Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

250MB in my trash but then i go to clear my trash and it shows as empty

man google drive is so shit, i have 3gb "used" but my drive is empty. turns out there are some old shares that are simply not showing up in "my drive" nor in "shared with me". i have no idea how to make them visible so i can backup whatever i might want and delete the rest...

@julian @benpate i guess in that regard, my idea of a "share" button is "something that will let me publish any arbitrary activity". i kind of wonder what it would look like to have 28 buttons on a page instead of 1...

@julian we may just be using words differently. my confusion was regarding "activitypub-based" and "[not] implementation-specific". to me, both of those statements are false.

i think i may have already mentioned to @benpate the lack of flexibility with the FEP and also the explosion of one-off "intents", as i prefer a single outbox, much as i prefer my definition of "activitypub server" to involve publishing arbitrary activities without enumeration. ;)

@julian @fediversereport the implementation is still specified by that FEP, though? it assumes that the target template of each link is following the protocol defined by its link relation. so it's a kind of bespoke API endpoint (one for each activity type, with seemingly no way to prefill any information except the type and the object, and even then only for an extremely limited subset of types)

@julian @fediversereport i would not say that this is "pure" or "activitypub-based" -- it is a webfinger-based mechanism. the activitypub-based mechanism is POST to outbox.

repeating from a different reply chain:

practically speaking in my music library i have most release folders within /Artists/ indexed by artist, which is doable for "artist releases" but not "split releases". for those latter release folders, i have them in a separate folder i call /Splits and Compilations/ and not indexed by anything

i guess this is mostly a weakness of filesystems? i could put all releases in the same flat folder and then abuse symlinks to get my artist indexing, i guess?

note that this doesn't involve the *type* of release so much as the separate ways of tracking them logically. so "foo" (artist releases) includes albums, eps, lps, singles, doesn't matter how many tracks or how long they are. but "bar" (split releases) includes splits, compilations, whatever might usually get lumped under "Various Artists" in less refined models. so https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type is not exactly helpful here

music ontology question:

let "foo" be the class of all music releases where the release is attributed to a single artist

let "bar" be the class of all music releases where the release is *not* attributed to a single artist -- so in other words, "bar" is the complement of "foo"

what are better names for "foo" and "bar"? right now i'm calling them "artist releases" and "split releases", but these don't seem to be terms used by musicbrainz for example https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Terminology

@liw some mail is serious! but otherwise, yes, i should explicitly opt in to being notified about emails. (i filter out most "non-important" things from my inbox, so if it lands in my inbox, it's probably important.)

@julian i think mastodon handles multityping in certain code paths but most other projects don't. it could have been a compatibility thing?

@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles

actor: alice
type: as:Accept, as:Add, _:ReplyAck
object: <the reply>
target: <the replies collection>
_:postRepliedTo: <op>

for the Accept, you need to understand it as "accepting the object into the target", which is apparently a thing in AS2-Vocab.

for the Add, you need to understand it as Add is defined -- no surprises there, i think?

for the ReplyAck, it can be whatever you define. here i've used an extension postRepliedTo property.

@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles this makes me really wish people didn't overload the AS2 vocab so much, and were less afraid of defining their own extensions. you could swing it so that the same activity is an Add, Accept, and ReplyAck. it sucks that we have to pick one instead of using whatever makes sense. (developers: please support multityping and/or duck typing! composability is the only true path to extensibility, and one size never fits all...)

@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles i think the issue here is that projects are doing things that may or may not get widely adopted, then if the proposals ever change, they have to deal with older software only understanding the old thing they tried. (this is where i would say something about protocol capability negotiation)

@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles alternatively add the Reply itself, parallel to likes/shares collections. it depends on whether you think the replies collection should always contain a specific type of object, which i don't think is something you can guarantee because publishers can do anything with it. similar to how some publishers include activities in threads and some include notes.

@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles

> replies collection is the source of truth for replies curated by the object owner.

this is fine i think, but the way to do this usually is HTTP GET. you could notify of changes to the replies collection, or you could reify the Reply and then Accept that?

the Reply has an instrument which is the Note. it has clear side effects to Add the instrument to the object.replies. the side effects can be gated behind Accept/Reject like following currently works.

@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles

> express that the owner of the replied-to object has accepted a reply, i.e. that the reply is added to the post's replies collection and shown under it in the web view

i get that, but the question is whether you can claim this understanding universally for all peers. as it stands, Accept is very vague wrt this. Accept(Note) meaning "Add to replies collection" might be a thing gts does, but that's their interpretation of Accept, not the definition.

@smallcircles @evan @julian if only the application domain of activitystreams was activities and streams... ;)

i do think it causes a lot of confusion to stray away from activities as content, instead using them as vehicles for state changes (which will never be consistent, not even eventually consistent).

back when atompub and atom+as1 were a thing, the "feed entry" was atom semantics and the "activity stream" was as1 semantics. they coexisted in the same xml file. it worked well enough.

@evan @julian @smallcircles

> use Add and Remove activities to notify updates to the `outbox`. I don't think it would work; it's too recursive.

i'm tracking inbox items and outbox items as separate from the activity content/payload. no source release yet but the idea is that inboxes receive "notifications" instead of "activities". notifications have their own timestamps so receiving a notification whose activity content claims to be in the future/past won't cause any confusion for readers.