Discussion
Loading...
Post
That would be great! We anyway want to federate link preview metadata (I see there's https://helge.codeberg.page/fep/fep/8967/ though nobody seems to have implemented it yet) so it'd be great if it was done as an extension of that, so that non-scientific platforms can still show a subset of the preview information at least? And yeah looking at existing schemas to reuse sounds great, maybe we can collaborate on a FEP draft that just points to those and shows some examples?
@bonfire I like FEP-8967, but my intuition is that citation information is kind of orthogonal to link previews. It could well make sense for software to emit/consume both, but if I'm federating an academic article like https://fietkau.science/content_interaction_public_displays, do I want to bundle 25 link previews? It seems incongruent to how those are used. More crucially, not every academic citation will have a URL, it might just be an old book with title + author + publisher + year.
@julian
ah based on that example we may be talking about different things, so far we've been thinking more of how you would federate and preview the metadata of https://fietkau.science/content_interaction_public_displays (assuming it is a publication or any kind of research object) rather than how you'd federate all the references if that text was published directly on the fediverse... which could be done different but also it could be app to the UI to decide if/how to use/display the link metadata
@bonfire Right – with OSN you're also thinking about academic creation, not only sharing? So letting authors declaratively cite specific sources in their posts could be good, as would searching/filtering for “what else cites this”.
Although tbh, my motivation for now is interop between Encyclia and OSN. 🙂 I want Bonfire to recognize Encyclia posts as what they are (automated metadata summaries of specific academic works) and separate those from human discussions.
@julian
That should be easy enough to get working as-is to begin with, and we can then progressively enhance with schemas?
@julian @bonfire @mayel @jonny
With #OpenScience we talk of an entire field that has a lot to fight for, given all that's wrong around academic publishing processes and the strangehold of commercial parties.
Also a field full of people who might design/deliver rock-solid robust & *interoperable* open standard specifications.
There's ample opportunity to start something like ForgeFed, a dedicated protocol extension spec. Working name: #ScienceFed and it can be homed at https://codeberg.org/fediverse
@julian
Have you also looked at:
1. https://schema.datacite.org
2. DOI Kernel Schema
3. ORCID seems to use CreativeWork from schema.org (we fetch orcid records in JSON but I'd have to double check what schema that's giving us) https://iphylo.blogspot.com/2020/01/orcid-serves-schemaorg-linked-data-via.html
@bonfire A bit, yeah. I'm sure each one has pros and cons for the purpose, but I'm in favor of picking something that's ready for use with linked data. We might be able to avoid defining a new JSON-LD context that way.
schema.org's CreativeWork is a supertype of ScholarlyArticle. Curious why ORCID doesn't use the subtypes even though they have the type information in their own data. (Their JSON schema is altogether different from their JSON-LD I think.)
@julian
makes sense, though would be great to heard from academics on this, whether involved/informed on the the topic of schemas or not...
and thanks for the hint, will have to check if we're getting the regular json version instead of the json-ld one...
@bonfire FWIW, Encyclia currently fetches plain JSON from ORCID and re-emits as human-readable ActivityPub Notes. ORCID's own types, which are used in (non-LD) JSON payloads, are listed in the second column here: https://info.orcid.org/ufaqs/what-work-types-does-orcid-support/ Dunno if those map cleanly to schema.org types but the palettes are small enough that we can figure it out.
Obligatory reference when looking at standards 😅
![[Caption above the panels:]
How Standards Proliferate
(See: A/C chargers, character encodings, instant messaging, etc.)
[A text-only panel.]
Situation:
There are 14 competing standards.
[Cueball and Ponytail stand facing each other.]
Cueball: 14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
Ponytail: Yeah!
[Another text-only panel. The word "Soon:" appears in its own box at the upper left of the panel.]
Soon:
Situation:
There are 15 competing standards.](https://cdn.masto.host/indiewebsocial/media_attachments/files/115/384/920/775/155/570/original/3fb467ac51feb6a9.png)
@bonfire @julian @mayel @jonny @smallcircles
🍉"I sincerely apologize for reaching out, but my family and I are facing extremely difficult circumstances in Gaza. Any support or sharing of this message can make a significant impact. Every little bit helps to ease our struggle. Link in bio.
I’m truly sorry once again for messaging you and for any inconvenience caused."🍉
1 more replies (not shown)
Currently the UI preview component checks for many different field names for each info, eg: e(@metadata, "datePublished", nil) || e(@metadata, "publication-date", nil) || e(@metadata, "date", nil) || e(@metadata, "created", "date-time", nil) || e(@metadata, "DC.date", nil) || e(@metadata, "citation_publication_date", nil) because the data is ingested from multiple sources in different formats, so would be great to instead transform it into a single schema at ingest.
https://github.com/bonfire-networks/bonfire_ui_social/tree/main/lib/components/activity/media/papers
@julian
Related issues for reference (feel free to comment there too):
https://github.com/bonfire-networks/bonfire-app/issues/1541
https://github.com/bonfire-networks/bonfire-app/issues/1598
Bonfire Dinteg Labs
This is a bonfire demo instance for testing purposes. This is not a production site. There are no backups for now. Data, including profiles may be wiped without notice. No service or other guarantees expressed or implied.
Automatic federation enabled