Minutes from 3 October 2024 WG Meeting
-
@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)
-
@erincandescent @julian @thisismissem well the real problem is it has undefined implicit "real-world" usage in fedi... and then separately the DID WG tried to (re?)define it in DID Core. but there's already stuff out there in DID world that uses alsoKnownAs the way it's defined in DID Core!
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@thisismissem @julian @erincandescent after some slight reconsideration i think i might hold off on a FEP because the bigger issue with migration and a so-called Migrate activity is that what i should *really* be doing is accounting for multihoming. in that sense, Migrate might not make too much sense. anyway i'm moving it to the "requires further thought" section of my todoist list
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius it's covered in the doc, which is free to read!
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius you can also file an issue here:
-
@erincandescent @julian @evan it does mention the @context name collision which is imo a real point of confusion
-
@erincandescent @julian @darius great. You can definitely use both.
`context` is fine for any kind of grouping of objects, as is noted in AV.
If you want to specifically talk about a conversation tree, a more specific property is better.
