The vocabulary part of #GoActivityPub is getting closer and closer to being able of generating and operating with custom #ActivityPub data types.
-
The vocabulary part of #GoActivityPub is getting closer and closer to being able of generating and operating with custom #ActivityPub data types.
https://go-activitypub.federated.id/lib/rfc/code-generation.html
@mariusor Have you seen @Steve_Bate 's ontology?
https://github.com/steve-bate/activitypub-ontology
I use this in addition to the JSON-LD context document. It gives you more type information as well as telling you which terms are valid in which objects, and some other stuff, not all of which I've been able to use.
Some of the FEPs have similar data describing their custom terms too.
(This way I'm generating struct definitions as an output, though, rather than using them as input.)
-
@mariusor Have you seen @Steve_Bate 's ontology?
https://github.com/steve-bate/activitypub-ontology
I use this in addition to the JSON-LD context document. It gives you more type information as well as telling you which terms are valid in which objects, and some other stuff, not all of which I've been able to use.
Some of the FEPs have similar data describing their custom terms too.
(This way I'm generating struct definitions as an output, though, rather than using them as input.)
@FenTiger based on that graph, it's incorrect. Some type hierarchies are invalid: OrderedCollection is an Object not just a Thing, Application is not disjoint to Actor, etc.
-
@FenTiger based on that graph, it's incorrect. Some type hierarchies are invalid: OrderedCollection is an Object not just a Thing, Application is not disjoint to Actor, etc.
@mariusor I've certainly had to adjust it in places to make things work.
I've also been focusing far more on interoperability than theoretical correctness, and I'm sure I ended up deviating from the spec in all sorts of places...
-
The vocabulary part of #GoActivityPub is getting closer and closer to being able of generating and operating with custom #ActivityPub data types.
https://go-activitypub.federated.id/lib/rfc/code-generation.html
-
@mariusor Have you seen @Steve_Bate 's ontology?
https://github.com/steve-bate/activitypub-ontology
I use this in addition to the JSON-LD context document. It gives you more type information as well as telling you which terms are valid in which objects, and some other stuff, not all of which I've been able to use.
Some of the FEPs have similar data describing their custom terms too.
(This way I'm generating struct definitions as an output, though, rather than using them as input.)
@FenTiger @mariusor @Steve_Bate
To what extent does activitypub interoperate with the linked data / ontology world? I know it's based on JSON-LD but I'd like to know more. (I'm a PhD student partly in⦠ontologies!)
-
@FenTiger @mariusor @Steve_Bate
To what extent does activitypub interoperate with the linked data / ontology world? I know it's based on JSON-LD but I'd like to know more. (I'm a PhD student partly in⦠ontologies!)
@balcanquhal
For example the #valueflows ontology by @lynnfoster and @bhaugen is used in the #Flohmarkt app to instigate an 'Economiverse'.
You can check the Schema Observatory for common uses.
@FenTiger @mariusor @Steve_Bate -
@mariusor I've certainly had to adjust it in places to make things work.
I've also been focusing far more on interoperability than theoretical correctness, and I'm sure I ended up deviating from the spec in all sorts of places...
@FenTiger I don't meant to start a fight but I think that focusing on interop - especially with Mastodon, with their wanton disregard of spec compliance - is the wrong move. The only way Mastodon will fix their shit is if there's a large enough mass of servers out there that serves them documents they don't handle correctly, and the users starts to complain. I can't do it alone.
-
? [[global:guest]] crossposted this topic to General Discussion
-
@silverpill I appreciate the sentiment, but type in this was mostly about data structure, not object types.
-
@FenTiger I don't meant to start a fight but I think that focusing on interop - especially with Mastodon, with their wanton disregard of spec compliance - is the wrong move. The only way Mastodon will fix their shit is if there's a large enough mass of servers out there that serves them documents they don't handle correctly, and the users starts to complain. I can't do it alone.
@marius I think that's a reasonable position to take, and in fact that's how I'm approaching the OAuth stuff, by following the OAuth WG specs to the letter and if that breaks compatibility with anyone else then that's their problem rather than mine
I just find the W3C/SWICG stuff to be very hard to interpret unambiguously, which makes it difficult to use as anything other than a guideline. -
@marius I think that's a reasonable position to take, and in fact that's how I'm approaching the OAuth stuff, by following the OAuth WG specs to the letter and if that breaks compatibility with anyone else then that's their problem rather than mine
I just find the W3C/SWICG stuff to be very hard to interpret unambiguously, which makes it difficult to use as anything other than a guideline.@fentiger sure, I don't mean that.
I'm thinking more about: send types other than Note, send more than 4 attachments, send mixed form attachments, support multiple attributedTo values, support multiple inReplyTo values, etc. Mastodon is bottom of the barrel for compatibility...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login