Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Friday, 29-Dec-2023 00:05:54 JST Evan Prodromou

   in reply to

   • Steve Bate

   @steve @helge @hrefna@hachyderm.io the `actor` or `attributedTo` is the owning actor and has read-write access to the object. Any addressees have read-only access.

   The "owning server" is the one that manages the URL space for the object's ID. The owning server for "https://social.example/foo/notes/37" is whatever software and organization runs social.example.

   https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/ActivityPub/Authentication_Authorization

   • Embed this notice
     Steve Bate (steve@social.technoetic.com)'s status on Friday, 29-Dec-2023 00:05:59 JST Steve Bate

     • Hrefna (DHC)

     @helge @hrefna Rephrasing the question as "Why does ActivityPub not define a concept of ownership?" may be better. The other issue with the vague reference to "owned by the server" is that "server" is not defined anywhere. What defines the scope of server ownership? Maybe a URL prefix (to support multi-tenant implementations)? Or attribution to an "application actor" (or "tenant actor")? It's definitely an underspecified topic.