On 18 September 2013 18:06, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Melvin Carvalho <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> On 18 September 2013 15:47, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Melvin Carvalho < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 10 September 2013 19:45, Nick Jennings <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Carlo, nice to see this work being done, specifically a distributed >>>>> pubsub implementation. Do you have a repo where this is being developed? >>>>> Also is this just the beginning or is there something working already? >>>>> >>>>> One question regarding ActivityStreams below: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, carlo von lynX < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At the same time as the implementation of this fundamental piece of >>>>>> the GNU Internet is taking place, we will soon present the equivalent of >>>>>> the ActivityStreams protocol, enabling developers to create user >>>>>> interfaces >>>>>> and further applications on top of an infrastructure that provides >>>>>> similar >>>>>> social functionality as the social services we are familiar with, but in >>>>>> a >>>>>> distributed and encrypted fashion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I'm unclear why it makes sense to re-invent the ActivityStreams >>>>> protocol? There is nothing in it's nature that defines infrastructure, so >>>>> being distributed and/or encrypted is something that can build on-top of >>>>> the existing protocol, also something I'm working closely with in >>>>> Sockethub. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Activity streams is not a protocol >>>> >>>> >>> That depends on who you ask, from the Wikipedia page: >>> >>> " The Activity >>> Streams<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_Streams_%28format%29>project, >>> for example, is an effort to develop an activity stream >>> protocol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_%28computing%29> to >>> syndicate activities across social >>> Web<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Web>applications. >>> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_stream#cite_note-2> " >>> >>> While I agree there's more to a protocol than just the data format, >>> there's definitely work being done to make the content of the AS objects >>> indicate either intent or result, which lays the groundwork for a protocol. >>> >>> >>> It's a data serialization. >>>> >>>> >>> While basically true, I'm not sure that's a descriptive enough word, as >>> JSON itself is a data serialization method. >>> >>> I was using the same words Carlo used to reference it, and I don't have >>> a strong opinion either way, but I don't think using the term serialization >>> makes it any clearer. >>> >>> >>> The current version relies on a proprietary central registry of verbs >>>> which does not (currently) support any form of encryption as far as I know >>>> >>> >>> If AS is a protocol, then I don't understand why a definition of verbs >>> should be considered proprietary or centralized - in the same way that any >>> other protocol, be it HTTP, SMTP or FINGER, has a set of defined commands. >>> >>> If AS is a data serialization mechanism, I don't understand how it can >>> written it to "support for any form of encryption". Are the two related? >>> Does JSON itself have built in support for encryption that AS lacks? Could >>> you give me some examples of data serialization which supports encryption? >>> >>> Maybe I misunderstand what is meant by the original statement by Carlo, >>> but that's why I asked in the first place. >>> >> >> "Depending on who you speak to" is hedging your bets a bit! >> >> I was speaking to you, what's your take? Is activity streams a protocol >> or not? >> >> > I'm more interested in my original question, not whether AS is a protocol > or not. Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. > > OK, then why did you argue the case? HTTP is the protocol, Activity Streams is the serialization. A (communications) protocol is way more complex than a serialization. And if this is what you want to do with sockethub / activity stream, I think you're going to run into major issues. My comment was that the Activity Streams specification does not mention encryption anywhere. You are the person that said: "being distributed and/or encrypted is something that can build on-top of the existing protocol" ... "something I'm working closely with in Sockethub" I have doubts about this comment ... how do you intend to build encryption on-top of Activity Streams?
