NodeBB-ActivityPub Bridge Test Instance

@trwnh @dansup If the bite was in the middle of the hot dog, then you’re definitely dealing with a psychopath.

@raphael i’m not sure how feasible it is to standardize “skills” descriptions, but the goal would indeed be to find some mapping between natural language and machine-parseable assertions/claims. there is some prior work from 2002 but i don’t really find it as an adequate solution: http://rdfs.org/resume-rdf/

really the problem is that building the concept of the all-powerful Service into your core worldview means you are quite possibly overcomplicating it from the start

@natalie i’m going to write it myself and implement it on my website / messenger

@raphael really, that's kind of the whole point of a "fragment" identifier, it identifies a "fragment" of the resource, and its semantics are determined by the media type.for text/html, a fragment corresponds to an id= attribute or otherwise can be read by javascript. see https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/html for "Fragment identifier considerations"

@nik it's not obligatory at all, though? taking a hardline RDF stance and asking anyone who disagrees to "stop developing for ActivityPub" is asking basically all of fedi to stop. they're not going to listen to this, and they're not going to oblige in the slightest.

@jens this is why i put "clever" in quotation marks. like, yes, that's just how references work, no problems there.the problem is that you are taking something that isn't activity+json and sticking it in an activity+json document.more precisely, the media type no longer applies to the *entire* document; there is a fragment of the document that has a different media type (like the hypothetical schemadotorg+json i was talking about earlier)

honestly the hardest part of getting started is constantly being interrupted just before you reach activation energy