idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something).
-
@by_caballero yeah i'm not saying AP is "open-world" but rather it straddles the line
AS2 requiring the AS2 context is a bit weird from an LD perspective because it introduces weird "supremacy" conflicts especially with the "MUST NOT override" requirement
i've thought that perhaps jsonld context should only ever be a "progressive enhancement" to json, and that new apis or interchange formats should instead use *expanded* form, and processors should expand any compacted json(ld) before using it
-
bumblefudgereplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by [email protected]
@trwnh oh interesting i didn't realize that you meant openworld/closedwforld that literally in the RDF sense, i thought you meant more in the protocol-design sense (of like "drop all unfamiliar properties" as is conventional for all JSON protocols versus "here is how you cautiously parse or preserve for others what you don't know")
-
bumblefudgereplied to bumblefudge last edited by [email protected]
@trwnh but that's a difference without a distinction, perhaps
-
@by_caballero the blog post is basically just gonna be this thread but formatted in html with headings, so you're not missing much lol. maybe will be up by tomorrow, still need to decide on the uri, probably gonna create an /unstable directory for things that might get moved out later
-
@by_caballero @trwnh this would work except for the specific way that number portability is implemented. At least historically, and very likely still today, the "database" used to map phone numbers as assigned by exchange blocks (i.e., to a given carrier) to phone numbers that have been ported to a different carrier by the customer (under number portability laws) was a set of spreadsheets synchronized by FTP at intervals. Access to said "databases" is entirely contractual.
-
-
@by_caballero @trwnh so _in theory_ PSTN operators could provide a lookup system, but it'd be jank af at best, and more likely it would be a horrendous unfixable security disaster.
-
@blaine @by_caballero i was thinking more that you could declare a tel: as one of your "aliases" at your authoritative wf and then it percolates through the rest of the system
-
@trwnh @by_caballero since tel: is extremely fraught, especially nowadays with insane phone spam etc, a Signal/WhatsApp/etc address might be a good alternative example?
I particularly like the "established encrypted messenger" example because the wf->[rel=messenger]-> lookup could get Fedi encrypted DMs "for free."
(obviously lots I'm glossing over that make it more complicated, but in theory it'd be less complicated than many alternatives)
-
-
@by_caballero @trwnh omg do not get me started on ens
-
@trwnh I dispute open web being 1:1...
extensibility in an open world web means keeping up to date with every new standard huge browsers add
but otherwise awesome
-
Darius Kazemireplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh This is related to my recent-ish realization (which I always knew on some level but never formulated explicitly) that AP simply does not have much to say about the mechanics of federation. And that there is basically nowhere that federation is defined; it is pretty much left as an implementation detail for the author of a server to figure out
-
Darius Kazemireplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh Hmmm. In the open web we have a thing called a browser vendor whose job is de facto to act as the choke point where they are the ones who have to be aware of every implementation. Then as devs we get to black box it as "this is what web browsers support".
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Darius Kazemi last edited by
@darius yeah, this is complicated by every fedi thing being its own web browser and this is on top of it also being its own mail server... it just ends up doing both poorly.
-
Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.replied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
<gestures to the sign>
Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D. (@[email protected])
This is my regular nitpicky post that "walled garden" is really a terrible metaphor for "corporate controlled monolithic media environment." People put up walls around gardens largely to keep things like deer and sheep out. In a lot of places, if you want flowers and vegetables, you have to have walls. Mastodon is much more like a lot of walled gardens (IN A GOOD WAY!) than the big socials.
social.coop (social.coop)
Non-corporate/non-VC social media really needs to stop hating on "walled gardens" and start thinking about how you mind the gate that lets you into the garden and who gets in and who gets out.
If this exclusion still seems bad, start with "fascists" and then work outward from there.
-
Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.replied to Michael T. Bacon last edited by
I want fedi folks to start thinking about commons instead of getting hung up on stuff that's basically warmed over "the cathedral and the bazaar."
All functional commons involve inclusion and exclusion. They are neither purely closed nor open. They are variously open or closed depending on the combination of who you are and what you want to do.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Michael T. Bacon last edited by
@MichaelTBacon i think you're using closed/open in a different way from how i'm using it, which for formal logic means either "everything is true unless it's false" or "there are some things i don't know, and they aren't necessarily false, i just don't know"
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@MichaelTBacon In other words, a "protocol" needs to know everything there is to know, and it is undesirable to have unknowns. Contrast with the viewpoint that it's perfectly fine to have unknowns, and in fact, you can expect unknowns by default. You'll never have a complete view of the universe.
-
Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.replied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
In that regard, I have to say that I think I'm still in a little bit of a grey area. The power of AP is in the fact that it can socialize a wide range of things, and I don't think that world should be closed in advanced.
At the same time, a protocol needs a set of sub-standards at least (lots of old IETF protocols had CAPABILITY commands) that let you figure out which specific closed world you're operating in.