The Social Web Protocols are a collection of standards which enable various aspects of decentralised social interaction on the Web. This document describes the purposes of each, and how they fit together.

Status of This Document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at https://www.w3.org/TR/.

This document was published by the Social Web Working Group as a Working Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation. Comments regarding this document are welcome. Please send them to public-socialweb@w3.org (subscribe, archives).

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

This document is governed by the 1 March 2017 W3C Process Document.

1. Overview

People and the content they create are the core components of the social web; they make up the social graph. This document describes a standard way in which people can:

regardless of what that content is or where it is stored.

These components are core building blocks for interoperable social systems.

Each of these components can be implemented independently as needed, or all together in one system, as well as extended to meet domain-specific requirements. Users can store their social data across any number of compliant servers, and use compliant clients hosted elsewhere to interact with their own content and the content of others. Put simply, this document tells you, according the recommendations of the Social Web Working Group:

1.1 Contents

This is an overview of the current state of specifications of the Social Web Working Group. This document also describes Social Web Working Group specifications in context of other W3C recommendations and relevant drafts from other communities outside of the W3C. As many of these specs are under ongoing development, this document is subject to change alongside them.

You might also want to take a look at the Working Group's Social API Requirements to understand the division of concerns.

Due to the diversity of viable technical approaches proposed within the Working Group, several specifications on the recommendation track provide overlapping functionality through differing mechanisms. This document exists to provide informative guidance on how and when to implement the various specifications, as well as guidance to implement bridges between recommendations with overlapping functionality.

1.2 Social Web Working Group Specifications

ActivityPub (Candidate Recommendation)
JSON-based APIs for reading, publishing, updating, deleting, subscribing, delivery and profiles.
ActivityStreams 2.0 (AS2) (Core, Candidate Recommendation, Vocabularly, Candidate Recommendation)
The syntax and vocabulary for representing social activities, actors, objects, and collections in JSON and RDF.
Linked Data Notifications (Proposed Recommendation)
An RDF-based protocol for delivery.
Micropub (Candidate Recommendation)
A form-encoding and JSON-based API for publishing, updating and deleting.
WebSub (Candidate Recommendation)
A protocol for subscription to any resource and delivery of updates about it.
Webmention (Recommendation)
A form-encoding-based protocol for delivery.

1.3 Social Web Working Group Drafts

JF2 (First Public Working Draft (Note))
An alternative JSON serialization for representing objects and feeds of social data.
Post Type Discovery (Working Draft)
A protocol to bridge implicitly typed objects and explicitly typed objects.

1.4 Other specifications

ActivityStreams 1.0 [External]
The predecessor to [ActivityStreams2].
Annotation Protocol [WAWG CR]
Transport mechanisms for creating and managing annotations on the Web.
Linked Data Platform [LDP REC]
A protocol for reading and writing Linked Data.

1.5 Requirements

This table shows the high level requirements according to the Social Web Working Group charter and the Social API Requirements, and how the specifications of the Working Group overlap with respect to each.

Data model Social API Federation API
Vocabulary Syntax Profiles Read Create Update Delete Subscription Delivery
ActivityPub X X X X X X X
ActivityStreams 2.0 X X X
Linked Data Notifications X
Micropub X X X
Webmention X
Post-type discovery

1.6 How do these specifications relate to each other?

As a quick reference, some key relationships between specifications are as follows:

2. Reading

If you are a content publisher, this section is about how you should publish your content. If you are a content consumer, this is what you should expect to consume.

2.1 Content representation

[ActivityStreams2] is the recommended syntax and vocabulary for social data. ActivityStreams 2.0 represents content and interactions as Objects and Activities. The ActivityStreams vocabulary defines a finite set of common Object and Activity types and properties, as well as an extension mechanism for applications which want to expand on or specialise these.

ActivityStreams 2.0 content MUST be served with the Content-Type application/activity+json or for JSON-LD extended implementations, application/ld+json; profile="https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams". Consumers should recognise both of these Content-Types as ActivityStreams 2.0.

In order to claim ActivityStreams 2.0 conformance, a data publisher MUST use ActivityStreams 2.0 vocabulary terms where available, and only use other vocabularies in addition, or where no appropriate ActivityStreams 2.0 term exists.

Note: ActivityStreams 1.0

ActivityStreams 2.0 builds upon [AS1] and is not fully backwards compatible; the relationship between AS1 and AS2 is documented in the AS2 spec. If you have implemented [AS1], you should transition to ActivityStreams 2.0.

