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

RE: potentialAction for Classes?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 21:17:40 +0200
To: "'Jason Douglas'" <jasondouglas@google.com>, "'Holger Knublauch'" <holger@topquadrant.com>, <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <09fe01cf7529$57d41720$077c4560$@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:06 AM, Jason Douglas 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

IMHO this is different. It defines an "endpoint" which is able to process ReviewActions. This is not the same as allowing bugs to be marked as being resolved by modifying their state.

> 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.

True.. but introducing a (proprietary) subclass like ResolvableBug and associating the action to that class is very cheap.

> 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. 

Yeah, that's also a quite elegant solution but unfortunately it doesn't really work with the current design as the EntryPoint is associated to the action and not vice-versa. When you implement a RESTful Web API you want to modify the bug by POSTing/PUTing to its URL and not to the URL of some other resource (EntryPoint).

Markus Lanthaler

> On Tue May 20 2014 at 10:58:35 PM, Holger Knublauch 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 19:18:13 UTC

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