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

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

From: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:44:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMtUnc59K9wOKi3vN2yq=9G2ZS+9+g9YhdXdbi7JPjv8in_Meg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
InteractAction was meant for interactions between people-people or
people-organizations. I don't think it would fit.

You could try to make a case for some intersection with UpdateAction, but I
think that starting separately and merging afterwards seems reasonable too
(I.e. making a distinction on operations on devices versus
data/collections).

(sent from phone)
On Sep 21, 2014 1:38 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
wrote:

> Hi Vicki,
>
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:21 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote:
> > In order to model the operation of devices and applications, we propose
> > adding the following new Actions:
> >
> > http://schema.org/OperateAction
> > http://schema.org/ActivateAction
> > http://schema.org/DectivateAction
> > http://schema.org/ResumeAction
> > http://schema.org/SuspendAction
>
> I do understand that you want to "group" those actions under OperateAction
> but what distinguishes OperateAction from an InteractAction (definition
> would need to be generalized to include devices) or an UpdateAction? IMHO,
> the definition of UpdateAction would fit quite well for those new actions:
>
>    The act of managing by changing/editing the state of the object.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 20:44:46 UTC

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