Recently, there was a discussion about generic #ActivityPub servers.
-
@smallcircles @silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor ActivityPub as a space is just a mess, we have multiple types of social media clashing all over one protocoll whcih has a bunch of extensions with some being duplicates of other extensions and then diffrent people fighting over which one is the proper one to implement. At somepoint we just need to reset everything and start from a clean plate cause this shit cant go on forever.
@fox @silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor
Yes. I tooted about the need for Grassroots open standards and Grassroots standardization this morning..
🫧 socialcoding.. (@smallcircles@social.coop)
@hongminhee@hollo.social @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work SX defines the concept of a Grassroots open standard, and a domain of Grassroots standardization. These are direly needed to be able to healthily evolve #ActivityPub to where it can be the future of social networking, and support a peopleverse.
social.coop (social.coop)
In a decentralized grassroots movement, somewhere there needs to an aggregation of the solution artifact. In this case a robust, comprehensible #ActivityPub standard that can be readily implemented in libraries, frameworks and SDK's upon which then subsequently #SocialNetworking solution design can take place.
This is not centralization, this artifact can be federated. But there must be a place of convergence where consensus on protocol design comes together.
There might be a crowdsourced ActivityPub 2.0 specs + documentation site, plus a process around it to make it work.
-
@fox @silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor
Yes. I tooted about the need for Grassroots open standards and Grassroots standardization this morning..
🫧 socialcoding.. (@smallcircles@social.coop)
@hongminhee@hollo.social @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work SX defines the concept of a Grassroots open standard, and a domain of Grassroots standardization. These are direly needed to be able to healthily evolve #ActivityPub to where it can be the future of social networking, and support a peopleverse.
social.coop (social.coop)
In a decentralized grassroots movement, somewhere there needs to an aggregation of the solution artifact. In this case a robust, comprehensible #ActivityPub standard that can be readily implemented in libraries, frameworks and SDK's upon which then subsequently #SocialNetworking solution design can take place.
This is not centralization, this artifact can be federated. But there must be a place of convergence where consensus on protocol design comes together.
There might be a crowdsourced ActivityPub 2.0 specs + documentation site, plus a process around it to make it work.
@smallcircles So we are at XKCD:927 again? Le Sigh. https://xkcd.com/927/ @fox @silverpill@mitra.social @raphael @julian @mariusor
-
@smallcircles So we are at XKCD:927 again? Le Sigh. https://xkcd.com/927/ @fox @silverpill@mitra.social @raphael @julian @mariusor
@jwildeboer @fox @raphael @julian @mariusor
No, not necessarily. The idea of the Grassroots open standard is that it allows an ecosystem that can evolve. That AP 2.0 artifact can be informal, and gradually adopted in W3C tracks, which I have always been advocating for with the 3-stage bottom-up standardization process in the past.
Other than that I am musing about a different approach, which is Protosocial, an AP extension that is 1.0 compliant. Yet not compliant to the protocol decay and tech debt ridden fediverse that grew by post-facto interop over time.
🫧 socialcoding.. (@smallcircles@social.coop)
#ThoughtProvoker :blobhyperthink: The current fediverse is an evolutionary dead-end for 2 reasons: 1. It has painted itself in a small niche of decentralizing typical social media use cases, by means of post-facto interop and the introduction of protocol decay. 2. Lacking a proper grassroots standardization process, and with the primary mechanism for fediverse extension being only post-facto interoperability, there is no way out. Congratulations to the early adopters, who managed to "cross the chasm" with their own app platforms. It took true grit to become deep #ActivityPub experts, and plug holes needed for your app, but you have made it. Post-facto interop works in your favor now. You are unrestrained to productively add more features in your app, and put them on the fedi wire for others to deal with. To avoid fedi to become less and less attractive to newcomers, we must now consider: “Why do we want to grow the open social web, and for whom?” -- @ben@werd.social http://coding.social/blog/shared-ownership/
social.coop (social.coop)
-
@smallcircles So we are at XKCD:927 again? Le Sigh. https://xkcd.com/927/ @fox @silverpill@mitra.social @raphael @julian @mariusor
@jwildeboer @smallcircles @raphael @julian @mariusor next time just post the image bruh
-
@smallcircles @silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor ActivityPub as a space is just a mess, we have multiple types of social media clashing all over one protocoll whcih has a bunch of extensions with some being duplicates of other extensions and then diffrent people fighting over which one is the proper one to implement. At somepoint we just need to reset everything and start from a clean plate cause this shit cant go on forever.
@fox @smallcircles Any important protocol is a mess, be it an internet protocol or an IRL institution.
I don't know much about email, but I bet it's even a bigger mess than ActivityPub.
-
@fox @smallcircles Any important protocol is a mess, be it an internet protocol or an IRL institution.
I don't know much about email, but I bet it's even a bigger mess than ActivityPub.
@silverpill @smallcircles @raphael @julian @mariusor Atleast the federation on it doesnt suck ass. Also the messy part of email is encryption, spam protection and identity verification
-
@benpate Publishing process doesn't change much. A generic server should deliver activities to actors specified in
toandccfields. It should keep track of collections, such asfollowerscollection, and "expand" them before delivery. This part is not different from the regular ActivityPub.I think ID assignment should also work the same. In the FEP I proposed
Addactivity withoutobjectas a special activity for creating collections, but now I see that it will not work if IDs are minted by a server (no FEP-ae97).Perhaps it should be a
Create, after all, as @trwnh described in an adjacent comment. I was hesitant to useCreatebecause this is a problem for FEP-ae97 clients (not a big one though). -
@silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor
Btw, damn we should've caused this entire discussion thread to somehow flow to #SocialHub to have it in the archives. Instead of on "now you see me, now you don't" channel. Peekaboo. 🫣
https://social.coop/@smallcircles/116141469199837056
Here today, gone tomorrow, who made notes? The post-facto interoperability leaders did. Those who happened to be around at the right time to hear things being said on the grapevine.
We need a proper Grassroots standardization process, and a Grassroots open standard that is able to healthily evolve. The good organization of this is just as important as the technical robustness of the protocol, which is the solution artifact at the end of the open standards cocreation pipeline.
This thread is for arguing about the definition of "generic ActivityPub server" :]
I will probably create a topic on SocialHub later.
-
@raphael @silverpill @julian @mariusor
I agree. Aboveall we need to know where protocol ends and 'app' begins. Be generally more deliberate in terminology use, and no longer talk in overloaded terms that have different unclear meanings to different people in different settings (to avoid using 'contexts' one of such overloaded words)
I've noticed for instance people having a very different notion of what a 'generic server' is, in definitions that are almost diametrical opposites.
My definition of generic is 'not specific' i.e. a generic server is a pure #ActivityPub protocol implementation (which is something to agree upon, what that exactly entails), having no knowledge of *any* app / solution built on top of it or 'passing through' its messaging architecture.
In the other meaning a generic server 'knows/does/has it all' i.e. it understands everything we comprise to be 'the fediverse' in a kind of hard-wired fashion based on the functionalities that (marginally) interoperate today.
@smallcircles You might find the idea of ''universal'' abstractions interesting in this context: https://www.humprog.org/~stephen/blog/research/recovering-abstraction.html
Similarly, the idea of "narrow waist" might also be relevant here: https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2022/03/backlog-arch.html#what-is-a-narrow-waist
-
@smallcircles @silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor ActivityPub as a space is just a mess, we have multiple types of social media clashing all over one protocoll whcih has a bunch of extensions with some being duplicates of other extensions and then diffrent people fighting over which one is the proper one to implement. At somepoint we just need to reset everything and start from a clean plate cause this shit cant go on forever.
No. There is no need to "reset". What we need is to have a two-track system based on the FEPs. Start with the AP standard, create and experiment with different FEPs and every couple of years a new revision comes out and specifies what FEPs should be incorporated. When the XMPP crowd started doing that, it got a lot easier for client developers to know what was important and what wasn't.
-
This FEP introduces new requirements to ActivityPub, and I will probably add more in the future. Does that make it non conformant?
In any case, I think calling it an ActivityPub server is appropriate.
Side-effects are activities, I will clarify that in the FEP. The value of
resultproperty can be an embedded activity, or an array of activities.Clients either specify them, or they don't get any side effects.
@silverpill @steve this actually raises an interesting question about "side effects" and where they live. in the AP spec it's rather muddled and i've talked before about the issue of "activities as content/notifications vs activities as procedure calls". i personally err toward having no side effects, which i think were kind of a mistake for the reason you bring up (generic servers can never be aware of extended side effects).
-
@silverpill @steve this actually raises an interesting question about "side effects" and where they live. in the AP spec it's rather muddled and i've talked before about the issue of "activities as content/notifications vs activities as procedure calls". i personally err toward having no side effects, which i think were kind of a mistake for the reason you bring up (generic servers can never be aware of extended side effects).
@silverpill @steve typically i've taken a view similar to IFTTT -- the activities describe things that happen, probably already happened. one or more listeners can do whatever they want with that information. CRUD is boring to me and i would rather do that with HTTP (POST/GET/PUT/DELETE); the more interesting activities are things like Listen (scrobbles) or Arrive (checkins) or Question (stackoverflow) or so on.
-
@silverpill @steve typically i've taken a view similar to IFTTT -- the activities describe things that happen, probably already happened. one or more listeners can do whatever they want with that information. CRUD is boring to me and i would rather do that with HTTP (POST/GET/PUT/DELETE); the more interesting activities are things like Listen (scrobbles) or Arrive (checkins) or Question (stackoverflow) or so on.
@silverpill @steve it sounds like you're describing an "AP server" whose primary functionality is not "publish activities" but rather "manage CRUD for objects and Add/Remove for collections", by taking the AP "side effects" for Create/Update/Delete/Add/Remove and and saying the outbox should also check as:result.
which is cool but should probably be disambiguated.
-
@silverpill @steve it sounds like you're describing an "AP server" whose primary functionality is not "publish activities" but rather "manage CRUD for objects and Add/Remove for collections", by taking the AP "side effects" for Create/Update/Delete/Add/Remove and and saying the outbox should also check as:result.
which is cool but should probably be disambiguated.
@silverpill @steve so maybe instead of "generic activitypub server" the FEP should be called something like "explicitly specifying side effects with the result property". it seems to me like the references to 2277 and fe34 are not strictly necessary to the core idea and a separate FEP could bundle them together into a profile, like "a profile for using outbox activities to manage objects and collections". not sure what the best name is because naming things is the hardest
