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

Operation / Action (former: Schema.org proposal: New Actions and Actions contigent on an Offer)

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:42:05 +0200
Message-ID: <5420899D.4040206@wwelves.org>
To: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
On 09/22/2014 09:41 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org <mailto: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?
I know that my comments may sound like going down the HTTPRange-14
'rathole'. I hope that we have much simpler case here to clarify.

Many web developers know CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete). In
schema.org I see UpdateAction with AddAction, DeleteAction,
ReplaceAction as something pretty close to that. Those actions also seem
to me like operations on *web resources*. Also to my understanding Hydra
focuses on those as well (hydra:CreateResourceOperation,
hydra:ReplaceResourceOperation, hydra:DeleteResourceOperation)

Pretty much all the rest of schema.org/Action sub types look like
actions on *abstract things* including CreateAction and ReadAction.

Last week I suggested in Hydra issue to use
* Operation for *web resources*
* Action for *abstract things*

This way schema.org could also model CRUD operations with
* CreateOperation
* ReadOperation
* UpdateOperation
* DeleteOperation

While other actions on *abstract things* would stay unchanged.

BTW if that sounds like something with even slight possibly of making
sense I would propose to use term *ControlAction* for Viki's proposal
instead of *OperateAction* (operation/action)

I still need to work with some more real life examples to wrap my mind
around it. Next week we should work in Social Web WG on *potential
actions* plus *past activities*. It may include scenarios like:

"Alice took photo of Steve & Jane, and posted this photo on Bob's wall
and Beth's wall".

So Steve and Jane would have *potential action* 'Photograph', which
would yield *past activity* which result - a photograph - gets published
on Bob's wall and Beth's wall, those walls also need appropriate
*potential actions* to post on them...

Should I reply with further findings in this exploration on this thread
or maybe better to move this sub-conversation to dedicated issue on github?
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 20:44:21 UTC

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