Re: Why not AS2? was Re: Getting the group back on track

On 18 October 2015 at 22:05, Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info> wrote:

> I would hope that maybe the vocabulary can just be aggressively culled.
>

Im curious as to the advantage of culling the vocabulary.  Might it make
more sense to say, just use the terms that your system needs, and ignore
the others?


> I believe that it's a bad idea to try to specify all the kinds of
> activities and relationships that people engage in and have.
>
> But, I thought that at least the framing, the most abstract vocabulary
> pieces, might find broad agreement.
>
> I'm mostly just confused, maybe because I haven't been following closely
> enough, about what, if anything, the group has consensus about wanting to
> do (regardless of the specifics of implementation).
>
Not really sure the group has strong consensus on very much, at this
point.

There doesnt seem to be consensus on how to do profiles, relationships or
reuse of web standards.  IMHO this is a fundamental problem, but it's been
challenging to even discuss these items, let alone find common ground.

The items that seems closest to consensus IMHO

1 Reuse HTTP to form a cross origin decentralized social web
2 Create a JSON based syntax for exchanging messages
3 Use Activity Streams 2 as a candidate for that syntax

Tho there's not even 100% agreement here.  I think there is hope that there
is enough consensus could be reached on these items to move forward, and
take AS2 to CR and start working on a test suite and implementations.  Some
details still need to be ironed out tho.

> Because one could take an extreme position on this non-endorsement
> openness and say, "Publishing and consuming content in a network is
> inherently social. The Web is social. Nothing needs to be done."
>

I agree with this as a starting point.  However filling in the details can
be helpful.


>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 12:53 Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The design of the Social API doesn't need to rely on any particular
>>> vocabulary. People will use whatever vocabulary they deem to be appropriate
>>> to describe their own "social" data. The Social API will merely enable the
>>> data to be passed. The challenge for the Social API is to lay down some
>>> form of a common denominator of the social API-like things that's needed.
>>
>>  ...
>>
>>> . We are certainly not covering all aspects of the social web, neither
>>> should we presume to or force it as such via a specific vocabulary.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think AS2 as a SHOULD is more useful than leaving it completely open,
>> to encourage people who have no existing preferences to converge on
>> something, but we shouldn't be forcing that on people if it doesn't match
>> the shape of the social data they want to pass around.
>>
>