Post @post@qoto.org

@daviddelven @andric

I know but that was not the point.

The relation Authorship could be defined as a protocol implemented by two instances that play the role of author and work respectively.

For example a Theorem could have a Name, a Book could have a Title and to implement the role of work you need something with a Name or a Title.

A convenient way to do so is Theorem/Book both implement Authorship protocol (as work) by passing their Name/Title as the name of the work.

This is just an example but as the schema grows situations like this could become a mess to manage.

@daviddelven @andric

In Tana you would have for example the superclass Person and the subclass Author, the latter can be used as value for the Author key of Books, Quotes etc.

All authors are persons but things like this can get complicated, what if later you want an organization to be an author too?

In POP you would have Person that implement the role of Author in the relation of authorship.

Later you let Organization implements authorship on its own.

@elipariser

To be clear, being a AP network means you can use a Mastodon account to comment a PeerTube video.

Imagine if YouTube channels appeared on Twitter as native Twitter accouts, new videos appear as tweets by those channels and when you comment the tweet it appears as a comment also on YouTube.

This is what happens with Mastodon and PeerTube and to some extent also with other platforms.

@elipariser

ActivityPub is like SMTP and IMAP but for things you usually find in social networks. Mastodon implemented the server-server protocol (~SMTP) to make its Twitter-like instances federate together and with other implementations of AP (YouTube-like PeerTube, Reddit-like Lemmy, Instagram-like PixelFed and so on).

Mastodon introduced its own client-server protocol that makes Mastodon clients basically browsers. Indeed all the logic is on the server and clients are used just to provide a native UI.

Instead AP client-server protocol assumes more logic for the clients and this didn't fit Mastodon clients use case.

@daviddelven @andric

Instead of starting with classes and then define their relations, start with relations and model them as "protocols", then objects play roles defined in those protocols.

Instead of building a complex structure of classes, let them freely implement protocols. You can, for example, extend protocols, so you structure protocols instead of classes. This is supposed to be a more flexible approach.

@naciketas@mastodon.uno @cicciocappuccio

Quindi ammetti che il cartello dice semplicemente una cosa che si sapeva già?

@naciketas@mastodon.uno @cicciocappuccio

Lo hai letto l'articolo? Guarda che non smentisce, ma dice "si sapeva già".

@andric

FYI #Logseq is like #Roam but it is developing options to define a schema.

About #Tana, #OOP is a mess for development, I wouldn't use that for note taking too.

It would have been better if they developed something more in the lines of #ProtocolOrientedProgramming.

@tonch @xpil@fosstodon.org @jinxd

Try #Logseq, you can use it at the same time with Obsidian on the same "vault", but it's FOSS.

@ednico @boris

For me it would be a huge improvement if the functionalities that are not supposed to work were disabled, like the editing ones.

And support for plugins.

@cassidyjames

To be precise it's true for GNOME-related stuff since GTK doesn't support native fractional scaling.

Qt apps support it and in Plasma apps can advertise their native support so that Plasma stops using for them the workaround in the article.

@CiaoBruno

I see a lot of people with this idea still around... would you mind starting to put it into practice? /s

@tbernard @alexm @cassidyjames

In the opposite direction there are logos like the ones by Podman, Buildah etc. I find it impossible to make small monocrome versions of these.

@dataKnightmare@octodon.social @JamesGleick

It's useful for a lot of other things, you people are stuck to the exact thing it is not meant to do