@darius @trwnh i mean call me when it's implemented somewhere very far away from me and we can dissect that once we have some samples back from the wild i guess but basically i don't trust people who want to spend time and resources on making "look at this piece of shit" easier to do. the milk smells bad ok i don't need to smell it. it's bad

@trwnh embed, preview, link or similar if you want to drive behavior. If you want semantics, then the list from earlier: reply, review, see also, example, and so on in an open-ended list of possibilities. The last one will almost certainly lead to more whack-a-mole driven development.

@t54r4n1 @darius what about people who want to make it easier to describe so that you can more easily ignore it

@TerryHancock this feels like a function of context and audience, then. what about the link itself?

@matt @tech_himbo is it really necessary though?

i think if we’re going to define such a property then it needs to have a clear definition, and so far from all the responses i’m not getting an answer that isn’t anchored in something else like audience or context.

@trwnh Context is a powerful word. Someone making a dad joke and someone calling in trolls are both changing the context.

I can't think of a more powerful word, so...

@darius @djsundog so… a singular “quoteOf” is likely to be misinterpreted? not sure i get what you’re saying.

if we’re skipping to the end, i am personally of the opinion that maybe there should be a Quote activity. but i am also wondering if that implies that there could also be a Reply activity. at least from a side effects processing perspective it could make sense — “yo, add this to the collection” in the same way we have Like and Announce as separate activities.

@foolishowl okay, that helps a bit. mostly i am trying to figure out how to describe (from a knowledge standpoint) what that “dependency” is.

like if i said “A isQuoteOf B”, how would one define “isQuoteOf”? does a meaningful definition actually exist or not? it is seeming like “not”. a “quote post” is more a function of context, audience, notification, link preview… but it’s not clear where to actually put the link itself.

@joelving for semantic purposes, we refer to the Object as “inReplyTo”, “reviewOf”, “seeAlso”, etc. This is generally equivalent to having Link rel=inReplyTo and so on.

functionally, we need a place to put the Link, if going with a Link. perhaps attachment or tag — those two properties are a sort of grab-bag of generic Links at times.

@trwnh I’m not a web developer or anything so I can’t exactly speak to the HTML equivalent, but yes, it does look like this indented format in my mind. But it doubles as a “citation” because someone reading my post can tap in to the original post to get the full context (analogous to how one might go hunt down the primary source when reading material that quote/cite from it).

@trwnh @tech_himbo hah maybe not! I'm sure there's a clever way to combine existing properties and indicate "this is a quote post". But I can also imagine this making things more convoluted for implementers than just using a new attribute.

I also think there will be large UI / display differences across different content types, e.g. short Note vs long Article. So a new attribute might be too limited to cover all cases (like multiple embedded quotes).

@agnes okay, thank you! it sounds like “quote posts” are primarily about citing some other post in full. would you agree?

@trwnh @tech_himbo so I guess the answer is I don't know lol.

And maybe one solution is just covering the use case(s) we have today, and then evolve it as more people implement / we run into limitations.

@trwnh
I'm not sure I understand that question, but...

Perhaps the way to think of this is that the client should have some indication of whether the post should be threaded with replies or not.

Quote-posts probably should not be -- they're the head of their own new thread.

Of course, the client will actually make this design decision, so we're just hinting to it with the data structure.

(Perhaps the OP should have some way to find those, I guess, but it shouldn't be a default).

@matt @tech_himbo i dont think we can cover the use case without first defining it in a clear and meaningful way

i mean, sure, we could have toot:quoteOf whose definition is “whatever mastodon does”. but that’s mixing app-specific concerns into the generic description framework.

@TerryHancock yeah, “threading” is (or should be) dependent on context (the grouping of strongly related objects)

in this model, changing the context is like starting a new thread.

the part i’m trying to figure out is if this is enough to describe what a “quote post” is doing. changing context, notifying the author, setting the audience to your own followers, etc

@trwnh Yes, and if that post is part of a thread, implicitly citing the whole conversation to provide full context, if whoever reading is interested. Hope it’s OK that mine is not a technical answer

@agnes no, it’s good! i want a non-technical answer. at least one divorced from “tech” in the sense of “how do i get computers to do this” and more relevant to knowledge description in the sense of “what’s really going on here in the bigger picture”

2.5 hours later and the general trend seems to be:

- there isn’t a clear semantic definition for “isQuoteOf” when considering “A isQuoteOf B”
- it is at best a form of citation in full
- we might put it in the generic grab-bag properties of attachment or tag, but it ultimately represents *something* which differs on a case-by-case basis (so a quote post might also be a response/inReplyTo, or something else entirely)

@trwnh by this logic, shouldn’t we replace inReplyTo=otherPost with context=otherPost & a tag to signify that the current post is a reply?