Re: [Specifications] Actions with explicit target

I think of operations as descriptions of (HTTP) requests and actions as the abstract, semantic meaning they have. I think we discussed that before. I think mixing the two (as in sub-classing which means a single resource is both an action and an operation at the same time) will be confusing and lead to all sort of unintended side effects.  

---

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 6 unresolved discussions.

---

*[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 33 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FFbx2Bp1-oFD14zrA:-L2FFbx3tWfK4Y-gGrxx:b-s8vi1f) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L33)):*
> ```Markdown
> if (operation) {
>   var templateVariables = {
>       'schema:name' : 'meeting with-will'
> ```

At some point we should discuss how to get rid of this. The client shouldn't need to care where such information goes. It should just be concerned with providing all the necessary data.

In this case here, providing the event would be enough. In some cases, however, the relationship between the payload and IRI parameters isn't as straightforward though

---

*[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 67 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FGn5gasTIWY81_mpI:-L2FGn5gasTIWY81_mpJ:bf85ije) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L67)):*
> ```Markdown
>     "totalItems": 0,
>     "members": [ ],
>     "schema:potentialAction": {
> ```

Hmm... we loose important information here.  Would you see the two mechanisms to co-exist or, as this change suggests, that `schema:potentialAction` replaces `memberTemplate`?

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 19 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FHzTqp1okBeqnrpBL:-L2FHzTqp1okBeqnrpBM:bwau4r6) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L19)):*
> getOperationOfType

Do you suggest that clients treat values of `schema:potentialAction` as `Operation`?

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 22 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FIPdbfPoBN1DGX3oG:-L2FIPdbfPoBN1DGX3oH:bc0thbc) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L22)):*
> some tex

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 25 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FHdOmDk--iD4Fn2k5:-L2FHdOmDk--iD4Fn2k6:b3sqxd7) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L25)):*
> invoke

You seem to assume that `GET` is the default HTTP operation if unspecified. I'm not convinced we should do that for operations. Could you please make the method explicit below.

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 102 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FIRaKQo3mMOH2O4iT:-L2FIRaKQo3mMOH2O4iU:b-u0hpdu) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L102)):*
> Some event having a search phrase: some text

Let's make a better example by describing a real event. We could, e.g., describe a Hydra conference call here.

---


*Comments from [Reviewable](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-:-L2FImejhQnwF6udV-F-:b-twyd83)*
<!-- Sent from Reviewable.io -->


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by lanthaler
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/154#issuecomment-355814942 using your GitHub account

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2018 11:12:19 UTC