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

Re: Schema.org proposal: New Actions and Actions contigent on an Offer

From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:48:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOr1obER4KaDA5_GjS6_4YdopDfFTyQdwQVotvYv4kO7zVXsOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "What about "requiresAcceptanceOf"? Because the thing will not depend on
>> an offer but on accepting that offer."
>
>
> +1 (makes more sense to me at least)
>

My fear is that the term "requires" leads people to wonder who will enforce
the requirement and that is ambiguous at best. How about
"expectsAcceptanceOf"?

Can we take up expanding the range to include Actions separately? As Martin
pointed out, Actions add a lot of complexity and we should play out the use
cases completely.

- Vicki

Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 14:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC