Re: ActivityPub spec bug: Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined

@cwebber@octodon.social Thank you for reply to the #ActivityPub issue at
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260

I followed the discussion there plus copying my follow-up below:

1. Let's go step by step. Explicitly stating that Actors and Users are
different entities is a good way forward.
BTW the confusing phrase "users are represented as "actors" here" should
also be changed to "users are mapped to actors" with addition, how (you
suggested wording...)
Where can we see current draft for review how it looks now? You are too
quick to state that the issue is resolved :-)

2. Let's check if the statement is valid:
* ""user" is technically an entity outside the protocol"
2.1 First of all the term is used tens times in the document, which
describes the protocol: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
2.2. The term "user" is used for two different things, actually:
* for "natural person from a real world"
* and for "user's account at a Servetr" (my interpretation).
The second meaning is definitely "inside protocol". Just look at these
phrases, from many available, for example:
* "This protocol permits a client to act on behalf of a user."
* "Client to server interaction takes place through clients posting
Activities to a user's outbox"
My conclusion is that a User in the second meaning "user's account at a
Server" is definitely a part of the protocol description.

3. As now we agreed on separation of an Actor from a User, let's look
again, what we read in the document.
3.1 You know: there are many places, where the word user(s) should be
replaced with a word Actor(s), e.g. here {again, one of many examples):
* "The Follow activity is used to subscribe to the activities of another
user."

4. Attributes of a User are presented as attributes of an Actor in
examples...
-- 
yvolk@loadaverage.org
 URL: https://loadaverage.org/notice/10804410

On Oct 11, 2017 08:31, "Yuri Volkov" <yvolk1@gmail.com> wrote:

> In short:
> The #ActivityPub spec's problem is not in that simplistic phrase "users
> are represented as actors here".
> The problem is that there is NO technical description of the whole domain
> model layer: relation between Actors (e.g. Person) and Users of servers.
> Current version will be interpreted as having one-to-one relation between
> the two *different* kinds of entities, and that *is* incorrect.
>
> And I think that this gap will cause implementations, which will allow
> neither having multiple User accounts for one Actor on different servers
> nor (in particular) moving one Person's account between federation
> instances without losing his/her identity, including historical data.
>
> My view is that these features now become key features of a federated
> social network, when people are searching for better places for their
> social identities, when servers are being constantly created and shut
> down...
>
> A week ago I posted the bug report with concrete suggestions for a fix to
> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260
>
> Let's fix the spec before its release, please!
>
> --
> Yuri Volkov, Business applications architect and developer.
> Developer of AndStatus social networking client for Android.
>