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

Re: potentialAction for Classes?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=5MVhW1v9=qXvLa__EAGPctYbb3RkT4MMh1Twu2GOBuig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org Org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 21 May 2014 10:05, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
> You can do that.  The movie review site example toward the end of the
> announcement spec is an example:
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/images/1/10/PotentialActionsApril11.pdf
> The challenge is that not all bugs are resolvable.  Only bugs from the same
> database that exist and are open.  That's why it's generally simpler to
> state on the bug itself what actions it supports.  For example, when I
> resolve the bug, you can return that it's no longer resolvable but is no
> re-openable.
> One way to strike a better balance is to only refer to the action specifics
> (including its EntryPoint, etc.) by reference on the bug instances.  Then
> you're only saying the supported actions and not repeating the action
> metadata.  You're limiting to processors that can fully dereference objects
> and re-compose the graph LOD-style, though.  Some are limited to one page at
> a time.

FWIW in earlier designs (e.g. Nov2012's
we used different properties for this:

"""There are therefore two ways here that we can represent that this
action applies to the Movie
 1. The ‘possibleAction’ property is issued directly to state that
Skyfall has a possibleAction
relationship to the action RMO1.
2. The ‘possibleActionType’ property is issued to associate the
general type Movie with some
relevant sub-types of Action, namely BuyTicketForMovie,
RentMovieOnline. Since RMO1 is of
type RentMovieOnline, and Skyfall is of type Movie, we can conclude
that the action may be
applicable to this Movie.
 This combination of mechanisms allows for fine-grained accuracy via
specific per-action
descriptions, as well as leaving open the possibility for type-level
generalisation. """

Movies remain a good example of entities where context (geo, device,
personalization etc.) reduces the usefulness of stating type-level



> -jason
> On Tue May 20 2014 at 10:58:35 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>> Has there been any discussion around whether it would make sense to
>> allow potential actions for all instances of a class, so that modelers
>> don't need to repeat the same details over and over again? An example
>> use case would be a page listing bugs in a bug tracker. Each bug would
>> have an action to mark it as "resolved". If I understand the current
>> design, the web page would need to include individual Action entries for
>> each bug item, even if they differ with just a single ID. I believe it
>> would be great if this information could be captured once, e.g. via a
>> property "potentialInstanceAction" attached to the type of those bug
>> items, where the urlTemplate is parameterized with a field from the
>> instances.
>> Cheers,
>> Holger
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 09:40:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC