Conversation

Notices

1. Yuri Volkov (yvolk@loadaverage.org)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Aug-2017 05:28:33 UTC Yuri Volkov
   Suggested correction to https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
   1. I noticed an inaccuracy in section 6.9. "Undo Activity"
   "The undo activity and the activity being undone must both have the same author."
   "author" should be changed to "actor" here so it will read:
   "The undo activity and the activity being undone must both have the same actor."
   2. Actually, the "author" property is used (informally ?!) in examples of this document, but I didn't find _any_ reference to such a "property" in https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
   the latter documents uses "actor" instead.
   Looks like autor should be replaced with "actor" in examples also to avoid confusion and incompatible implementations...
   ?!
   • AndStatus repeated this.
   • Christine Lemmer-Webber (cwebber@octodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Sep-2017 13:04:10 UTC Christine Lemmer-Webber

     • Hallå Kitteh

     @yvolk @clacke That's from the tutorial and afaict it's not incorrect, just simplified. Users are actors; left unsaid is that other things can be actors too. (It also didn't say users can't have multiple actors.) The reason it isn't said is to try to reduce the "asides" used in the overview/tutorial, which is trying to allow newcomers to become as familiar with concepts as fast as possible while remaining correct.

     I believe this is "technically correct, which is the best kind of correct" ;)

     AndStatus repeated this.
   • Yuri Volkov (yvolk@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Sep-2017 06:10:33 UTC Yuri Volkov

     • Christine Lemmer-Webber

     @cwebber The #ActivityPub spec's problem is not in that simplistic phrase "users are represented as actors here".
     The problem is that there is NO technical description of the whole domain model layer: relation between Actors (e.g. Person) and Users of servers. Current version will be interpreted as having one-to-one relation between the two _different_ kinds of entities, and that _is_ incorrect
     ?!

     AndStatus repeated this.
   • Yuri Volkov (yvolk@loadaverage.org)'s status on Friday, 29-Sep-2017 06:00:09 UTC Yuri Volkov

     • Hallå Kitteh
     • Christine Lemmer-Webber
     @cwebber Reposting to make sure you received my reply. Where should I file this #ActivityPub issue?
     The #ActivityPub spec's problem is not in that simplistic phrase "users are represented as actors here".
     The problem is that there is NO technical description of the whole domain model layer: relation between Actors (e.g. Person) and Users of servers. Current version will be interpreted as having one-to-one relation between the two _different_ kinds of entities, and that _is_ incorrect
     ?!
     My first post on this subject was:
     Contemplating on correct implementation of a data model, corresponding to the #ActivityPub specification, I started to realize that current version of the document https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub has a gap/confusion of two different notions: Person (one of Actor types, see https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-person ) and a User of a server (quote from ActivityPub spec: "users are represented as "actors" here")
     Actually these are very different notions: a Person may be represented as more than one User, on different servers. And a User may represent not a Person, but e.g. an Organization.
     ?!
     @clacke
     AndStatus repeated this.