A SWAT0 protocol strawman [Was: Is SWAT0 a public flow or should there be a privacy requirement ?]

[Laurent Eschenauer]

> Isn't OStatus solving SWAT0 ? Can anyone explain me what is

> missing ?

Rather than asking for the negative ("what is missing"), I ask you to
provide the positive ("*how* does it solve SWAT0").

If you think it is so obvious, please educate the rest of us by
entering your text answer here:

http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/SWAT0#SWAT0_Open_Standards_Protocols_and_Formats

Done. I've drafted a first version of the flow here: 

http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/SWAT0_-_strawman_protocol_flow

It would be good to see if there is agreement on this, where are the gaps, etc. Once we have a high level flow nailed, we can document and exemplify all the steps in the flow. 

Cheers,

Laurent

[Evan Prodromou]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:13 +0200, Laurent Eschenauer wrote:

Done. I've drafted a first version of the flow here: 

http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/SWAT0_-_strawman_protocol_flow

It's great! I have a couple of notes based on discussions with Zach, Brion, and James:

1. I think a "mention" is distinct from a "tag". "Laurent was asking what Tantek looks like, so I posted this photo."
2. I think there are two activities: posting the photo and tagging it. See http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/activity-schema-01.html#tag .
3. I think a salmon slap is appropriate for notifying Tantek and Dave of Evan's comment. I also think both slaps should originate at Evan's server: for practical reasons (digital signature) but also as a general principle: my server is responsible for notifying others of my actions, punkt.

-Evan

Evan Prodromou, CEO StatusNet Inc., 1124 rue Marie-Anne Est #32, Montreal, QC H2J 2T5 T: 438-380-4801 x101 C: 514-554-3826 W: http://evan.status.net/ E: ev...@status.net

[Laurent Eschenauer]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Evan Prodromou <ev...@status.net> wrote:

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:13 +0200, Laurent Eschenauer wrote:

Done. I've drafted a first version of the flow here: 

http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/SWAT0_-_strawman_protocol_flow

It's great! I have a couple of notes based on discussions with Zach, Brion, and James:

 

I think a "mention" is distinct from a "tag". "Laurent was asking what Tantek looks like, so I posted this photo."

 

Agree from an Activitystream point of view (see 2 below). From a Salmon protocol flow however, we still need to use the Salmon 'mention' flow. So, the 'tag' activity will have to contain a salmon link mention in the entry.

 

I think there are two activities: posting the photo and tagging it. See http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/activity-schema-01.html#tag .

 

Agree. Will update the wiki accordingly. I'll have a go at writing an example activity entry.

  

I think a salmon slap is appropriate for notifying Tantek and Dave of Evan's comment. I also think both slaps should originate at Evan's server: for practical reasons (digital signature) but also as a general principle: my server is responsible for notifying others of my actions, punkt.

I don't agree on that one. Dave is the 'owner' of the activity 'mentioning' Tantek, unless you are 'mentioning' him also in your comment, why should that activity be sent Tantek's way ?

From your end, you are just posting yet another activity entry, it just happen that it is a comment verb. I would not introduce the added complexity for your service to inspect the commented activity and deduced from that who else should be notified, etc. 

Also, it does not really matter in the public world, but becomes important when we later bring privacy in the picture:

E.g: Dave tagged Tantek, making fun of him in a picture. He actually does not notify Tantek, and share this photo only with a few people, of which Evan. Evan comment on the photo, adding to the joke. I think both Evan and Dave would expect this to stay private and no salmon to be sent Tantek's way. 

In my opinion, when an activity is marked <private/>, only the original recipients of the activity should see the attached comments. Only Dave is in the position to know who were the recipients and to decide if he notifies them of the comments or not.

Thoughts ?

Cheers,

Laurent

[SocialRiver Team]

On 07/23/2010 11:31 AM, Laurent Eschenauer wrote:

> Also, it does not really matter in the public world, but becomes
> important when we later bring privacy in the picture:
>
> E.g: Dave tagged Tantek, making fun of him in a picture. He actually
> does not notify Tantek, and share this photo only with a few people,
> of which Evan. Evan comment on the photo, adding to the joke. I
> think both Evan and Dave would expect this to stay private and no
> salmon to be sent Tantek's way.
>
>
> In my opinion, when an activity is marked <private/>, only the original
> recipients of the activity should see the attached comments. Only Dave
> is in the position to know who were the recipients and to decide if he
> notifies them of the comments or not.

Agreed. With email, nobody gets a CC unless the sender deliberately CCs
people - so I don't see why this sort of activity ought to be any
different.

Scott

[Tuomas Koski]

Hi all,

On 23 July 2010 12:13, Laurent Eschenauer <laurent.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done. I've drafted a first version of the flow here:
> http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/SWAT0_-_strawman_protocol_flow
> It would be good to see if there is agreement on this, where are the gaps,
> etc. Once we have a high level flow nailed, we can document
> and exemplify all the steps in the flow.
> Cheers,
> Laurent

Nice!

I think that a simple sequence diagram between all the three services
involved, plus examples of all the payloads that are exchanged would
clarify this even more. IMHO specially the examples would help us to
reach the concrete level of this as soon as possible. It will help us
to see that it really works, is usable and that we all have the same
understanding about the workflow. What do you guys think?

I can help creating the example payloads as soon as I have managed to
get back to Paris (still at Portland).

Cheers,
--
Tuomas

[Mike (DFRN)]

Most of what I've seen on SWAT0 assumes that all three services agree
that they can share content with each other and all content is pretty
much public. Yes, that is the goal of interop - but you're missing
something fundamental. If your site is primarily an oStatus public
tweet farm , sure I'll suck in your content if my userbase wants to
see it. But I want to know who you are sharing it with. If I don't
have complete control over re-distribution of my content and know
where it is likely to end up, you aren't seeing my post/comment/tag.
I'm not sharing with you. You're not getting past the door. Plain and
simple.

We need to nail the basics before you can even talk protocol flavours.
Is 'A' in a bi-directional relationship with 'B' and 'C'? Whose
policies override in the case of a rights policy conflict?

What are your re-dist policies? I'm asking each of you, because then
I'll figure what restrictions I'll need to place on my service's
interactions with yours.

For the record, here's my policy. Anything that is posted on my
personal "wall" belongs to me. If it's a wall-wall or a comment made
by somebody else, it's still mine to publish as I see fit. If you're
the author of that post, you can delete it, but it's on my wall so
it's out of your hands (except to delete it). If it isn't on my wall -
and if it's on somebody else's and they shared it with me - I will not
and cannot propagate it. It isn't mine. The owner owns it and the
redistribution rights. Not the author - the owner.

It's like if you walk into my house and leave a beer on the counter -
and leave. It's mine. If I wish, I'll drink it. If I walk into your
house and see a beer on the counter, I can't take it and share it with
my girlfriend without asking you - no matter who originally left it on
your counter.

The reason I mention this is because my policy probably precludes
using PuSH in this scenario, as I may have no control over the
subscribers. And if I'm in a private relationship with one or both of
the other players, my transmissions need to stay private. Not tagged
private on a public transmission medium, but really, truly private.
One-to-one information channel. And if the relationship is one-way, I
may be able to see but not reply, or vice versa.