RE: ISSUE-2: Use the term Action instead of Operation

I've always favoured 'Action' over 'Operation' too (particularly because it lines up with other work (particularly Schema.org), it dissociates better from HTTP terminology (which is a good thing here I think), and it just feels less RPC-ish to me (although the only tiny niggle I have with 'Action' is a lingering shudder of association with SOAP's soapAction :) !).

So I think Chris' summary is really excellent, although perhaps the question of Hydra's philosophy being client-centric or server-centric should be factored out into a new thread. I do see it's relevance to the 'Action' vs 'Operation' debate, but I actually feel the arguments for 'Action' are powerful enough without needing to first answer that bigger question.

+1 for Action

Pat.

________________________________________
From: Markus Lanthaler [markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
Sent: 15 May 2014 20:22
To: public-hydra@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-2: Use the term Action instead of Operation

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:48 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> > Thomas seems to prefer Operation, Gregg (please correct me if I'm wrong)
also slightly
> prefers Operation.
>
> I actually found Chris' client-centric approach convincing and slightly
favor Action now.

OK, I've recorded the opinions we got so far in ISSUE-2 [1]
Kingsley, thanks for your "vote" as well!


[1] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/2


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 11:01:04 UTC