- From: Bill Looby <bill_looby@ie.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 18:07:45 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFE4F07145.273E23D7-ON80257E3E.005CCF75-80257E3E.005E2183@ie.ibm.com>
In fact, because of this, to complement existing Activity Streams support in IBM Connections, we introduced a separate microblogging API (structured similarly but at a different endpoint), documented here -> http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/lcwiki.nsf/xpAPIViewer.xsp?lookupName=IBM+Connections+5.0+API+Documentation#action=openDocument&res_title=IBM_Connections_Microblogging_API_ic50&content=apicontent The key difference being - The Activity Stream is referential - the core data exists elsewhere (or at least did at some point) Microblogs are themselves data - a post to this API exists nowhere else Once we receive a microblog post, we actually create a corresponding event and place it in the appropriate streams (having considered who should receive it based on 'following', 'network' and @mention considerations). Rgds, -Bill. Bill Looby Software Architect IBM Analytics Phone: +353 1 8155129 E-mail: bill_looby@ie.ibm.com From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org> Date: 07/05/2015 16:12 Subject: Re: AS = Status+Updates? On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > Summary: it might be good to re-organize AS2 to separate the CRUD > operations from the "social" vocabulary > AS2 does not have any CRUD operations. When I send something like the following to a server, I'm notifying not instructing: POST / HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Content-Type: application/activity+json { "@type": "Follow", "actor": "acct:joe@example.org", "object": "acct:sally@example.org" } Depending on the server, there might be some side effects that occur after receiving the POST, but the AS2 payload itself does not carry any behavioral semantics or expectations whatsoever. > Thinking about Activity Streams in light of this last meeting, where I > finally came to understand the role it plays in Activity Pump, I'm wondering > if it would be good to change the design in a fundamental way. I'm sorry I > didn't understand this well enough to say it months ago. > > Right now, as I understand it, an Activity describes a change in the state > of the world. I think it might be good to instead have a way to describe > the state of the world and a separate way to talk about state changes. We > could frame it like this: > > * A "status" is a post which states something about the world at some point > in time. > > * An "update" is a post which creates, modifies, or deletes a status. > It makes sense to create such distinctions within the API but not the AS2 spec itself. - James > In the common case where one is just creating a new status, there's minimal > value in separating them. But when you think about fixing a typo in a > Note, and how you propagate that change, and who should be sent that change, > and who is allowed to see that change, and how to efficiently distribute the > change, and who has permission to make the change, ..., and what happens > when a server is down and changes can't be sent right now, ... then I > suspect things become a lot simpler when we separate them. > > The "social API" then can consist of doing CRUD on status resources. Those > CRUD operations might be done by creating updates (something like > update/delete in micropub) or more directly using http verbs as in LDP or a > whole bunch of them might be streamed in a JSON-LD document (as I think > ActivityPump envisions). The federation protocol can largely consist of of > sending around Updates. The updates can also be kept around as a change > log. > > I'm interesting in spelling this all out in more detail if others think it's > promising. > > I suspect the pushback will be that it's somewhat harder to implement very > simple systems. The payoff doesn't come until you want ACLs or federation > or something else non-trivial. Beyond that, are there are other problems > with this style? > > My apologies if I'm missing something obvious that makes this clearly a bad > idea. > > -- Sandro > >
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: 01-part
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 17:08:04 UTC