[Activitypub] uses ActivityStreams 2.0 for all data, and also extends ActivityStreams 2.0 with additional terms. Thus, ActivityPub requires requests have the Content-Type application/ld+json; profile="https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams".

To make content available as ActivityStreams 2.0 JSON, one could do so directly when requested with an appropriate Accept header (eg. application/activity+json or application/ld+json), or indirectly via a rel="alternate" type="application/activity+json" link . This link could be to a different domain, for third-party services which dynamically generate ActivityStreams 2.0 JSON on behalf of a publisher.

2.1.1 Other ways of representing content

If you don't like ActivityStreams 2.0, there are still some specifications you can use for particular tasks.

[LDN] notification contents can use any vocabulary, so long as the data is available in JSON-LD. Thus notifications MAY use ActivityStreams 2.0, but don't have to.

[Micropub] clients which expect to read data (this would usually be clients for updating) are expecting it as JSON in the parsed microformats2 syntax.

[WebSub] is agnostic as to the Content-Type used by publishers; hubs are expected to deliver the new content to subscribers as-is produced by the publisher, at the publisher's topic URL.

Note: JF2

JF2 is an alternative syntax and vocabulary to ActivityStreams 2.0, based on a simplification of the microformats2 parsing algorithm, which may be published as a Working Group Note. It is not currently referenced by any other specifications in the WG.

2.2 Objects

All objects MUST have URLs in the id property, which return the properties of an object according to content representation, and depending on the requester's right to access the content.

2.3 Streams

Each stream MUST have a URL which MUST result in the contents of the stream (according to the requester's right to access, and could be paged), and MAY include additional metadata about the stream (such as title, description).

Each object in a stream MUST contain at least its URL, which can be dereferenced to retrieve all properties of the object, and MAY contain other properties of the object.

One user may publish one or more streams of content. Streams may be generated automatically or manually, and might be segregated by post type, topic, audience, or any arbitrary criteria decided by the curator of the stream. A user profile MAY include links to multiple streams, which a consumer could follow to read or subscribe to.

2.3.1 Special streams

[Activitypub] specifies two streams that MUST be accessible from a profile via the following properties:

  • inbox: A reference to an [ActivityStreams2] collection comprising all the objects received by the actor.
  • outbox: An [ActivityStreams2] collection comprising all the objects produced by the actor.

[Activitypub] also specifies four further properties for accessing additional streams, which SHOULD or MAY be included in a profile:

  • following: An [ActivityStreams2] collection of the actors that this actor is following.
  • followers: An [ActivityStreams2] collection of the actors that follow this actor
  • likes: An [ActivityStreams2] collection of every object from all of the actor's Like activities (generated automatically by the server).
  • streams: A list of supplementary Collections which may be of interest.

[Activitypub] permits arbitrary streams to be created through specifying special behavior for the server when it receives activities with types Add and Remove. When a server receives such an activity in the outbox, and the target is a Collection, it MUST add the object to the target (for Add) or remove the object from the target (for Remove).

2.3.2 Inboxes

An Inbox is a collection or stream of objects to which new objects may be delivered. The contents of this collection may also be read. While ActivityPub and LDN align for writing to an Inbox, due to irritating but ultimately unavoidable compatibility requirements with AS2 and LDP respectively, they use different vocabularies when Inbox contents are returned for reading. Fortunately for consuming clients to check for both vocabularies or for publishers to publish using both is not a huge implementation hurdle, so bridging is fairly trivial.

  • ActivityPub Inboxes are an [ActivityStreams2] OrderedCollection, and link to their contents with the items property.
  • LDN Inboxes are an [LDP] Container, and link to their contents with the contains property.

In addition, ActivityPub has more constraints on the content type of the inbox stream, so LDN receivers either need to conform to these constraints (basically just making sure all your JSON-LD is compacted) or ActivityPub clients need to incorporate proper RDF parsing when reading an inbox stream.

In summary:

ActivityPub servers wishing to be read by LDN consumers MUST:

  • serve content with the content-type application/ld+json; profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams".
  • include along with the Inbox Collection, every item in the Inbox related with the ldp:contains property.

ActivityPub clients wishing to read from LDN Inboxes MUST:

  • request content with the content-type application/ld+json. Running it through JSON-LD compacting should help.
  • look for items in the Inbox via the ldp:contains property (rather than AS2 items).

LDN receivers wishing to interoperate with ActivityPub consuming clients MUST:

  • treat the content-type application/activity+json as equivalent to application/ld+json; profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams".
  • use compacted JSON-LD.
  • serve Inbox contents as an AS2 Collection (where each notification is related to the inbox with the AS2 items property).

