T
@julian @jenniferplusplus @silverpill for example, if you intend to have a Move activity show up in the displayed conversation, it would in theory have two contexts: one context binds the activity log, and the other context binds the current conversation items
if both are declared explicitly, then the way you’d tell the two apart is by some heuristic (probably using new types or properties). but the activity log context may be implicit by way of the outbox.
@julian @jenniferplusplus @silverpill sure, but the set of instructions to replay is not the same as the final resulting state to be displayed. they are (or should be) distinct concepts
i’m not against exposing both, i’m just against exposing the activity log as the context for non-activity objects. doing that would be inaccurate or imprecise (you’d be collapsing the two contexts together)
of course there’s still flexibility where an activity may belong to both contexts
@julian @silverpill @jenniferplusplus this is less about feps to me and more about being clear and correct with the statements and descriptions. it’s not just the property or the value. the current subject also matters.
the context binding several activities together is not the same as the context binding the objects of those activities. we shouldn’t semantically confuse the two.
@codl it’s not even rock!
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian
context on the object vs context on the activity?
the objects added into the conversation are the .items, and the activities related to the conversation can be put in the .outbox or .history or some other property of the conversation (not a property of the individual items)
@julian @silverpill @jenniferplusplus i'm still of the opinion that going directly from "post" to "conversation activities" without first passing through "conversation" doesn't make sense
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian it's at worst 1 extra request, but there are other reasons why that doesn't seem like a good idea. first of all, it's conceptually not a property of the post; it's a property of the *Create activity* et al. it's like asking for a property that goes directly on posts whose value is the outbox of its author, instead of simply following attributedTo.outbox as a property path...
@wizard because it works
@eeeee sorry, what is this is in response to? i'm not sure i understand what you're trying to say
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian i don't understand why anyone would need to go directly from a single post to a collection of activities having to do with the thread. isn't it enough to pass through the thread itself first? e.g. take the Note.context.outbox for an "activity log", or if you're going to define a new property, then define it on the thread instead of on the post -- Note.context.history for example following https://w3id.org/fep/bad1
@julian well, the building blocks are kinda there but they're assembled pretty weirdly. i'm wondering how you feel about deconstructing that and maybe publishing semantically correct activitystreams documents as an alternative interface to html? it's a more "web" approach than a "fedi" approach, but i do think it could be a good fit for nodebb at least philosophically wrt "you shouldn't have to mirror the entire network". a linked data browser like browser.pub could make use of that data...
@julian i don't think this is a 1b12 thing per se, it's more that mastodon is biased toward individuals over communities, and a lot of its activities are private and not forwarded, so you never get the full context unless you follow everyone involved.
on the other hand, 1b12 says entirely too much about the types of everything. imo it misuses Group, Page, and Announce (arguably).
i also would prefer something more browsable
@tedu i... what? someone actually said that????
not strictly *useless*, mind you -- just esoteric. i wonder if there's other vocabs out there that handle the problem area better.
it strikes me wrt AS2 that reifying a Relationship is kinda like reifying a Link but even more esoteric
just about the only thing that's *more* esoteric is reifying a Profile
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian in other words something like
```yaml
id: some-collection
summary: "alice's followers"
type: Collection
items: [bob, charlie, david]
itemsObjectOf:
type: Relationship
subject: alice
relationship: IsFollowedBy
itemsSubjectOf:
type: Relationship
relationship: IsFollowing
object: alice
```
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian conceptually they still are both "contexts" in that they group things that belong together, but there's probably a missing piece somewhere to signal a more specific purpose, like some way to describe the implied relationship between some subject and all collection items (linked by some predicate)
this is a more general problem bc you don't know that a given collection is e.g. a followers collection or a replies collection.
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian
```yaml
id: x
context: thread-activities
actor: a
type: Create
object:
id: y
context: thread-posts
content: "foo"
```
thread-posts can contain your contentful objects, and thread-activities can contain everything even tangentially related to that conversation
@silverpill @jenniferplusplus @julian have you considered that maybe "posts" can have their own `context`, and "activities" can also have their own `context`?