idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something). it’s what you might call a “hot take”, certainly a heterodox one to some parts of the broader #fediverse community. this is in response to recent discussion on “what do you want to see from AP/AS2 specs” (in context of wg rechartering) mostly devolving into people complaining about JSON-LD and extensibility, some even about namespacing in general (there was a suggestion to use UUID vocab terms. i’m not joking)
1/?
@trwnh 1.) love this, looking forward to the blog post. 2.) i’m not 100% convinced of the analogy of open-world : closed world :: AP : “one” “social” “network” , but it resonates a lot with my thinking on platforms lately. i think the fediverse thinks of itself as ONE OPEN platform, rather than multiple overlapping platforms (that could include closed platforms, too, in every sense of closed including the economic!) with no global guarantees, periodt.
@[email protected] yeah i’m not saying AP is “open-world” but rather it straddles the line
AS2 requiring the AS2 context is a bit weird from an LD perspective because it introduces weird “supremacy” conflicts especially with the “MUST NOT override” requirement
i’ve thought that perhaps jsonld context should only ever be a “progressive enhancement” to json, and that new apis or interchange formats should instead use expanded form, and processors should expand any compacted json(ld) before using it
@trwnh oh interesting i didn’t realize that you meant openworld/closedwforld that literally in the RDF sense, i thought you meant more in the protocol-design sense (of like “drop all unfamiliar properties” as is conventional for all JSON protocols versus “here is how you cautiously parse or preserve for others what you don’t know”)
@[email protected] but that’s a difference without a distinction, perhaps