LDN consumers wishing to read from inboxes on ActivityPub servers MUST:

  • if content is returned with the content-type application/activity+json and missing an @context, apply the default AS2 context, and treat it as JSON-LD.
  • look for items in the Inbox via the AS2 items property (rather than ldp:contains).

3. Publishing

Publishing in this context incorporates creating new content, and updating or deleting existing content. Content generated through a client (such as a web form, mobile app, sensor, smart device) is created when it is sent to a server for processing, where it is typically stored and usually published (either publicly or to a restricted audience, in human- and/or machine-readable forms). Clients and servers may independently support creating, updating and deleting; there are no dependencies between them.

Authentication and authorization between clients and servers for creating content are left out of scope.

The two specifications recommended by the Social Web Working Group for publishing are [Activitypub] and [Micropub]. They use similar high level mechanisms, but differ in requirements around both the vocabularies and content types of data. ActivityPub contains a client-to-server API for creating ActivityStreams 2.0 objects and activities, and specifies additional responsibilities for clients around addressing objects, and for servers around the side-effects of certain types of objects. Micropub provides a basic client-to-server API for creating blog-post type content which can be implemented alone and is intended as a quickstart for content creation, on top of which more complex (but optional) actions can be layered.

Both provide similar media endpoints for uploading files.

Note: REST

Neither ActivityPub nor Micropub define APIs for publishing based on HTTP verbs. If you're looking for something more RESTful, you may like the Linked Data Platform ([LDP]).

3.1 Creating

The publishing endpoint of [Activitypub] is the outbox. Clients are assumed to have the URL of a (ideally authenticated) user profile as a starting point, and discover the value of the https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#outbox property found at the profile URL (which should be available as JSON). The client then makes an HTTP POST request with an [ActivityStreams2] activity or object as a JSON payload with a content type of application/ld+json; profile="https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams". The URL of the created resource is generated at the discretion of the server, and returned in the Location HTTP header. This is an appropriate protocol to use when:

Side-effects of creating content with ActivityPub are for the most part adding things to various different collections collections (likes, follows, etc); but also include requirements about blocking users, and a hook to enable federated servers.

The publishing endpoint for [Micropub] is the micropub end point. Clients discover this from a user's URL via a rel="micropub" link (in an HTTP Link header, or an HTML element). Clients make a x-www-form-urlencoded POST request containing the key-value pairs for the attributes of the object being created. The URL of the created resource is generated at the discretion of the server, and returned in the Location HTTP header. Clients and servers must support attributes from the Microformats 2 [h-entry] vocabulary. Micropub also defines special reserved attributes (prefixed with mp-) which can be used as commands to the server. Any additional key names sent outside of these vocabularies may be ignored by the server.

[Micropub] requests may alternatively be sent as a JSON payload, the syntax of which is derived from the Microformats 2 parsing algorithm. This is an appropriate protocol to use when:

3.2 Updating

Content is updated when a client sends changes to attributes (additions, removals, replacements) to an existing object. If a server has implemented a delivery or subscription mechanism, when an object is updated, the update MUST be propagated to the original recipients using the same mechanism.

[Activitypub] clients send an HTTP POST request to the outbox containing an [ActivityStreams2] Update activity. The object of the activity is an existing object, and the fields to update should be nested. If a partial representation of an object is sent, omitted fields are not deleted by the server. In order to delete specific fields, the client can assign them a null value. However, when a federated server passes an Update activity to another server's inbox, the recipient must assume this is the complete object to be replaced; partial updates are not performed server-to-server.

[Micropub] clients perform updates, as either form-encoded or JSON POST requests, using the mp-action=update parameter, as well as a replace, add or delete property containing the updates to make, to the Micropub endpoint. replace replaces all values of the specified property; if the property does not exist already, it is created. add adds new values to the specified property without changing the existing ones; if the property does not exist already, it is created. delete removes the specified property; you can also remove properties by value by specifying the value.

3.3 Deleting

Content is deleted when a client sends a request to delete an existing object. If a server has implemented a delivery or subscription mechanism, when an object is deleted, the deletion MUST be propagated to the original recipients using the same mechanism.

[Activitypub] clients delete an object by sending an HTTP POST request containing an [ActivityStreams2] Delete activity to the outbox of the authenticated user. Servers MUST either replace the object of this activity with a tombstone and return a 410 Gone status code, or return a 404 Not Found, from its URL.

