Re: ActionHandlers vs "App resources" (was: An updated draft of the schema.org/Action proposal)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>wrote:

> On Monday, March 03, 2014 7:11 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > > You'd have specific action handlers attached to the action. Example
> > > (of a Movie that can be "watched" on android and "bought" via a
> > > webpage):
> > >
> > > {
> > > @type: Movie
> > > action: [{
> > >   @type: WatchAction
> > >   handler: {
> > >     @type: AndroidHandler
> > >   }
> > > }, {
> > >   @type: BuyAction
> > >    handler: {
> > >      @type: WebPageHandler
> > >   }
> > > }
> > > ]
> > > }
> > >
> > > How would we go about this using sameAs/alternate?
> >
> > You would use a very similar pattern (adapting your previous example):
> >
> > {
> >  "@context": "http://schema.org",
> >  "@id": "http://example.com/web/resource",
> >  "alternate": [ {
> >      "@type": "AndroidAppLink",
> >      "operation": {
> >        "@type": "WatchAction"
> >    }, {
> >      "@type": "ApiLink",
> >      "operation": {
> >        "@type": "BuyAction"
> >    }
> >  ]
> > }
> >
> > Hum ... this doesn't seem right to me ... I wasn't expecting actions to
> > be attached to these "Links", since there is a difference between
> "watching"
> > a movie and "watching" a link.
>
> Right, I just reused your terminology to show the pattern. I wouldn't call
> those things *Link as a link is an arc between two resources and not a
> single resource as these things here are. Would it look better to you if
> you would replace, e.g. AndroidAppLink with AndroidAppResource?
>

That's still a bit awkward. You'd want to have a WatchAction attached to a
Movie, rather than a generic AndroidAppResource (which may refer to any
type).


>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
>
>