@julian @scott in other words: for social media / network / "post" purposes, the context is almost always some thread. if it doesn't fit the shape of a thread, then don't treat it as a thread, but in most cases it will. otherwise it wouldn't be a "context", it'd just be some object/collection.

i'm defining "thread" as "when you reify a conversational context, specifically as a collection with an owner and canonical representation, instead of something you have to reconstruct for yourself".

@julian @scott the problem with saying that a "thread" is different from a "conversational context reified as a collection" is that there is no criteria i am seeing by which a thread is different. the thread is a purposeful grouping (context), it has a canonical representation (collection items), and it is maintained by its owner (attributedTo). what more do you need? an explicit declaration that it is a 171b:ConversationContainer? what does that get you?

@julian @scott at best, a dedicated type like ConversationContainer can hint that it was produced by some producer following the ConversationContainer spec/fep/whatever, but the problem is that a) anyone can claim that type without following the spec, and b) it's not actually needed for processing the context property, because you already know it is semantically the context -- the origin or purpose of that object. if it's an id, you group by that id, and if it's a collection then you fetch items

@julian @scott basically if 171b wants to define a ConversationContainer type to signal that a producer is following that fep/spec/whatever then they can do that. i maintain that the use of `target` is still incorrect, invalid, and redundant, but it is what it is. if a similar/different fep defines some other type to signal basically the same thing except in details, then that can also be done. in the end, i would advise that the actual "protocol" doesn't require hardcoded type checking.

@julian @scott in any case the algorithm for processing the post as a topic owner is:

1) loop over `context` for any ids you own
2) if the post is acceptable to you, add it to the relevant collection

the algorithm for processing the post as a third-party observer is:

1) look at `context` to see if any of them are collections
2) pick a collection and navigate to it, discarding the post. if it's actually in the collection, you'll see it again.

@julian @scott that's basically what this all boils down to, really -- not a technical change, but a social one.

our softwares should stop trying to reconstruct shadow collections based on what they *think* should be in there, and they should just browse to the actual collections.

in general, more things should work like web browsers instead of blackboxes that gobble up data and mash it together based on their best guess of how they think it's connected.

@julian

If, for example, someone were to see my context and say "I'd like to map this context's objects out into a word cloud and do sentiment analysis on it", I think that's a perfectly cromulent use of the data. For me to say "this here is a thread, and you better treat it as a thread" is contrary to the spirit of ActivityPub and fedidevs in general.

Simply declaring a collection to be a thread does not force people to display it as a thread. But it does provide valuable information to people who do want to display it as a thread.

So you are not removing people's choice by simply stating that on your platform, this is considered a thread.

@infinite love ⴳ

our softwares should stop trying to reconstruct shadow collections based on what they *think* should be in there, and they should just browse to the actual collections.

That is my point. If you tell me what the thread is, I can download all of the posts within that thread. I don't even have to parse the reply tree at all.

@scott@authorship.studio @trwnh@mastodon.social I'm at a loss as to why you seem to think this is not possible if the property is called context instead of thread.

@julian @infinite love ⴳ As I said before, with platforms like yours, which only have one context, I can assume that one context is the thread.

Declaring which one is the thread is only necessary if you have multiple contexts.

But, I am thinking of other use cases where the context might not be a thread, or there are multiple contexts. In that case, additional clues would be very useful.

The reason why I think we should declare threads as threads is for two reasons:

1. It anticipates future use cases that are different from our own.

2. People tend to copy other people's implementations, and we have an opportunity to set the standard and be the example for others to follow.

So, no, you don't need to declare it a thread in your current implementation. But you may have to make changes later when projects start implementing multiple contexts and they don't conform to your assumptions about contexts.

It is always better to explicitly state something than to force people to guess.

@julian @trwnh @evan @jenniferplusplus @mikedev @scott @erincandescent @trwnh What if we use context for activities and thread for posts?

REPARASHINS NIGGA :technijew:

@silverpill @scott @julian @evan @mikedev @jenniferplusplus @trwnh @trwnh the context property is in the objects, not the activities

@scott@authorship.studio said in FEP Convergence (400e, 7888, 171b/Conversation Containers, 76ea):

It is always better to explicitly state something than to force people to guess.

Partially agreed, but in this case I'd feel better about encouraging implementors to move toward a generic representation of object collections, with the potential for a more straightforward way of defining thread-like actions.

Let's take @trwnh@mastodon.social's example of thread forking. You can already express this using existing activities: as:Remove the forked posts out of the as:context, as:Add them to a new as:context. Maybe sprinkle in an as:Announce or something (I read that somewhere...)

Or perhaps a locked thread: as:context owner sends as:Reject and does not federate out an as:Add to followers.

We could definitely go down the road of designing a bespoke property with associated actions, but I feel like the ActivityStreams vocaulary is fairly expressive, if vague at times... that movement against vagueness is exactly what FEP 7888 is all about.

---

We don't know future use cases, and there may be cases in which these decisions look wrong in hindsight, but I'd wager that being too explicit is premature, and an approach that is generic enough to express more is better.

@scott@authorship.studio How to handle multiple contexts is indeed a topic that is well worth visiting. I hear you when you say that given multiple contexts, you don't know which one is the thread. I don't have the answers today, but I want to set the framework so that when we do find the answer, we won't be hamstrung by a past decision.

Right now my thinking is that if you have multiple contexts:

1. You might not need to use multiple contexts (as:context for the thread, as:audience for the collection one level higher)
2. We should recommend that contexts be ordered from narrowest scope to widest

That ought to handle practically all situations (ready to take my words back on this one hah!)

The one sticking point would be situations where an object is part of multiple contexts at the same scope, e.g. a software that lets you inReplyTo multiple context-independent objects. In that case, not even @evan@cosocial.ca's thr:thread property would help because we'd want to set two threads there too! Now we're back at square one.

So at least for today, we can probably safely declare that if multiple contexts are defined, and they both/all point to resolvable collections, you could treat them all like thread-like data structures, if that's your software's thing.