[Micropub] delete requests are two key-value pairs, in form-encoded or JSON: mp-action: delete and url: url-to-be-deleted, sent to the Micropub endpoint .

4. Subscribing

An agent (client or server) may ask to be notified of changes to a content object (eg. edits, new replies) or stream of content (eg. objects added or removed from a particular stream). This is subscribing. Specifications which contain subscription mechanisms are ActivityPub and WebSub.

Note: Subscription vs delivery

Nothing should rely on implementation of a subscription mechanism. That is, implementations may set themselves up to receive notifications without always being required to explicitly ask for them from a sender or publisher: see delivery.

4.1 Subscribing with as:Follow

[Activitypub] servers maintain a Followers collection for all users. This collection may be directly addressed, or addressed automatically or by default, in the to, cc or bcc field of any Activity, and as a result, servers deliver the Activity to the inbox of each user in the collection.

Subscription requests are essentially requests to be added to this collection. They are made by the subscriber's server POSTing a Follow Activity to the target's inbox. This request should be authenticated, and therefore doesn't need additional verification. The target server then SHOULD add the subscriber to the target's Followers collection. Exceptions may be made if, for example, the target has blocked the subscriber.

This is a suitable subscription mechanism when:

Since delivery is only a requirement for federated servers, prospective subscribers will not be able to POST their Follow activity to the inbox of a profile which is on a non-federated server (expect a 405 Method Not Allowed), and thus are not able to subscribe to these profiles. In this case, prospective subscribers may wish to periodically pull from the publisher's outbox instead.

4.2 Delegating subscription handling

[WebSub] provides a mechanism to delegate subscription handling and delivery of content to subscribers to a third-party, called a hub. All publishers need to do is link to their chosen hub(s) using HTTP Link headers or HTML <link> elements with rel="hub", and then notify the hub when new content is available. The mechanism for notifying the hub is left deliberately unspecified, as publishers may have their own built in hub, and therefore use an internal mechanism.

Note: Notifying the hub

Hubs and publishers which would like to agree on a standard mechanism to communicate might consider employing an existing delivery mechanism, namely Linked Data Notifications or Webmention.

The subscriber discovers the hub from the publisher, and sends a form-encoded POST request containing values for hub.mode ("subscribe"), hub.topic (the URL to subscribe to) and hub.callback (the URL where updates should be sent to, which should be 'unguessable' and unique per subscription). The hub and subscriber carry out a series of exchanges to verify this request.

When the hub is notified of new content by the publisher, the hub fetches the content of the topic URL, and delivers this to the subscriber's callback URL.

This is a suitable subscription mechanism when:

Note: WebSub and Inboxes

LDN Receivers can receive deliveries from WebSub hubs by using the inbox URL as the hub.callback URL and either only subscribing to resources published as JSON-LD or accepting content-types other than JSON-LD.

5. Delivery

A user or application may wish to push a notification to another user that the receiver has not explicitly asked for. For example to send a message or some new information; because they have linked to (replied, liked, bookmarked, reposted, etc) their content; because they have linked to (tagged, addressed) the user directly; to make the recipient aware of a change in state of some document or resource on the Web. The Social Web Working Group specifications contain several mechanisms for carrying out delivery; they are listed here from general to specialsed.

Note: Delivery vs subscription

We need to leave it open for users to refuse content they have not explicitly subscribed to, ie. nothing else should rely on implementation of Delivery.

5.1 Targeting and discovery

The target of a notification is usually the addressee or the subject, as referenced by a URL. The target may also be someone who has previously requested notifications through a subscription request. Once you have determined your target, you need to discover where to send the notification for that particular target. Do this by fetching the target URL and looking for a link to an endpoint which will accept the type of notification you want to send (read on, for all of your exciting options).

Bear in mind that many potential targets will not be configured to receive notifications at all. To avoid overloading unsuspecting servers with discovery-related requests, your application should employ a "back-off" strategy when carrying out discovery multiple times to targets on the same domin. This could involve increasing the period of time between subsequent requests, or caching unsuccessful discovery attempts so those domains can be avoided in future. You may wish to send a User-Agent header with a reference to the notification mechanism you are using so that recipient servers can find out more about the purpose of your requests.

Your application should also respect relevant cache control and retry headers returned by the target server.

