silverpill:According to ActivityStreams Vocabulary, the domain of target is Activity.

[claire@socialhub.activitypub.rocks]

silverpill:

According to ActivityStreams Vocabulary, the domain of target is Activity. I suggest replacing QuoteAuthorization object with QuoteAuthorize activity, or maybe even with a standard Add activity where target is a quotes collection (similar to shares).

We noticed that as well. For some reason I was under the impression that there was prior art in ActivityStreams vocabulary itself with the use of object for Relationship non-activities, but the domain of the object property is correctly (though somewhat messily) defined as being either Activity or Relationship.

We decided to use an object rather than an Activity following a suggestion from @trwnh that “generic” ActivityPub servers might run in more edge cases processing Delete for activities than objects, in addition to that pattern allowing Delete(Delete) which would be pretty weird.

As for using an Add activity, its existence would in itself not be a proof of existence of the item being part of the collection, as a later Remove unknown to the party performing the verification could exist. As for checking presence in a collection, we are not aware of a guaranteed efficient way to do it and we are not sure we want to always expose a list of all quote posts.

silverpill:

If approval stamp is an activity, the approver could Undo it.

ActivityPub defines Undo as undoing side-effects, not removing the activity itself. Here, we would want the stamp to disappear. As for side-effects, we precisely designed the proposal for it not to require new server-side behavior.

silverpill:

I guess this is a typo, and the text should be “to the author of the quoted post”?

Good catch! I'll fix that! Thanks!

silverpill:

In the previous section you talked about Accept(Quote) activity. Does Approve serve a different purpose, or it was supposed to be Accept too?

That's a leftover from a previous version of the draft. This should read Accept, not Approve. I'll fix that!

silverpill:

The use of Accept/Approve and Reject activities appears to be aligned with FEP-5624.

Indeed, FEP-5624 was a similar attempt at a tackling a similar problem, but it never went in use, in particular because of the issue of deciding who is the authority on replies. I believe for quotes, the authority being the quoted user is uncontroversial, and quote chains have very different dynamics than reply chains.

I feel like that quotes are a way to bring a new discussion in another context, so it seems at odds with conversation containers, which are about keeping a context across a whole conversation.