Search
150 results for “hrefna”
-
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@hrefna Can I just point out that even if the turkeys had survived the drop, almost no-one in Cincinatti was equipped to get a live turkey ready for the oven.
#TurkeysOfMastodon -
@Hrefna (DHC)If your server disappeared tomorrow with no ability to export your follower graph, how would you rebuild it?
If you do a server move, what happens to your post history?
Widespread adoption of Nomadic Identity, if it ever happens, may help with this.
I am sure you already know this, but for other readers, these two 2017 articles explain how Nomadic Identity works in Hubzilla, which is based on the Nomad/Zot protocol.
#^https://medium.com/@tamanning/nomadic-identity-brought-to-you-by-hubzilla-67eadce13c3b
#^https://medium.com/@tamanning/getting-started-with-nomadic-identity-how-to-create-a-personal-channel-on-hubzilla-7d9666a428b
Mike Macgirvin recently got Nomadic Identity working on ActivityPub too.
#^https://fediversity.site/item/b69ce5a0-0c22-4933-8393-dce7100f4584
Unfortunately, the ActivityPub world keeps pretending that Mike Macgirvin and his work does not exist (Nomadic Identity has been around and working in Hubzilla for roughly a decade).
There's also OpenWebAuth (Federated Single Sign On). As Sean Tilley explains in this March 2024 article, Nomadic Identity and OpenWebAuth together can enable network resilience, censorship resistance, and ease of migration.
#^https://wedistribute.org/2024/03/activitypub-nomadic-identity/
No idea whether Nomadic Identity, OpenWebAuth, conversation containers, etc. will ever get widespread adoption. At present, the user base of software such as Hubzilla, Forte etc. (which have these features) is negligible. And at least in case of Hubzilla (which I am using), the UI and UX needs a lot of work; don't know about Forte (which is based on ActivityPub).
And yes, all the other problems with the Fediverse that you listed will still remain. At this point, I doubt if the Fedi will ever become socially and politically relevant.
#ActivityPub #ATProto #Nomad #Zot #NomadicIdentity #OpenWebAuth #Fediverse -
@hrefna The aspect I find most surprising about it is that it didn't happen earlier. #boilingfrogs -
@hrefna That's the sort of approach we're taking at #DistributedPress
If you're going to be at rue fediforum tomorrow we're planning to have a session to get more into the details :)
Right now we've split the content/publishing/serving/inbox/reading into different components that can be mixed and matched
-
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
@hrefna Just imagine what would happen if you had a national sys admin Union with idk, 80% of all sys admins.
And then you go on strike.
All servers just run online Doom deathmatches. The entire internet is just doom. #GeneralStrike #TechUnion
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
@hrefna #rego for “routing” of messages is a pretty cool use case! I believe they do that in some #AquaSecurity project. A home made one sounds interesting though! Would love to take a look later if you publish it.
-
CW: self-promotion
@hrefna I implemented #LocationLabels using #UlamSpirals, for which I used the #OEIS to find an algorithm to iterate over the spiral (implemented at whenwhere.cf)
-
@maegul @hrefna Innovation my asp. #stocktonrush was in a hurry to exploit deep sea mining & he didn’t have the money or investors to do it properly. His solution? Put the lives of people at risk. It was greed, entitlement, & a desperate need to be as well-known as Branson or Elon. #titan #titanic
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
