@jschwa1 hi, co-author of ActivityPub here. 👋🏼

ActivityPub is a technical recommendation of the W3C. The W3C is a liaison of ISO, and a bunch of W3C recommendations have become ISO standards -- like HTML, CSS and Web Authn. There's a special process for it.

I think it would be an interesting development!

@jschwa1 I would recommend submitting ActivityPub to ISO through their Publicly Available Specificcations process using an organisation such as Eclipse, JDF (*Linux Foundation). OASIS or ECMA to facilitate. This is the route other specs arising from #OpenSource took, such as #ODF and #SWHID.

Do not make the mistake the author of the previously open Schematron #standard made, conducting the work at ISO and then having to pay them to access ongoing updates...

@webmink Two thoughts:
1. The PAS process, whilst easier, would need a body to fund it. The end result would, arguably, have less 'weight' than a full ISO
2. I may be wrong, but I don't believe ISO can charge to use standards, only to purchase the standard. This may mean those developing, say, a standard implementation of the standard, would need to pay to read/ access it. Those wanting to use the resulting implementation would not need to purchase anything from ISO. Knowing it was developed to the ISO standard will add credibility

@jschwa1 Quick answers:
1. Unlike the funky BSI definition, PAS here simply means developing the full spec in a non-ISO venue and then requesting they adopt it. There's no need for significant extra cost, apart from satisfying ISO's extremely burdensome approval requirements. And as @rigo says W3C already has a PAS submission facility.
2. No-one cares where the spec came from if it has an ISO number. Developing at ISO simply means every attempt to access the spec must be paid for. Don't!

@webmink @jschwa1 Please note that ActivityPub is a W3C Recommendation and should/will not go via OASIS or ECMA. W3C has their own procedure with ISO, provided there is some added value (TRIPS agreement) This is a very burdensome procedure as ISO insists on translating the HTML Specification into Microsoft Word with a very special outline. So as long as there is no important added value, we will not do it. Creating another independent ActivityPub will just create fragmentation.

@rigo
Right. It's hard to include absolutely everything in just one toot!

The ISO PAS process is likely to get easier when they switch fully to OSD.

@jschwa1

@webmink @rigo I'm currently leading development of a standard using the OSD. For a more text/ narrative based standard this works quite well. That said, there as still bugs/ use cases that need development to resolve.
Not sure that OSD would help if ActivityPub were to be standardised.

@jschwa1 It would potentially mean the document markup could be imported directly into OSD rather than having to be force-fit into Word templates (which even Microsaoft finds hard)

/cc @rigo

@rigo @webmink I'm certainly not suggesting creation of a 'rival'/ different standard. More the elevation of ActivityPub to become a standard. This would provide more gravitas and perhaps help get wider adoption/ implementation.

Standards do not have to be Word documents. ISO 16739 (IFC or Industry Foundation Classes) was developed by buildingSMART International and then became an ISO standard. It is a data schema rather than a 'document'

@jschwa1 The format thing is a real issue.. Go look at how OOXML is faring (I am on BSI IST/41).

"Elevation" is a strange word. ActivityPub is already an international standard hosted by the pre-eminant expert SDO in its field. The paywalled ISO approach adds little, especially in the light of the new abilities under the EU's replacement reg 1025 to cite non-ESO specs.

/cc @rigo

@webmink @rigo I'm on AMT/4, B/555 and AMS/1 in the UK and ISO/TC184/SC4/WG13.

I used the word 'elevation' rather than promotion, conversion etc. to explore whether the current version of ActivityPub (or the latest development of it) 'just' became an ISO. (I know the standard processes are 24 or 36 months, but just wondering a What If.....

@jschwa1 What problem are you trying to solve?

(i have a background in standardisation: 3GPP, which is not an ISO standard, but still somehow relevant ...)

@jwildeboer defined an "open protocol standard" (i don't remember the exact wording) some months ago with the three steps

* Open specification
* Reference implementation
* Test suite

if we have all three for AP, ISO would be just "another" label.

@lobingera @jwildeboer Just thinking about the EU, for example, creating WSocial rather than implementing an ActivityPub type solution.
If ActivityPub were an ISO standard, would that have given it the credibility for the EU to adopt it rather than create something else?
So, the problem I am suggesting this would solve is to increase the credibility and therefore increase the reach/ implementation of ActivityPub over proprietary approaches e.g. Xitter, Facebook etc.

@jschwa1 What would the ISO bring to the table that the W3C does not? I think its more in the territory of IETF then ISO