The state of conversational contexts (February 2025)
from julian@community.nodebb.org to swicg-threadiverse-wg@community.nodebb.org on 21 Feb 17:42
https://community.nodebb.org/post/103461

A conversational context is what the ForumWG uses to describe what you might see as a reply tree or comment thread. One of the short-to-medium term goals of the ForumWG is to get conversational backfill working reliably.

What this means — conversational backfill means that when you encounter a post/status/note/etc. (e.g. you're mentioned or boosted/shared something), there is a reliable and comprehensive way to retrieve the entire conversation around it, so you are not interacting with the object on its own, but in its proper context with all its sibling replies.

We plan to achieve this with a combination of a top-down (FEP-driven) and bottom-up (implementor-first) approach. While this sounds incongruent, top-down approaches tend to overcomplicate and bottom-up approaches tend to violate the protocol (unintentionally of course :joy:.)

There are a number of independent top-down efforts to achieve this:

• FEP-7888: Demystifying the context property
• FEP-171b: Conversation Containers
• FEP-76ea: Conversation Threads

These FEPs are in the R&D phase.

State of the Top-Down approach

At this time, the ForumWG is only recommending the following:

• Publishers SHOULD use context for grouping related objects in a thread (but this is not the only way to use context).

There is general agreement over:

• A context SHOULD resolve to a resource.

There are concerns over:

• What that resource is (as:OrderedCollection, a new type, something else?)
• What is included in that context (plain objects or activities)

State of the Bottom-Up approach

The bottom-up approach is results-oriented, and while certain implementors may follow certain FEPs, the overarching goal is "cross-compatible conversational backfill".

Separately, these implementors are (or have signalled interest in) implementing conversational backfill:

• NodeBB and Discourse (@angusmcleod@mastodon.social)
  • Following FEP 7888
  • Attaches context to objects
  • context resolves to an OrderedCollection
  • Two-way conversation backfill is tested and working.
• WordPress (@pfefferle@mastodon.social) and Frequency (@jesseplusplus@mastodon.social)
  • Following FEP 7888
  • Attaches context to objects
  • context resolves to an OrderedCollection
  • One-way conversational backfill is tested and working — others can backfill an entire conversation from these implementors.
• Lemmy (@nutomic@lemmy.ml) and PieFed (@rimu@mastodon.nzoss.nz)
  • Have signalled interest (neither positive nor negative) in conversational backfill and are waiting and watching at this time.

Of note:

• Mitra (@silverpill@mitra.social)
  • Following FEP 171b
  • One-way conversational backfill is tested and working — Mitra can backfill an entire conversation from FEP 7888 implementors

What's Next

This thread will likely contain updates and discussion from related parties about their implementations and what they wish to do next. In the cruelest irony of ironies, because conversational backfill is not ubiquitous yet, you will need to "View Original URL" in order to see all of the replies.

The ForumWG will meet again on 6 March 13h00 EST where all of this will be discussed, as well as planning out the future focus items for the ForumWG.

If you are an implementor, there is no reason you cannot join the fray. Boost this post, reply to it, join the conversation(al context)!!

If you're not an implementor, boost me anyway :stuck_out_tongue:

#activitypub #backfill #forumwg #swicg #swicg-threadiverse-wg