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: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:41:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMtUnc4YeuAeW=y8Yy3XhYsn9f1zLrU+Z6i6HkEWRiBF2VChtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> On 09/21/2014 10:44 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > 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).
>
> I have impression that we again face differences between actions
> performed on *abstract things* and operations performed on *web resources*
>
> IMO schema:UpdateAction with sub types tries to cover operations on *web
> resources* (looks to me like CRUD), while almost all the rest looks like
> actions on *abstract things*
>

Actions are applicable to a lot of different objects, "abstract things"
versus "web resources" is just one way to slice it. What problem
specifically are you trying to solve/clarify? And, is that problem
isomorphic to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPRange-14?


> Then we also have ones like schema:ViewAction (wikipedia page or real
> monument) or schema:WatchAction (online video or theater play)...
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Sep/0050.html
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 2014 1:38 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net
> > <mailto: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 Monday, 22 September 2014 19:41:41 UTC

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