Minutes from 3 October 2024 WG Meeting

julian

Arguably, when Lemmy uses audience they 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.

cc @[email protected]

Erin 💽✨

@julian @trwnh @darius yeah I don’t really object to their use of audience to refer to a community here, its basically the same as to: the community or similar

Their non-use of context is… disappointing, but then much of how Lemmy uses AP is disappointing and Weird.

Erin 💽✨

@trwnh @julian (For people following along: I did a quote post experiemnt branching off form here that it seems NodeBB dropped on the floor)

infinite love ⴳ

@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)

Emelia 👸🏻

@trwnh @julian @erincandescent there is already a Move for migration FEP

infinite love ⴳ

@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

infinite love ⴳ

@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

Erin 💽✨

@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)

infinite love ⴳ

@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)

infinite love ⴳ

@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 ⴳ

@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

Evan Prodromou

@erincandescent @julian @darius it's covered in the doc, which is free to read!

Erin 💽✨

@evan @julian @darius That doesn’t really cover the why other than “context is vaguely defined” (maybe, but its’ been used in this exact way for… 7 years now? And is being used in this way by multiple interoperating implementations)

Evan Prodromou

@erincandescent @julian @darius you can also file an issue here:

fep

fep - Fediverse Enhancement Proposals

Codeberg.org (codeberg.org)

Darius Kazemi

@erincandescent @julian @evan it does mention the @context name collision which is imo a real point of confusion

Evan Prodromou

@erincandescent @julian @darius great. You can definitely use both.

`context` is fine for any kind of grouping of objects, as is noted in AV.

Activity Vocabulary

(www.w3.org)

If you want to specifically talk about a conversation tree, a more specific property is better.

Evan Prodromou

@erincandescent @julian @darius finally, if you'd like to talk to me as part of the Forums TF or even as part of the FEP process, where there's a code of conduct, I'd appreciate it if you dial back your derisive tone. It's not OK to talk to me or anybody else working on AP that way.

Erin 💽✨

@evan @julian @darius I don’t really have a horse in this race but we’ll probably never get rid of the existing use of context so I mostly question the advantage of us having to deal with three conversation grouping properties for the indefinite future

Evan Prodromou

@erincandescent @julian @darius I think the best followup might be commenting on the PR or filing an issue on Codeberg.

infinite love ⴳ

@darius @erincandescent @julian @evan well, the json-ld keyword has an @ in front of it for a reason: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#syntax-tokens-and-keywords

id and type got aliased but they're really supposed to be @\id and @\type: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/232

other point of confusion re: @\context vs context was overruled: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/238