid repo which has active issue tracking. 
 
  As it's a new technology inevitably there will be bugs, it needs a lot of persistence to work through. Openlink is not immune to bugs either, I have found and reported some myself. 
Do you have a link to SoLiD related bugs or issues? That's all we need.
Various repos under: https://github.com/solid
Pretty much all have issue tracking
 

Interop should simply be about compliant client N talking to compliant server X. That's it. We don't need 6 months to pull that off, let alone 1-3 years.

I am happy to perform interop with anyone (partner or competitor or customer) using the basic pattern outlined above. The end results are mutually beneficial, as they should be, when working with standards compliance.

Then just do it!
I am confused. What is it that we haven't done?
Any kind of serious testing.  My original point.  If solid apps work on virtuoso that's going to be a big win.  Write a backend, write apps.  Test on virtuoso, test on node solid server, test on gold.  That is the test of compliance.  Failing that, work on passing a test suite.
 
  I still believe the process we are using right now has not yielded fast progress, but a working group where people actually commit to deliverables does achieve interop.  It's just a question of how much time each process takes. The thing about a WG is that you generally commit 1 day a week or as much as 0.5 of a FTE, per company involved. That's a more resource that is currently being employed.
There is subtle confusion about my point reflected in your last two comments. If a SoLiD client fails to work with my Virtuoso instance, then simply indicate what the issue is. You can also share a list of SoLiD apps here and I can once again test them. That said, I have zero interest in compiling anyting or heading out on module graph bounties. I just want to install something and test.
Yes, I think we're talking high level perspective vs low level perspective.  The devil is in the detail. 
I will be working on my own back end "solid live" and the acid test for me will be whether solid apps can work with it. 
Your description of SoLiD, as exemplified by this exchange, isn't how you make progress. First off, you need to be able to actually describe what SoLiD actually is, clearly. Simply declaring things as compliant vs non compliant, without any clarity isn't the way to generate uptake and interop activity. What is the fundamental goal of SoLiD? What is does it actually offer right now, that uniquely distinguishes it with regards to using HTTP, WebDAV, LDP, Web ACLs, WebID+TLS, WebID+TLS+Delegation, SPARQL Graph Protocol, SPARQL 1.1 etc. to perform Read-Write operations? Answering this question is crucial :) Kingsley
Have you looked at this? https://github.com/solid/solid-spec

Melvin,

You know I've looked at that, and much more. We are having a public discussion and its really important that you (and other SoLiD supporters) embark on the following:

1. Articulate what problem SoLiD solves, uniquely

2. Demonstrate how SoLiD delivers on its value proposition via simple Client and Server implementations that just work i.e., no coding and compilation involved.

We have a maze of technologies and "best practices" all conflated under SoLiD, unfortunately. That doesn't make for a sound interop basis when you have failure points at the following levels:

[1] WebID Authentication using WebID+TLS protocol

[2] WebID+TLS authentication protocol and Browser UX issue -- which is solved by WebID+TLS+Delegation protocol

[3] Non-existent interop efforts across WebID+TLS, WebID+TLS+Delegation compliant clients and servers

[4] Non-existent interop efforts across WebACL compliant clients and servers

[5] All of the above for LDP compliant clients and servers; ditto SPARQL Graph Protocol and SPARQL 1.1 compliant clients and servers.

Without 1-5 sorted out, you have nothing to work with, in a practical sense.

Links:

[1] https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/http-read-write-operations-using-ldp-protocols-virtuoso-http-s-server-bdaa2736169f#.uj8bvbuwu -- Example of interop using Virtuoso as server and cURL as the client with regards to Read-Write operations over HTTP

[2] https://medium.com/@kidehen/note-about-solid-a-loosely-coupled-read-write-initiative-f56113484bbb#.6mypw3psh -- What is SoLiD

[3] https://github.com/solid/solid#standards-used -- reiterating my points about conflating standards, "best practices", and applications .

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Aug 25, 2016, 12:35:04 PM8/25/16
to Kingsley Idehen, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
Solid allow you to grow the space of documents, media and importantly data, organically by using read and write standards such as LDP, identity via WebID and WebAccess control.

This data space can be consumed and augmented by a new breed of apps that also can work in realtime.

I assure that interop and testing is going on, on a daily basis.  We are using node-solid-server, Gold and previously ldnode.  Henry at one point was writing a scala implementation (rww-play), which got quite far, but I havent heard much from him in the last year. 

