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

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

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:02:23 +0200
Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99CE13D2-05B5-4B51-AF09-EA834284DA4F@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Then I think

    dependsOnOffer

is better.

FYI: I have plans to work on extending GoodRelations in terms of product compatibility and dependencies; for that I would like to avoid "consuming" a dependsOn property keyword for now.

Martin



On 19 Sep 2014, at 16:48, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote:

> 
> 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 15:02:50 UTC

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