5.2 Generic notifications

[LDN] provides a protocol for sending, receiving and consuming notifications which may contain any content, or be triggered by any person or process. Senders, receivers and consumers can all be on different domains, thus this meets the criteria for a federation protocol. This is a suitable notification mechanism when:

[LDN] functionality is divided between senders, receivers and consumers. The endpoint to which notifications are sent is the inbox. Any resource (a user profile, blog post, document) can advertise its inbox so that it may be discovered through an HTTP Link header or the document body in any RDF syntax (including JSON-LD or HTML+RDFa). To this Inbox, senders make a POST request containing the JSON-LD (or other RDF syntax per [Accept-Post] negotation with the receiver) payload of the notification. The receiver returns a URL from which the notification data can be retrieved, and also adds this URL to a list which is returned upon a GET request to the Inbox. Consumers can retrieve this Inbox listing, and from there the individual notifications, as JSON-LD (optionally content negotiated to another RDF syntax). An obvious type of consumer is a script which displays notifications in a human-readable way.

Note: LDP compatibility

An existing [LDP] implementation can serve as an [LDN] receiver; publishers simply advertise any ldp:Container as the inbox for a resource.

The payload of notifications is deliberately left open so that LDN may be used in a wide variety of use cases. However, receivers with particular purposes are likely to want to constrain the types of notifications they accept. They can do this transparently (such that senders are able to attempt to conform, rather than having their requests rejected opaquely) by advertising data shapes constraints such as [SHACL]. Advertisement of such constraints also allows consumers to understand the types of notifications in the Inbox before attempting to retrieve them. Receivers may reject notifications on the basis of internal, undisclosed constraints, and may also access control the Inbox for example by requiring an Authorization header from both senders and consumers.

[WebSub] publishers deliver content to their hub, and hubs to their subscribers using HTTP POST requests. The body of the request is left to the discretion of the sender in the first case, and in the latter case must match the Content-Type of and contain contents from the topic URL.

5.3 Activity notifications

[Activitypub] uses [LDN] to send notifications with some specific constraints. These are:

[Activitypub] specifies how to define the target(s) to which a notification is to be sent (a pre-requisite to [LDN] sending), via the [ActivityStreams2] audience targeting and object linking properties.

[Activitypub] also defines side-effects that must be carried out by the server as a result of notification receipt. These include:

Note: The inbox property

ActivityPub actor profiles are linked to their inboxes via the https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#inbox property. This is an alias (in the AS2 JSON-LD context) for LDN's http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#inbox. Applications using a full JSON-LD processor to parse these documents will see these terms as one and the same. Applications doing naive string matching on terms may wish to note that if you find an ldp:inbox it will accept POST requests in the same way as an as:inbox.

5.4 Mentioning

[Webmention] provides an API for sending and receiving notifications when a relationship is created, updated, or deleted between two documents by including the URL of one document in the content of another. It works when the two documents are on different domains, thus serving as a federation protocol. This is a suitable notification mechanism when:

If a Webmention is received and this is the first time this source and target combination has been seen by the receiver, this indicates a relationship between the source and target has been created. If the receiver has seen these values before, the receiver can fetch and parse the source to determine what has changed; either the content of the source has been updated (in which case the receiver can update local copies of the content, if it stored them in the first place), or the entire source has been deleted (expect a 410 Gone response).

There are no constraints on the syntax of the source and target documents. Discovery of the [Webmention] endpoint (a script which can process incoming webmentions) is through a link relation (rel="webmention"), either in the HTTP Link header or HTML body of the target. This endpoint does not need to be on the same domain as the target, so webmention receiving can be delegated to a third party.

Webmentions are verified by the server dereferencing the source and parsing it to check for the existence of the target URL. If the target URL isn't found, the webmention MUST be rejected.

[Webmention] uses x-www-form-urlencoded for the source and target as parameters in an HTTP POST request. Beyond verification, it is not specified what the receiver should do upon receipt of a Webmention. What the webmention endpoint should return on a GET request is also left unspecified.

5.5 Delivery interop

This section describes how receiver implementations of either Webmention or LDN may create bridging code in order to accept notifications from senders of the other. This can also be read to understand how a sender of either Webmention or LDN should adapt their discovery and payload in order to send to a receiver of the other.

5.5.1 LDN to Webmention

Webmention receivers wishing to also accept LDN POSTs at their Webmention endpoint MUST:

  • Advertise the webmention endpoint via rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#inbox" in addition to rel="webmention" (in the Link header, HTML body or JSON body of a target).
  • Accept POST requests with the Content-Type application/ld+json. Expect the body of the request to be:
    Example 1
      "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#",
      "@id": "",
      "source": { "@id": "https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby" },
      "target": { "@id": "https://aaronpk.example/post-by-aaron" }
    Use the source->@id and target->@id values as the source and target of the Webmention, and proceed with verification.
  • If returning a 201 Created, it MUST return a Location header with a URL from which the contents of the request posted can be retrieved. 202 Accepted is still fine.
  • Note than when verifying the source, there's a good chance you can request/parse it as RDF.

5.5.2 Webmention to LDN

LDN receivers wishing to also accept Webmentions to their Inbox MUST:

  • Advertise the Inbox via rel="webmention" in addition to rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#inbox" (in the Link header, HTML body or JSON body of a target).
  • Accept POST requests with a content type application/x-www-form-urlencoded. Convert these requests from:
    Example 2
    Example 3
      "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#",
      "@id": "",
      "source": { "@id": "https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby" },
      "target": { "@id": "https://aaronpk.example/post-by-aaron" }
    and proceed per [LDN]; receivers MAY add other triples at their discretion.
  • Receivers MUST return a 201 Created with a Location header or 202 Accepted.
  • Receivers MUST verify the request by retrieving the source document and checking a link to the target document is present. If the Webmention is not verified, recievers MUST NOT keep it.

5.5.3 Webmention as AS2

A webmention may be represented as a persistent resource with [ActivityStreams2]. This could come in handy if a Webmention sender mentions a user known to be running an [Activitypub] federated server. In this case, the sender can use an AS2 payload and carry out delivery of the notification per ActivityPub/LDN.

Example 4
  "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#",
  "type": "Relationship",
  "subject": "https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby",
  "object": "https://aaronpk.example/post-by-aaron"

A receiver or sender may want to augment this representation with the relationship between the two documents, and any other pertinent data. In the receiver's case, this could be gathered when they parse the source during the verification process. For example:

Example 5
  "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#",
  "type": "Relationship",
  "subject": {
    "id": "https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby",
    "name": "Hi Aaron, great post."
  "object": {
    "id": "https://aaronpk.example/post-by-aaron",
    "name": "Aaron's first post."
  "relationship": "inReplyTo"

6. Profiles

Issue 1

Stub, needs expansion

The subject of a profile document can be a person, persona, organisation, bot, location, … the type of the subject of the profile is not required. Each profile document MUST have a URL which SHOULD return attributes of the subject of the profile; SHOULD return at least one link to a stream of content and MAY return content the subject has created. A JSON format MUST be available; other content types MAY be returned as well.

6.1 Relationships

Semantics and representation of personal relationships are implementation specific. This specification deals with relationships only when distribution of content is affected, for example if one user ‘friending' another triggers a subscription request from the first user's server to the second. Lists of other relationships MAY be discoverable from a user profile, SHOULD be represented according to the ActivityStremas 2 syntax and MAY (and are likely to) use extension vocabularies as needed.

6.2 Authorization and access control

Servers may restrict/authorize access to content however they want?

A. Change Log

A.1 Changes from 16 November WD to this version

A.2 Changes from 1 November 2016 WD to this version

A.3 Changes from 12 October 2016 WD to this version

A.4 Changes from 23 August to 12 October 2016

A.5 Changes from 3 June to 23 August 2016

B. References

B.1 Informative references

JSON Activity Streams 1.0.. J. Snell; M. Atkins; W. Norris; C. Messina; M. Wilkinson; R. Dolin. http://activitystrea.ms. Unofficial. URL: http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/1.0/
The Accept-Post HTTP Header.. J. Arwe; S. Speicher; E. Wilde. IETF. Internet Draft. URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-accept-post
ActivityStreams 2.0. James Snell; Evan Prodromou. W3C. W3C Candidate Recommendation. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams
ActivityPub. Christopher Webber; Jessica Tallon. W3C. 13 April 2017. W3C Candidate Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
Linked Data Notifications. Sarven Capadisli; Amy Guy. W3C. W3C Proposed Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/tr/ldn/
Linked Data Platform 1.0. Steve Speicher; John Arwe; Ashok Malhotra. W3C. 26 February 2015. W3C Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/
Micropub. Aaron Parecki. W3C. 13 April 2017. W3C Proposed Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/
Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). Holger Knublauch; Dimitris Kontokostas. W3C. 11 April 2017. W3C Candidate Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
WebSub. Julien Genestoux. W3C. W3C Editor's Draft. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/websub
Webmention. Aaron Parecki. W3C. W3C Recommendation. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/webmention
h-entry. Tantek Çelik. microformats.org. Living Specification. URL: http://microformats.org/wiki/h-entry