Recent searches
Search options
Just noticed there's no back-linking from collections to the Actor who owns that collection?
Like if I fetch a collection by arbitrary URI, I think knowing which actor(s) own / can manage that collection is really important information.
Additionally, the way AP defines Add and Remove doesn't make any sense at all since my actor can't tell your server that I've added you to a collection without a request directly from you
So Add and Remove can't be used to synchronise changes to a collection over time.
@thisismissem@hachyderm.ioIf the sender owns the collection, why can't it use Add or Remove to signal to another server that the owner of that collection has modified it? #activitypub
@thisismissem maybe you just habe to update your cache
@thisismissem Yep, your analysis is correct.
There are ways around it (nothing stops us from including such a back-link, or turning every collection into an actor in its own right), but there's nothing by default.
@thisismissem There is no sense of parentage or controllers, something that @jenniferplusplus and I have both encountered and discussed at various points. So there's never any idea, looking only at the object, of "who do I talk to _about_ this object."
@hrefna @jenniferplusplus have opened https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/466 after I accidentally started that discussion on https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/465
@hrefna @thisismissem this feels like an extension of the debate that @jenniferplusplus was having recently. Is AP about publishing or is it really about syncing? When I hear you all discuss, it feels like you're in this weird middle ground that isn't great in either direction. And I wonder what it means for the protocol that there isn't a lot of clarity in intent here.
@polotek @hrefna @thisismissem it really isn't great.
The purpose people keep trying to put it to is sharing, in my view. Which is actually somewhere in the middle. But it's also complicated and full of edge cases and necessary compromises, and no good way to navigate that.
@polotek @hrefna @thisismissem @jenniferplusplus good point.
are there more sync-ish attempts?
or more "publish and forget" attempts where if they miss an update, too bad?
@risottobias @polotek @hrefna @thisismissem Yes, but I'm not sure the answer will be satisfying. For efforts that are more interested in syncing some kind of shared state, you should probably look more at p2p messaging apps. Stuff like Matrix or Cwtch. XMPP is worth a mention, too.
For one-way publishing, the answer is RSS and Atom. You might also consider email.
But none of those does what we want this network to do.
@risottobias @polotek @hrefna @thisismissem Oh, and I'm sure the Spritely gang have thoughts
@thisismissem what is even a collection?
@wonderfox it's an ActivityPub / ActivityStreams thing.
A collection can be a set of objects, so Actors, Notes, etc.
Collections can be used for addressing, e.g., the Followers or Following collection.
@thisismissem ah thanks, got it
@wonderfox so like your followers and following are unique reverse-chronological collections of those Actors, your pinned statuses on your account is a `featured` Collection on your Actor of Notes.