Re: Refactoring audience targeting and activity target/origin

For what it's worth, a similar discussion arose around the expectations of
the creator of an annotation and the recipients of it.
For example, please notify some service or please make a change to the
annotated document.

We decided to leave it out of the model, as it seemed to us (I think like
Elf) that this was only relevant for the initial protocol interaction
between the creating client and server. As soon as that interaction has
taken place, the notification should not be processed again by other
consumers of the annotation / activity, lest poor Arnaud get hammered with
notifications :)

Rob


On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> On 04/12/2015 06:28 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a bit of a breaking change that refactors and
> > simplifies audience targeting and the use of the target/origin
> > properties in the vocabulary.
> >
> > Currently (in AS2 and AS1), we would use the "target" property to
> > indicate the object to which an activity is *directed*. For instance,
> > if I wanted to say "Evan added a Photo to his Album", the "target"
> > property indicates the "his Album".
> >
> > The "origin" property was just recently (speculatively) introduced as
> > a way of identifying the object *from* which an activity is directed.
> > For instance, "Evan moved a photo from Album A to Album B", the
> > "origin" would specify "Album A", the target would specify "Album B".
> >
> > With the audience targeting properties, we use "to", "bto", "cc" and
> > "bcc" to help indicate who should to notified.
> >
> > What I'd like to propose is collapsing these concepts in order to
> > simplify the vocabulary overall.
> >
> > We would rename "target" to "to", deprecating the original name "target"
> > We would rename "origin" to "from" (no need to deprecate "origin"
> > since it's new)
> > We could continue to use "to" for implicit audience targeting (just as
> > we can use "target" today) but "cc" and "bcc" would become the primary
> > explicit audience targeting properties.
> >
> > In other words, if I wanted to say, "Evan moved a photo from Album A
> > to Album B, please notify Arnaud", it would be:
> >
> > {
> >   "actor": "evan@example.org",
> >   "object": {
> >     "@type": "Image",
> >     "url": "http://example.org/abc.png"
> >   },
> >   "from": {
> >     "@type": "Album",
> >     "displayName": "Album A"
> >   },
> >   "to": {
> >     "@type": "Album",
> >     "displayName": "Album B"
> >   },
> >   "cc": "arnaud@example.org"
> > }
> >
> > Semantically this is easier to explain and understand.
> >
> > It would require a change for folks who currently do audience
> > targeting using "to" (which is why I'm cc'ing Evan directly to make
> > sure he sees it) but overall I think the change makes sense and
> > simplifies the vocabulary overall.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> -1 mixing terms used for describing the actual Activity with anything to
> do with 'audience targeting'! I see describing an Activity and it's
> distribution / notifications as two very distinct concerns and would
> prefer to keep them nicely separated.
>
> BTW once we iron out how to structure an Activity itself, we may need to
> rethink distribution/notifications all together, paying more attention
> to API & Federation work. Also we better make sure that tagging in a
> photo, mentioning etc. fits nicely with to, cc, bto, bcc stuff.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305