Jargon term, should define:
@julian @silverpill @trwnh So, what about returning the root object, like a `Note` or `Article`, with `replies` and `context` included?
@julian @silverpill @trwnh So, what about returning the root object, like a `Note` or `Article`, with `replies` and `context` included?
Would it make sense to add Thread as another type? (AP objects can have multiple types). So it’d be "type": ["OrderedCollection", "Thread"], that sort of thing?
@codenamedmitri@socialhub.activitypub.rocks @evan@cosocial.ca did mention the same, although support for sending an object with multiple types is unknown (to me, at least).
I fully expect some implementations to break when encountering such a thing.
@evan @julian @silverpill This goes back to a convo from yesterday about how to handle Activity types with content, which conceivably makes them "posts" in the sense of an "activity stream". ("John Created a Note" is a first-class item in much the same way "Sally Liked a Note" is also a first-class item in Facebook's activity feed, or "Alice Added 9 Images to a MediaAlbum" would be.)
If you put content on an Announce, then that Announce is ostensibly its own "post" in addition to being a share.
@evan @julian @silverpill This goes back to a convo from yesterday about how to handle Activity types with content, which conceivably makes them "posts" in the sense of an "activity stream". ("John Created a Note" is a first-class item in much the same way "Sally Liked a Note" is also a first-class item in Facebook's activity feed, or "Alice Added 9 Images to a MediaAlbum" would be.)
If you put content on an Announce, then that Announce is ostensibly its own "post" in addition to being a share.
@evan @julian @silverpill But yes, in most cases, you will probably be using types such as Note or Article.
@evan @julian @silverpill But yes, in most cases, you will probably be using types such as Note or Article.
@trwnh @julian @silverpill OK. I mean, we just call that an `Object`.
@trwnh @julian @silverpill especially in a forum thread, right? It's just not the place you put an `TentativeReject` activity or a `Relationship` object.
@trwnh @julian @silverpill especially in a forum thread, right? It's just not the place you put an `TentativeReject` activity or a `Relationship` object.
@evan @julian @silverpill In terms of a potential WIP FEP, I would tentatively define a Conversation as a Collection where each item has at least `content`. I would likewise define a MediaAlbum as a Collection where each item is an Image or Video. There are probably other type definitions that could make sense.
@evan @julian @silverpill In terms of a potential WIP FEP, I would tentatively define a Conversation as a Collection where each item has at least `content`. I would likewise define a MediaAlbum as a Collection where each item is an Image or Video. There are probably other type definitions that could make sense.
@trwnh @julian @silverpill yeah, I just don't like the ducktyping on the 'content' property.
@trwnh @julian @silverpill I think the question here is "does a thread actually have any distinct properties of its own?"
Maybe a title, but that can also be inherited from either the first or most recent post. Many threaded discussion systems don't have thread objects at all, of course (email is perhaps the canonical example)
So I lean towards the idea that you should just redirect to the first thread in the post, and place the context (which when becomes just a collection of in-thread posts; an implementation detail) at another URL where it mostly becomes invisible to users.
And I think that's better, especially because having significant semantics on collections starts getting confusing when e.g. you have collection pages flying around
Really I think most types which can be represented directly as a collection (e.g. image galleries) are best represented as an object that possess a collection, though not everyone might agree
@erincandescent @julian @silverpill It makes sense for threads to have not just their own title, but also their own audience and moderators, as well as flags for whether the thread is pinned or locked.
@erincandescent @julian @silverpill It makes sense for threads to have not just their own title, but also their own audience and moderators, as well as flags for whether the thread is pinned or locked.
@erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net said:
So I lean towards the idea that you should just redirect to the first thread in the post, and place the context (which when becomes just a collection of in-thread posts; an implementation detail) at another URL where it mostly becomes invisible to users.
That's why I'm still on the fence about this whole thing. In principle, a thread object can and does exist in software, but in practice there is lots of prior art that says otherwise.
That said, email might be a threaded chain of messages, but most email clients I know have standardized around representing them as a discrete topic, if only in the UI.
@trwnh@mastodon.social @evan@cosocial.ca @silverpill@mitra.social
1 Like
@trwnh @julian @silverpill (the other option is instead of redirection do <link> tags, and then you can link to both if you wish; imagine including <link rel="as:context" href="...">)