There is a lot of activity, but it have moved from the mailing lists, to github and gitter.  Virtuoso is a great platform but largely untested on this front. 

Let me go back to my original point.  I think it would be really valuable when solid apps run on virtuoso, as I am sure you would agree.  Additionally work done in virutouso would benefit other platofrms creating a rich eco system.  But we are not at this point.  Whatever the reasons, this is some time away.  How long it takes is simply a function of how much resource is employed.  6 months seems optimistic from my point of view, though I'd love to see that happen.  The advantage of a WG is a concrete process where the tests are well defined, with regular communication via telecons to check progress, something that does not happen presently.

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Sep 2, 2016, 8:54:24 AM9/2/16
to Kingsley Idehen, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
My suggestion to test solid compliance might be to see if this profile editor works with a given backend

https://linkeddata.github.io/profile-editor/

There's also an issue tracker linked to page

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Sep 2, 2016, 10:00:47 AM9/2/16
to Melvin Carvalho, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
Melvin, What problem does SoLiD solve, uniquely? Put differently, you (and SoLiD) supporters have to answer the following clearly: What is SoLiD? Why is it important? How do I use it?
My suggestion to test solid compliance might be to see if this profile editor works with a given backend https://linkeddata.github.io/profile-editor/
There's also an issue tracker linked to page
Here's an illustration of what I experience: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/solid-interop/ . WebID+TLS handling is problematic, and that's more to do with WebID+TLS interop issues associated with the chosen WebID+TLS authentication module used in the framework to build that editor. You've already successfully created resources in my Data Space where authentication is WebID+TLS and/or WebID+TLS+Delegation based, leveraging a WebACL. That's has nothing to do with SoLiD and everything to do with a Read-Write leveraging existing open standards etc.. What is WebID+TLS? A an open standards-based protocol for authenticating Agent identity, at Web-scale . Why is it important? It enables Read-Write operations across Data Spaces on an HTTP network using an HTTP user agent (or client). How do I use it? Simply perform the following steps: 1. Make a profile document on your local computer 2. Publish the profile document to an HTTP-accessible location 3. Generate an X.509 Certificate using information from the HTTP-accessible profile document     -- during this process, use the HTTP URL of the profile document + "#i" to create a WebID which is then used a the value of the Subject Alternative Name field 4. Test WebID+TLS authentication protocol using the product of 1-3. Tools: 1. http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html -- Example of a tool for WebID+TLS protocol testing 2. http://id.myopenlink.net/youid/ -- Example of a tool for X.509 Certificate endowed with WebID in SAN generation (choose the WebID-Profile Document from the Profile data Provider drop-down).

Melvin Carvalho

unread,
Sep 2, 2016, 10:14:06 AM9/2/16
to Kingsley Idehen, business-of-linked-data-bold, public-rww
Thanks for trying it and taking the screenshots.  Perhaps a next step could be to put those in a github issue, I wasnt able to click through without signing up to pintrest, which im not a member of.

So I think this demonstrates that solid apps dont yet interoperate with openlink virtuoso.  I think it's unhelpful to go into "blamestorming" mode but simply acknowledge this is the case, and that resources need to be allocated in order to achieve interop.  The main issue is that everyone is light on resources, so that's why interop can take a while when doing things on a casual volunteer based workflow.  Im not saying that a WG is the only way to achieve this, but rather, that the model of a WG ensures that participates allocate resources to achieving milestones.  That makes the path to interop faster.  I think 6 months is an optimistic timeframe (tho id love to see interop in that time), if we extrapolate back 6 months and see the incremental advances. 
 

Kingsley Idehen

unread,
Sep 2, 2016, 1:29:52 PM9/2/16
to business-of-li...@googlegroups.com, public-rww
On 9/2/16 10:14 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> So I think this demonstrates that solid apps dont yet interoperate
> with openlink virtuoso. I think it's unhelpful to go into
> "blamestorming" mode but simply acknowledge this is the case, and that
> resources need to be allocated in order to achieve interop. The main
> issue is that everyone is light on resources, so that's why interop
> can take a while when doing things on a casual volunteer based
> workflow. Im not saying that a WG is the only way to achieve this,
> but rather, that the model of a WG ensures that participates allocate
> resources to achieving milestones. That makes the path to interop
> faster. I think 6 months is an optimistic timeframe (tho id love to
> see interop in that time), if we extrapolate back 6 months and see the
> incremental advances.Â
My initial text: