Status vs. Note for short text updates

[Rob Dolin]

Hey all,

    I’ve been getting a few questions from folks about why Activity Streams uses “http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/note” instead of “http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/status.”  Would someone be able to elaborate on this?  I think this was decided before I got involved in the working group.  Thanks much—

--Rob

[Martin Atkins]

Rob Dolin wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I�ve been getting a few questions from folks about why Activity
> Streams uses �http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/note� instead of
> �http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/status.� Would someone be able to

> elaborate on this? I think this was decided before I got involved in

> the working group. Thanks much�
>

"note" was considered a more general word that could also include
microblogging entries that are often not status updates in the sense of
telling you what a person is doing.

There was some debate at the last-but-one meetup (the last one I was
able to attend) about changing this to "status" to avoid confusion with
Facebook's completely different "note" structure which is more like a
weblog entry.

If no-one will be broken by us changing note to status at this point
then I've no objection to changing it. I'm not sure how widely this
particular object type has been implemented.

[Rob Dolin]

Thanks Martin.

So that we don't break any current implementers, what would you think about adding a "...status" <activity:object-type> defined similarly to "...note"?

Thanks much--
--Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Atkins [mailto:ma...@degeneration.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:15 AM
To: activity...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Status vs. Note for short text updates

Rob Dolin wrote:
> Hey all,
>

> I've been getting a few questions from folks about why Activity
> Streams uses "http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/note" instead of
> "http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/status." Would someone be able to

> elaborate on this? I think this was decided before I got involved in

> the working group. Thanks much-

>

"note" was considered a more general word that could also include
microblogging entries that are often not status updates in the sense of
telling you what a person is doing.

There was some debate at the last-but-one meetup (the last one I was
able to attend) about changing this to "status" to avoid confusion with
Facebook's completely different "note" structure which is more like a
weblog entry.

If no-one will be broken by us changing note to status at this point
then I've no objection to changing it. I'm not sure how widely this
particular object type has been implemented.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.

[Martin Atkins]

On 11/16/2009 09:50 AM, Rob Dolin wrote:
> Thanks Martin.
>
> So that we don't break any current implementers, what would you think about adding a "...status"<activity:object-type> defined similarly to "...note"?
>

I'm not sure how we'd define "status" to be any different than "note",
but if we can find some satisfactory language to distinguish the two
then by all means.

I've noticed that Facebook actually seems to make a distinction between
"status" and "wall post", but I'm not sure what the distinction is. Does
anyone know? Perhaps that will help us make a distinction in the
activity streams spec.

[Chris Messina]

I do think that there's enough evidence now to consider "status" as a
content type on its own — separate from note, if only because no one
calls them that (Facebook's notes are mostly imported blogposts, from
my experience).

A status seems to be something that is "set" periodically, and defines
the state of a user. Obviously Twitter posts fit into this, as do
LinkedIn status updates and the like.

A note is something that seems to be authored, and intended to last
(more like those posts on Tumblr, for example).

The difference is slight, and I'm not sure that we should proscribe a
specific length for status updates, only to note current convention,
which is to limit status updates to between 140-255 characters.

Given that, I think status warrants a separate object type.

Chris

[Rob Dolin]

Thanks both Chris and Martin for weighing-in.

For the spec, I would suggest the "...status" <activity:object-type> should have the same properties as "...note":
* <entry><content> = text of the note or status
* <entry><link rel="alternate" .../> @href = URL to permalink to the note or status

As we start to see differentiation, we could potentially evolve best practices around when to use one or the other.

Thanks--
--Rob


P.S. FWIW, Windows Live uses the word "note" to describe a string of text written on a user's profile, thus a user might:
- <activity:verb> = ...post
- <activity:object-type> = ...note
- <activity:target> or <thr:in-reply-to> = ...person

And Windows Live Messenger (and profile) supports a "status" message, thus a user would potentially:
- <activity:verb> = ...post
- <activity:object-type> = ...status

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Messina [mailto:chris....@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:20 PM
To: Activity Streams
Subject: Re: Status vs. Note for short text updates

I do think that there's enough evidence now to consider "status" as a

content type on its own - separate from note, if only because no one

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to activity-strea...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=.

[David Recordon]

A user's status on Facebook can also remain constant even when the user posts additional content to their profile.  So agree with adding a status type.

--David