W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2014

RE: ActionHandlers vs "App resources" (was: An updated draft of the schema.org/Action proposal)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 18:10:51 +0100
To: "'Sam Goto'" <goto@google.com>
Cc: "'Jason Johnson'" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b901cf3a28$3215b520$96411f60$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, March 06, 2014 4:38 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 10:27 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > > - As a replacement, we instead allow Thing.url to point us to
> > >   platform-specific Deeplink (e.g. AndroidDeeplink, ApiDeeplink and
> > >   WindowsDeeplink)
> > 
> > OK, so, e.g., you have a Movie (the abstract thing) which points via
> > the "url" property to a representation thereof in an Android app.
> > Right?
> 
> Right.

So a thing might have multiple urls? Right?

Generally, I have to say that I find the "url" property confusing. It is defined as "URL of the item" (http://schema.org/url). Typically, in JSON-LD you would just use @id for that. Do you have an explanation of when to use what and what it means if both are there?


> We are considering using AppUrl instead of Deeplink. Does that sound
> more descriptive?

Yes, it does. It still feels a bit odd though as you type the thing, not just the string "android-app://com.netflix/movies/12345". The thing isn't a "resource locator" but a "resource".


> > > - Without ActionHandlers, it felt awkward to have things like
> > >   expects/returns in the Action types, so we've created a specific
> > >   type to carry these service-y information, called ResourceOperation
> > >   where expects/returns live.
> > 
> > Great. So you basically came to same conclusion we came in Hydra.
> > There it also lives on Operation. I don't care too much but why do you
> > call that thing ResourceOperation instead of just Operation? I mean,
> > isn't everything a resource?
> 
> I wanted to emphasize that it needs to be attached to a resource
> rather than meant to be used in isolation.

OK...


> > > - The semantics of the operation are still dictated by the Action
> > >   types, via performsAction attached to ResourceOperation.
> >
> > Any specific reason why you don't simply type an operation with the
> > corresponding action?
> 
> Can you give an example? Might be more constructive to look at something
> concrete.

I though I did so already.. anyway. Instead of having

  {
    "@context": "http://schema.org",
    "@id": "http://example.com/restaurant",
    "@type": "Restaurant",
    "ordersBook": {
      "@id": "http://example.com/restaurant/orders",
      "operation": {
        "performs": "CreateAction",
        "expects": "Order",
        ...
      }
    }
  }

you would have

  {
    "@context": "http://schema.org",
    "@id": "http://example.com/restaurant",
    "@type": "Restaurant",
    "ordersBook": {
      "@id": "http://example.com/restaurant/orders",
      "operation": {
        "@type": "CreateAction",  <--- you type the operation itself as action
        "expects": "Order",
        ...
      }
    }

So the operation is at the same time also an action. Which I think makes sense. IMO there's no need to add another layer of abstraction (you invoke an operation which in turn performs an action). You simply perform an operation/action. Operations are thus simply invocable actions.. so a specialization therof.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 17:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:37 UTC