Sharing activities vs. sharing objects
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Evan Prodromou
Sep 25, 2012, 7:27:26 AM9/25/12
to activity...@googlegroups.com
One of the interesting verbs we have is "share".
Its object can have objectType: "activity", with an actor and object and verb and all that jazz.
The idea is to be able to replicate something like a retweet or share on Facebook.
I've been a supporter of this -- we use it in StatusNet -- but my enthusiasm is starting to wane.
Most of what's worth sharing is "post" activities -- Monica posted an image, Evan shared that image with another audience.
It's rare that we share other kinds of activities, like James unfavorited a video, Evan shared that James had unfavorited the video.
I think in the future I'm going to lean towards using the object itself in share activities if the original activity is "post" (or "create"). It seems more straightforward.
-Evan
Its object can have objectType: "activity", with an actor and object and verb and all that jazz.
The idea is to be able to replicate something like a retweet or share on Facebook.
I've been a supporter of this -- we use it in StatusNet -- but my enthusiasm is starting to wane.
Most of what's worth sharing is "post" activities -- Monica posted an image, Evan shared that image with another audience.
It's rare that we share other kinds of activities, like James unfavorited a video, Evan shared that James had unfavorited the video.
I think in the future I'm going to lean towards using the object itself in share activities if the original activity is "post" (or "create"). It seems more straightforward.
-Evan
Nathan Rixham
Sep 25, 2012, 7:31:55 AM9/25/12
to activity...@googlegroups.com
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> One of the interesting verbs we have is "share".
>
> Its object can have objectType: "activity", with an actor and object and
> verb and all that jazz.
>
> The idea is to be able to replicate something like a retweet or share on
> Facebook.
>
> I've been a supporter of this -- we use it in StatusNet -- but my
> enthusiasm is starting to wane.
>
> *Most* of what's worth sharing is "post" activities -- Monica posted an
> One of the interesting verbs we have is "share".
>
> Its object can have objectType: "activity", with an actor and object and
> verb and all that jazz.
>
> The idea is to be able to replicate something like a retweet or share on
> Facebook.
>
> I've been a supporter of this -- we use it in StatusNet -- but my
> enthusiasm is starting to wane.
>
> image, Evan shared that image with another audience.
>
> It's rare that we share other kinds of activities, like James unfavorited a
> video, Evan shared that James had unfavorited the video.
>
> I think in the future I'm going to lean towards using the object itself in
> share activities if the original activity is "post" (or "create"). It seems
> more straightforward.
It appears to me that it may be useful as a generic transaction log, as
>
> It's rare that we share other kinds of activities, like James unfavorited a
> video, Evan shared that James had unfavorited the video.
>
> I think in the future I'm going to lean towards using the object itself in
> share activities if the original activity is "post" (or "create"). It seems
> more straightforward.
it would allow remote replication and syndication, replays, backups and
so forth.
I'd be interested in how you measure or come to a conclusion about
what's worth sharing, and what isn't?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages