@cwebber@octodon.social Thank you for reply to the #ActivityPub issue at https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260
I followed the discussion there plus copying my follow-up below:
1. Let's go step by step. Explicitly stating that Actors and Users are different entities is a good way forward.
BTW the confusing phrase "users are represented as "actors" here" should also be changed to "users are mapped to actors" with addition, how (you suggested wording...)
Where can we see current draft for review how it looks now? You are too quick to state that the issue is resolved :-)
2. Let's check if the statement is valid:
* ""user" is technically an entity outside the protocol"
2.1 First of all the term is used tens times in the document, which describes the protocol: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
2.2. The term "user" is used for two different things, actually:
* for "natural person from a real world"
* and for "user's account at a Servetr" (my interpretation).
The second meaning is definitely "inside protocol". Just look at these phrases, from many available, for example:
* "This protocol permits a client to act on behalf of a user."
* "Client to server interaction takes place through clients posting Activities to a user's outbox"
My conclusion is that a User in the second meaning "user's account at a Server" is definitely a part of the protocol description.
3. As now we agreed on separation of an Actor from a User, let's look again, what we read in the document.
3.1 You know: there are many places, where the word user(s) should be replaced with a word Actor(s), e.g. here {again, one of many examples):
* "The Follow activity is used to subscribe to the activities of another user."
Attributes of a User are presented as attributes of an Actor in examples...