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

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

From: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:49:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMtUnc77+gKr951BCfBtQxOFpaSKt-WwRujSh0nKeac-r415oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Cc: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>
>
> ControlAction sounds good to me.
>

ControlAction makes sense to me too.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I am fine either way, but I think others found this thread more accessible.
>
> - Vicki
>
>
>
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 16:49:32 UTC

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