Hello, I’m working with the Open Metaverse Interoperability Group (OMI) on figuring out how we might use ActivityPub to represent identity across multiple virtual worlds. Identity in this case being, at a minimum, display name and a url to the person’s avatar model.
Our definition of the metaverse aligns pretty closely with the fediverse. We believe that the metaverse is composed of a series of interconnected virtual worlds. No one organization can control the metaverse and anyone can create and host a connected virtual world. We’re focused on determining pieces that can be interoperable and this identity spec is the first of one of those possible points of interoperability.
I attended the W3C SocialWeb CG meeting this morning and brought up a concern from some people in our community. ActivityPub is a large spec, creating a full implementation is a lot of work. Right now we could get away with only requiring the data expressed in the Actor object and a small extension for the avatar model. Would encouraging members of our community to focus on supporting this small subset of the spec and allowing for servers that only implement the inbox/outbox and activities that modify the Actor object be in line with the views of this community? I’ve seen ActivityPub servers that only support certain subsets of the spec, but this is a very extreme case. Would we be creating a mess if we encouraged people to do this?
I don’t see how we can require users wishing to develop their own server implementations for our use case to implement the whole ActivityPub spec. Certainly, some will take the existing full implementations like Mastodon and extend it to support OMI’s specs. But people want to be able to implement the whole stack themselves. Removing requirements for additional complexity that we won’t use seems like a good way to get people on board with ActivityPub in our field.
Curious to hear your feedback, thank you!