Re: [Specifications] Actions with explicit target

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:-L2FzWn4eQzF7u_vcg3e:b-p5yqhw) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L33)):*
<details><summary><i>Previously, lanthaler (Markus Lanthaler) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote>

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
</blockquote></details>

Makes sense. As I mentioned in comment of this PR, we might even consider to remove that pseudo-code here and gradually re-add it following Herakles.ts features development.

---

*[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 67 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FGn5gasTIWY81_mpI:-L2FzyNs0dwBqKHrF4JN:b-2k71s7) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L67)):*
<details><summary><i>Previously, lanthaler (Markus Lanthaler) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote>

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`?
</blockquote></details>

Do you mean that we would use named node with `@id` for IriTemplate and reference it in two different places? I'll take a look at issues to understand other use cases for `memberTemplate` than adding new members.

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 19 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FHzTqp1okBeqnrpBL:-L2G-VEYGZIkFCiZfvUR:bm2rz3k) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L19)):*
<details><summary><i>Previously, lanthaler (Markus Lanthaler) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote>

> getOperationOfType

Do you suggest that clients treat values of `schema:potentialAction` as `Operation`?
</blockquote></details>

I think client could provide single interface for action with explicit target and operations with target implied by `operation` property. We could discuss it in more depth while implementing in Herakles, possibly it would just handle making internally implicit targets explicit and then handle them in the same way.

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 25 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FHdOmDk--iD4Fn2k5:-L2G0a1ZYToaGJcyHNAJ:b-65uesd) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L25)):*
<details><summary><i>Previously, lanthaler (Markus Lanthaler) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote>

> 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.
</blockquote></details>

good catch! I'll add `"method": "GET"` to the `schema:SearchAction`

---

*[drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md, line 102 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/154#-L2FIRaKQo3mMOH2O4iT:-L2G2L-KtsrWG2iugpAF:b-8fx2u7) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/aa28c5c639dde02c9aacfaf7f5d7121b0d7caa3b/drafts/use-cases/7.searching-events.md#L102)):*
<details><summary><i>Previously, lanthaler (Markus Lanthaler) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote>

> 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.

</blockquote></details>

:+1: 

---


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


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by elf-pavlik
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/154#issuecomment-355826970 using your GitHub account

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2018 14:37:34 UTC