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? Here's the article you linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_%28computing%29 (Communications Protocol) > > > Cheers > Nick > > >
