Re: Agenda items for Friday

It is, yep!
Calendar entry:
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6b91f267-6cb4-41ca-9a67-5035cee827dd/20240503T130000/


On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:02 PM Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the meeting at the usual place :- https://meet.jit.si/social-web-cg
>
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 at 17:45, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@dtinit.org> wrote:
>
>> If we have time for it, I'd like to kick off a conversation about
>> tradeoffs between different approaches in copying content in a data
>> transfer. Here's some of the context.  And if we don't have time, I plan to
>> schedule the next Portability TF call anyway & work on it.
>>
>> We have significant tradeoffs in portability between two approaches:
>> 1.  Trying to reproduce a change log
>> 2.  Trying to reproduce a content repository.
>>
>> Assume in either of these cases we'd figure out how to transfer likes,
>> replies, listens, read etc.  The question remains still how we treat
>> content objects.
>>
>> To *reproduce a change log*, we'd specify that the destination AP server
>> copies over Create activities holding Note objects - but also Update and
>> Delete activities.   Consequences:
>>
>>    - Destination servers would have to understand, parse, and know how
>>    to transform the envelopes around content as well as the content items.
>>    - I believe this would automatically result in 3rd parties notifying
>>    their users of "new" posts even though the users had seen them before.
>>    - It wouldn't be a simple copy of changelog intact.  Every changelog
>>    entry would have to be parsed and transformed for its new context.
>>
>> To *reproduce a content repository*, we'd specify that the destination
>> AP server copies over "Note" objects (and other content objects too of
>> course)
>>
>>    - The destination server can now put content objects in an Outbox
>>    with an activity wrapper if it decides to.
>>    - It may be possible to put the Note in the outbox without an
>>    activity wrapper ( I think some implementations do this) - I would love to
>>    know more from implementers how this works in the wild
>>    - The destination server can also copy the content somewhere else
>>    entirely, not just to an outbox. This approach could also more easily be
>>    used by systems other than AP servers -- it would have greater generality
>>    than the change-log copy approach.
>>
>> I'd especially like to know more about the amount of implementation work
>> for each of these.  It seems at the surface that it's cheaper to transfer
>> the outbox, but as I dig into the details of that I don't think it's really
>> as simple as it seems to copy the outbox.  Many kinds of events in the
>> outbox, the destination server would not want to copy over at all, or can
>> get in another way that might be easier (the Likes collection, for example,
>> on an Actor).
>>
>> Related, I'd also love to know what implementations do to present the
>> "back catalog" of content.  Do implementations do anything besides allowing
>> friendly servers to page back through outbox history?
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 8:03 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have three agenda items for Friday.
>>>
>>> 1. I'd like to discuss the upcoming work I'll be doing for Summer of
>>> Protocols on implementing E2EE direct messages in AP.
>>>
>>> 2. I'd like to collect feedback on the Miscellaneous Terms document,
>>> solicit implementations, and consider moving it forward as a CG draft.
>>>
>>> https://swicg.github.io/miscellany/
>>>
>>> 3. I'd like to continue the conversation about adding publicKey,
>>> publicKeyPem, owner and Key to the Activity Streams 2.0 context document.
>>>
>>> We have a lot of other projects (Webfinger, HTTP Signatures,
>>> Forums/Threaded, Data Portability) to report out on, but I'd love to get
>>> these three items covered.
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org
>
> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
> Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.
>
>