Minutes from 3 October 2024 WG Meeting
-
@trwnh @julian @erincandescent I guess there you'd need to look at Move and make sure the target/actor/objects weren't Actors but where other objects?
-
@erincandescent @trwnh so by my reckoning, Mastodon and Misskey don't use context, akkoma does... ugh, I need to add more sources to my observatory
-
@darius @evan @julian side note: Akkoma also emits a “conversation” property containing the same URL, which is JSON-LD mapped to
http://ostatus.org#conversation. This is because Mastodon will pass-through theconversationproperty to replies, but doesn’t know aboutcontext. When Mastodon generates a Conversation tag (e.g. when its absent from the parent post), it stuffs a tag URI liketag:cosocial.ca,2024-10-04:objectId=26829720:objectType=Conversationinto it. This is visible in evan’s earlier postside side note: “conversation” is misdeclared as a “@value” and not “@id” property in Mastodon’s context. Oh well.
-
-
-
@julian @erincandescent if you want your post to be in the same context as the thing you're replying to, then it's inherited from the thing you're replying to.
7888 also describes what could happen if you decide to set your own context, or set *no* context. in fact, this is how you would self-fork a topic.
-
-
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent yeah, honestly the existing use of Move for migrations is really unfortunate because you're saying "i moved myself from myself to another person" which makes no sense. it should have been defined some other way (Migrate activity? intransitive, takes `actor` and `target` but no `object`). Move makes more sense to manipulate collections (and that's the example provided in AS2-Vocab)
-
@trwnh @julian @erincandescent agreed, another FEP?
-
@erincandescent @darius Lemmy uses `audience` instead, referring to the Lemmy community, which is a Group actor, and you're expected to look through the `outbox` and reconstruct replies on your own. the only hint you have is that the root of a reply tree is represented by an Announce Create Page.
good luck
-
-
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Arguably, when Lemmy uses
audiencethey mean one level of abstraction higher than we do (the community). Like Mastodon, Lemmy doesn't actively support the concept of a context... I think. -
@trwnh @julian (For people following along: I did a quote post experiemnt branching off form here that it seems NodeBB dropped on the floor)
-
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent for Migrate, or Move? i think Migrate might not get much traction so idk if it's worth writing it up, and as for Move i think it makes sense for a FEP building off of the work of the forum TF or maybe even their final CG report. (there's a very skeletonized draft of fep-9988 "federated forums" still on my laptop, which was abandoned more or less when the forum TF was launched)
-
@trwnh @julian @erincandescent there is already a Move for migration FEP
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius this reminds me i was going to write a FEP for addressing to signal when you should use to/cc/audience based on some archaeology i did https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/overlapping-taxonomies-and-the-audience-property/4229/8
-
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent yeah, and it mostly describes existing practices rather than proposing any particular path forward
in any case i think the whole "migration" flow right now suffers from some poor semantics all around, and is actually one of the reasons we can't have nice things (proper support for alsoKnownAs instead of using it as a glorified rel-me)
so maybe i *will* write up a FEP anyway, even if no one implements it at least it would be recorded as a potential approach
-
@trwnh @thisismissem @julian For all that the current use of as:alsoKnownAs disagrees with its definition… I’m not sure that’s a problem (except for the need to amend the spec)
We have reasonably straightfoward ways to indicate “This is also me” (alsoKnownAs) vs “This is an exact alias for me” (xrd:alias)
-
@julian @erincandescent @darius right, so Lemmy basically forces you to start one level higher and then work your way down, on top of all the reply-tree reconstruction you're expected to do from one big outbox haystack
it reminds me of how we should actually try to flesh out the concept of Group actors and maybe alongside it the concept of a Forum (bc they're not the same to me, there are differences that need to be called out)
