Re: [CfC] Erratum for ActivityPub on the definition of `inbox` the property

pá 30. 5. 2025 v 20:15 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
napsal:

> Great question.
>
> The original text is:
>
> *A reference* to an [ActivityStreams] OrderedCollection comprised of *all*
> the messages received by the actor; see 5.2 Inbox.
>
> Note the underlined all. What we're changing here is "*A reference* to an
> [ActivityStreams] OrderedCollection"
> to "An OrderedCollection", to be more parallel with the outbox property.
>
> I do see your point; some implementations don't even make this collection
> readable, so even though POSTing to the collection is adding an activity to
> it (POST-to-create pattern), it doesn't "stay there".
>
> It's a little orthogonal to this erratum, though. Would you mind adding a
> new issue to the repo?
>

Thanks Evan, that makes sense.

Just to add a bit of historical context, when I originally suggested the
"Semantic Inbox", the intention was quite similar to an email inbox, only
better, since it leveraged HTTP to support richer, structured data
messages. Semantic Inbox then evolved into what became Solid's inbox
pattern, and from there, it influenced the inbox concept used today in
ActivityPub.

I'm genuinely delighted to see this idea getting traction and being used so
effectively! You're right that implementations vary, email inboxes, for
example, tend to be private by default in the email world, and people often
delete items or even strive for "inbox zero." An inbox can be a temporary
staging area rather than permanent storage (think physical offices), and
that's a perfectly valid use-case too.

I completely agree we're looking at both errata and architecture topics
here, althought they're slightly intertwined. Perhaps it'd be helpful if we
could reflect briefly on how inboxes are practically used across
implementations today, and then use those insights to inform our errata and
clarify the definition?

Happy to open an issue to dive deeper into this if that helps.



>
> Evan
>
> On 2025-05-28 2:21 a.m., Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> pá 23. 5. 2025 v 18:33 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
> napsal:
>
>> Issue #289 of the ActivityPub GitHub repository notes the inexact and
>> asymmetrical language used for defining the `inbox` and `outbox`
>> collections:
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/289
>>
>> To resolve this, there is a proposed erratum for Section 4.1 to bring the
>> definition of the `inbox` property closer to that of the `outbox` property:
>>
>>    - In section 4.1 "Actor objects", the definition of "inbox" should
>>    read, "An OrderedCollection comprised of all the messages received by the
>>    actor; see 5.2 Inbox."
>>
>> We usually handle approval of errata in our synchronous meetings, which
>> takes a lot of time and focus away from other topics that require more
>> immediate presence and conversation. In speaking with the chairs and others
>> in the issue triage meeting, we think that handling this task through the
>> CFC decision-making process will be more efficient.
>>
>> So, I am seeking consensus to add this erratum to our errata page for
>> ActivityPub. Please reply either to the GitHub issue or here on the mailing
>> within 14 days of this message.
>>
>
> Thanks Evan, small point to consider: does “all” messages mean every
> received message should be archived in the inbox? I’m not sure all
> implementations do that.
>
> Evan
>>
>>
>>