@silverpill @raphael @julian @mariusor

Yes, I agree. Though I would rather see a generic server having much less functionality than a Mastodon API exposes, since much of that is app-specific, Microblogging domain already. The generic server should make Mastodon possible as a solution design modeled on top of its #ActivityPub networking layer.

In such a way where we can finally consider the protocol layer to be robust, and are able to treat it as a black box, and are not confronted with all its implementation details when we are doing a solution design.

I think we are probably on the same page, but..

> If you want to go beyond Mastodon API capabilities, you need a truly generic server. Something akin to Nostr relay.

This I would reformulate as:

"If you want to go beyond an app-centric fediverse bound to a Microblogging domain, then you need a generic server conformant to the ActivityPub specification."

Which also indicates I think we need to aggregate puzzle pieces into an AP 2.0

@silverpill @raphael @mariusor

> neither is it an interesting concept

> interoperates with the rest of the network

look, we clearly have different goals here. your goal is to interoperate with the mastodon network. my goal is to publish activities to my website. mastodon doesn't even support all the activities defined in AS2-Vocab. a generic server supports *any* activity, even those not defined by AS2. the network i want to interoperate with isn't mastodon, it's the web.

@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.

@benpate @silverpill @mariusor none of the IDs should have any semantics; from the outside, there is no distinction between a client managed or server managed collection. likes/shares/etc could be managed by a "client" like mastodon, or even a "default" one. it's not any more complex unless you want to vary the collection responses based on the request headers. for that you need a minimal dynamic layer with an access control policy of some sort. (WAC is the simplest, but ACP is more powerful)

@benpate @silverpill in a client managed followers collection i would Add you to my followers just like fedi instances currently do silently. "but how can you prove--" yes exactly, how can current fedi prove anyone is a follower either? you need the Follow+Accept pair to both be live without an Undo on either, right? and that's what leads to the "follow state machine" on fedi that drifts out of sync and leads to private posts being leaked to removed followers (which you can't officially do!)

@benpate Let's assume that my client is a music player. It publishes a Listen activity where object is an Audio. This activity should increase playCount on the Audio object.

One way to support this on the server side is to teach it about Listen, Audio and how to update playCount. This is how most existing servers are built.

But a server described in my FEP would work differently:

- It doesn't know anything about Listen, Audio or playCount.
- Upon receiving Listen, it will recognize it as an activity, and embedded Audio as an object.
- Since this is not a CRUD operation, it will not check permissions.
- If Listen activity has a result property, the server will process that activity as well.
- If result is an Update activity, the server will recognize it as a CRUD operation and will check permissions: Update.actor and Audio.attributedTo must be the same.
- The server will save both activities, Listen and Update.
- Then it will deliver them to intended recipients (to and cc).

Effects are client's responsibility now, it must provide an Update activity if it wants to update playCount. There are other requirements too, for example all objects should have an attributedTo property, which is needed for permission checks.

But in this setup a single server can work with any kind of client.

@mariusor @trwnh

Yes, I think I like the idea of clients being able to store data on the server however they like. It reminds me of this description of ATProto that I found recently: https://overreacted.io/a-social-filesystem/

I guess my question is: once I store my custom stuff in custom places on my server, how do I publish this so other people can find?

And, object IDs are usually defined by the server. So how would it work to say "create a collection named XYZ and add this object to it"?

@silverpill @mariusor @trwnh