With forgefed
Bonjour,
Today J. A. from NLnet sent a mail to invite fedeproxy to participate in the upcoming webinar they are organizing (June 21st, 2021 9:30am). It would be a 5 minutes talk on āon data interoperability, possibly related to Linked Dataā. The webinar will include representative of projects funded by NLnet DAPSI etc. (under the NGI umbrella), including Forgefed.
Although fedeproxy has no implementation yet, there is enough material to explain how Forgefed fits as well as the strategy to use Linked Data in a pragmatic way. I wonāt be available on that day but Iād be happy to work with anyone interested and rehearse the presentation via videoconference.
I suppose there is going to be a short Q&A afterwards and that recording the presentation in advance is not really an option. Or maybe it is?
Cheers
Recording the presentation in advance is actually possible! We use BigBlueButton, which allows to show prerecorded videos (which will not be viewable in the recording of the webinar). There are some notes on showing prerecorded videos in BigBlueButton, copied here: āShared external videos will not appear in the recording. YouTube, Vimeo, Instructure Media, Twitch, Dailymotion and media file URLs (e.g. https://example.com/xy.mp4) are supported.ā So if no one would be available to present on Monday, recording a 5 min presentation and sharing me a link works fine as well.
This is excellent news! Iāll work on this presentation tomorrow. It resonates with todayās discussion with @arthurlogilab regarding how to approach linked data. In a nutshell I think both ActivityPub with forgefed and REST co-exist. They complement each other and their use case is different, as I tried to explain here. Iām however quite new to this and I fully expect pushback from more experienced developers. This is actually my main incentive to speak on that topic
@JoostAgterhoek here is the presentation that was recorded today:
Thanks for being so flexible
linked-data.odp (247.0 KB)
Well done @dachary! Concise and comprehensive.
Though I still find it a missed opportunity in how you position FedeProxy as the āsub-optimal, temporary band-aid solutionā until full native support in forge software is achieved. On the contrary FedeProxy has the opportunity to be forever more powerful than native forge-2-forge support, when it sits as an independent service in the middle between forges. Positioning it so needs not be a lot of extra work, other than ensuring future use cases can be facilitated and donāt need an overhaul, or are impossible altogether.
The āsub-optimalā case then constitutes your MVP, while the project itself is more visionary and exciting to potential contributors. You donāt ever need to go there, but will keep the path open.
(Related to earlier discussion on issue federation development plan)
I still donāt get it Iām afraid. But Iām very intrigued.
Iāll start a new topic to explore this further. It deserves its own discussion.
Ha, it might also be me who misunderstands. It is more that FedeProxy is not just a temporary proxy that sits in between forges, but it is a āpower slotā where you can plug in any additional functionality that forges on themselves do not and will never provide.
Update: See Multi forge web service with unique features for more info on this idea.