Why a separate 'salmon-mention' Link Relation?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

To me it seems strange that an entity would define a separate endpoint
for mentions as opposed to replies. Couldn't the generator just find a
single endpoint for each of the resources replied-to/mentioned in a
newly generated entry, and then POST the same salmon to each? Then the
salmon itself would define the relationships with tags like:

<entry>
Only one problem! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qgTk8Vfyc

@Steve knows what I'm talking about!
<in-reply-to>blah</in-reply-to>
<mentions type="html" ref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qgTk8Vfyc"/
>
<mentions type="xrd" ref="http://profiles.google.com/steve"/>
</entry>

That would seem to make more sense to me.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by hjfre...@google.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 1:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for the comment!

Original comment by jpanzer@google.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 1:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That's actually closer to how we're handling things in OStatus / StatusNet ... 
we
have a salmon link in each user's XRD ... and we also add an
<ostatus:attention>acct:user@example.com</ostatus:attention> for each user 
mentioned
in an entry.

John can you clarify the reasoning behind multiple endpoints?

Original comment by wal...@gmail.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 5:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't have a strong feeling either way.  I did want to clarify the two use 
cases in the 
document, because they have somewhat different requirements, but mainly it was 
just that I couldn't prove to myself that there wasn't ambiguity.  As long as 
it would 
not cause problems we could collapse these two. 

Feedback that I've gotten is that people are worried about being able to 
separate out 
the non-conversational mentions (a lot of tweets are like this) from things 
where the 
user really intends to reply.  But the metadata may be enough for this.  
Thoughts?  
Collapse these two endpoint relations into one relation?  And if so, what 
should the 
name of it be?

Original comment by jpanzer@google.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 5:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I would vote for collapsing them... "replies" i think works suitably well for 
both mentions & replies. (perhaps distinguishable by presence or value of atom 
threading data?) 

Original comment by wal...@gmail.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 6:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"upstream" or "salmon-upstream"
because "Salmon swim upstream!"

It shouldn't matter what the type or usage of the salmon is,
just as long as it is a salmon.

You could define by convention that if you "mention" a
specific URI, you could do lrdd discovery (WebFinger for
email address like identifiers) to see if there is a salmon
relation type defined for that URI.  If so you could choose
to send the salmon there in addition to any other salmon
endpoints you discovered or already know about from other
sources.

Original comment by mail.ton...@gmail.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 6:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

#5: +1

Original comment by hjfre...@google.com on 26 Feb 2010 at 7:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Any conclusions on this?

Original comment by hjfre...@google.com on 25 Mar 2010 at 5:43

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Based on this feedback, by EOW, I'm planning to modify the "salmon-mention" and 
"salmon-reply" endpoints 
to just be "salmon" to handle the generic case of "here's a signed salmon you 
may be interested in, based on 
metadata or content, please process it and do what you will with it".  If later 
on there are specific endpoints 
other than salmon-signer which crop up, they can get similarly specific names.  

Please yell if you see any problems with this.

Original comment by jpanzer@google.com on 6 Apr 2010 at 10:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

No problems, but I like "salmon-upstream" better :)

Original comment by hjfre...@google.com on 8 Apr 2010 at 11:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Collapsed salmon-replies and salmon-mentions into one link relation (which 
appears in two 
typically disjoint contexts: an Atom feed and a user XRD).

However, in a fine example of conservation of link relations, I realized that 
this is also 
an opportunity to fix another open issue.  I've added a link relation 
"mentions" to allow 
salmon generators to indicate which specific people the user intended to 
@-mention in their 
content.  This also helps disambiguate situations where we end up with text 
like "Hey @Bob" 
with no context about what domain Bob is supposed to be on.  The link lets you 
know that 
there was an intentional @-mention and not just accidental text. E.g., if you 
see a link 
rel=".../mentions" href="acct:bobj@example.org" you can mostly ignore the 
textual content 
for purposes of notification.  (If you want to linkify @Bob it gets a bit 
tricker and I'm 
looking for a least-effort approach for that.)

Original comment by jpanzer@google.com on 13 Apr 2010 at 9:25

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Just to be clear - with the collapsed relations - will you introduce a 
"mention" link that is either SHOULD / MUST 
for mentions? Currently (as I have mentioned in the past), we are using an 
"ostatus:attention" relation to serve 
this purpose. We would happily drop this if it was included as part of Salmon 
proper. We use it for the exact 
purpose that you've outlined in #10.

Original comment by wal...@gmail.com on 28 May 2010 at 2:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Fixed in revision 104.

Original comment by jpanzer@google.com on 19 Jun 2010 at 7:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by jpanzer@google.com on 19 Jun 2010 at 7:39

• Changed state: Done