So, an interesting issue came up in the #Fedify repo that I've been thinking about: #629.

You know how every #fediverse server uses schema:PropertyValue in actor attachment for profile metadata fields (like “Website”, “GitHub”, etc.)? Turns out, strict #AS2 validators like browser.pub reject it, because the AS2 spec says attachment should only contain Object or Link—and PropertyValue is a schema.org type, not an Activity Streams 2.0 type.

The thing is, we can't just drop the type like we did with Endpoints (#576), because Mastodon and others rely on seeing "type": "PropertyValue" to render profile fields. But at the same time, it's technically not spec-compliant.

I'm leaning towards writing a #FEP to formalize this existing practice rather than trying to invent a new type (like toot:PropertyValue extending Object), which would be a nightmare to migrate across the whole fediverse.

What do you all think? Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear thoughts from implementers and spec folks.

#fedidev #ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #ActivityStreams2 #AS2 #PropertyValue

PropertyValue attachments serialize with invalid type for AS2 Object/Link validation · Issue #629 · fedify-dev/fedify

Description When Fedify serializes actor attachment properties containing PropertyValue items (used by Mastodon for profile metadata fields), the resulting JSON-LD uses schema:PropertyValue as the ...

GitHub

So I raised this at the end of SWICG Issue Triage, and the consensus there was that we don't need an explicit Reply activity, as there's "any object can have inReplyTo" and "inReplyTo" doesn't necessarily mean "add to the object's replies collection — both are necessary here, activities that aren't in the replies collection but are inReplyTo would be treated as "other replies" and software may choose to hide them

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Am wondering if it'd make sense to have a dedicated Reply activity, such that a reply becomes Reply(Note) instead of Create(Note)

Where the Reply activity has the target & is sent to that server only, before being forwarded?

Would this make the protocol clearer for implementers?

#activitypub #ActivityStreams2

Activity Streams/Expanded Vocabulary
An old but interesting pre-specification document describing a variety of potential use cases for ActivityStreams 2.0.
Activity Streams/Expanded Vocabulary - W3C Wiki

@[email protected] I agree that #ActivityStreams2 is well designed. Maybe this is exactly because its ideas are actively tested in practice for several years in pump.io. Confusion of Actors and Users of servers in the #ActivityPub I regard as a conceptual mistake that should be fixed _now_. So I proposed concrete additions to the spec in this issue: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260
Not many responses so far :-(
Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined · Issue #260 · w3c/activitypub

Contemplating on correct implementation of a data model, corresponding to the #ActivityPub specification, I started to realize that current version of the document https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub...