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.
