Skip to content

Threadiverse Working Group

Discussion and announcements related to the SWICG Threadiverse task force

13 Topics 210 Posts
  • 13 Votes
    21 Posts
    209 Views
    evan@cosocial.caE

    @julian @nutomic Page is not for objects with `content`. It's for links to Web pages and applications, with metadata. It shouldn't have been used for Lemmy posts.

  • 6 Votes
    5 Posts
    224 Views
    julianJ

    This user story deals with expected behaviour when encountering a topic/context/first-order collection.

    Perhaps it is discovered when declared as the context for an Object. The collection can then be used as the canonical source for content for that context, and it's members queued for asynchronous processing.

    A scaling issue exists here in that a collection could be massive and cause an undue delay in processing a new Note if every other member of the collection needs to be processed first. Implementors should take care to not require the full context during processing of an Object.

  • May Meeting: May 2 1700 UTC

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    160 Views
    julianJ

    Cheers @[email protected] thanks for making it official.

    @[email protected] hopefully you can subscribe to the recurring event now 🙂

  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    80 Views
    julianJ

    Hey @[email protected], how can I add events to the SWICG calendar? I notice there's a little button to include "Task Forces" in the listing, so I think listing our meetings would be helpful, now that we've settled on a more consistent time/day-of-week.

    cc @[email protected] (unrelatedly, do you get notified if I mention your SocialHub handle?)

  • 27 Votes
    32 Posts
    1k Views
    julianJ

    @[email protected] said in Article vs. Note vs. Page:

    Since then WordPress has joined the Fediverse, and now Ghost is about to join as well. I think the ability to display rich content may soon become a serious competitive advantage.

    Completely agreed. The best time to consider a different approach is now, so I am hoping we can make some headway here at the WG meeting. Stay tuned...

    cc @[email protected] @[email protected]

  • 4 Votes
    4 Posts
    127 Views
    trwnh@mastodon.socialT

    @julian @rimu i think that was rimu actually, although i can probably give a summary

  • 11 Votes
    40 Posts
    523 Views
    trwnh@mastodon.socialT

    @devnull

    infinite love ⴳ (@[email protected])

    @[email protected] brevity

    favicon

    Mastodon (mastodon.social)

    infinite love ⴳ (@[email protected])

    @[email protected] more specifically, the examples use `audience` instead of to/cc, but you can use any of the three (to/cc/audience)

    favicon

    Mastodon (mastodon.social)

  • 0 Votes
    5 Posts
    87 Views
    julianJ

    Thanks @[email protected] — I think this is (one of) the last piece before two-way federation will start working. Hopefully it will be merged and updated soon 😄

  • 0 Votes
    18 Posts
    149 Views
    trwnh@socialhub.activitypub.rocksT
    Yeah, pretty much. angus: I think it would be helpful to work through an example of where this particular point of intersection may become an issue. Say you encounter an actor of type Group. You Follow the actor. You can't expect it to behave in any one particular way, but it will generally behave in one of these ways: It is a "normal" publishing actor. You will receive Create Object, Announce Object, Like Object, and so on. It is a boost bot. You will receive Announce Object for any object sent to it, mentioning it, etc. It is a 1b12 actor. You will receive Announce Activity, and other activities described in 1b12. It is a Smithereen-style actor. There will be a wall property, and it will send out Add activities where the target is that wall. The Add.object will also have a target, and this will match the Add.target as per 400e. Bonus: It is a context moderator. You will receive Add activities where the target is the object.context. It may also additionally be a "normal" publishing actor. So for any given "post", it might be a Create/Add/Announce/Announce-Create. This isn't limited to Group actors, but it is most prevalent in Group actors because of the popular (erroneous) interpretation of Group as equivalent to Facebook Groups. One final thing to note is that "normal" publishing actors and context moderators may be any type, not just Group -- there is no specific type dependency for these mechanisms, as they are the intended mechanisms. angus: So, this would result in something like: You receive Note 2 (with context A, a collection) which is inReplyTo Note 1 (with context A) You receive an Update to Note 2 and it now has context B (a collection)? OR perhaps you receive an Add of Note 2 to context B? In both 2 and 3, the inReplyTo would still be to Note 1, which would still have context A. @trwnh something like that? Yup. id: type: Note attributedTo: context: content: "I'm posting in a thread" --- id: type: Note attributedTo: inReplyTo: context: content: "This post is in a different thread but still replying to the first" --- id: type: Article attributedTo: inReplyTo: name: "Some Article" summary: "In which I reply to a forum post with an entire blog post. This is not part of any context." content: "

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...

    "
  • 39 Votes
    47 Posts
    6k Views
    AaronNGrayA

    @julian @[email protected]
    Peeps, if we could further fill in the terminology spreadsheet and maybe use this as a start to deeper map between the platforms/protocols :- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tPZXywqFZe3xXx_fV9icNHLOkSrXx3_rHhPeRmMBZR4/edit#gid=0

  • Our next meeting

    Moved
    18
    0 Votes
    18 Posts
    216 Views
    devnull@socialhub.activitypub.rocksD
    If I did things correctly, I should have a rudimentary two-way synchronization working now… I'm not sure if there's still a 5 minute delay between posting and federating... let's see.
  • 19 Votes
    8 Posts
    2k Views
    hrefna@hachyderm.ioH

    @julian I am once again reminded of why Roberts Rules are written the way that they are and why the "Roberts Rules for small groups" caps at 12 people.

  • 13 Votes
    7 Posts
    569 Views
    julianJ

    @[email protected] not a problem, I'll post up the minutes soon for open discussion!

    We didn't get into any technical details re: ordered collections, etc., so there's still time to discuss the intricacies of 9988.