Re: Comment on Action vocabulary

I would suggest that we have an additional right "updateTo" to cover the
requirement.

Blog: http://idiots-mind.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life's a gamble - take a chance

On 22 October 2014 14:08, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
wrote:

>  Michael,
>
> I like having both writeTo and appendTo.
> I understand the common vocabulary has a generalization spirit, and adding
> new information is conceptually different from modifying it.
> For example, if the asset is a SQL database, specialized actions like
> INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE are neatly different.
>
> Víctor
>
> El 22/10/2014 12:47, Michael Steidl (IPTC) escribió:
>
>  Group:
>
> We’ve been pointed at an inconsistency of the Actions read/writeTo/appendTo
>
> -          read is about reading any data from an asset
>
> -          writeTo is about adding data to an asset
>
> -          appendTo is about appending data to an asset – and is a
> narrower term of writeTo
>
>
>
> But: there is no Action to cover editing/changing existing data.
>
>
>
> Solution 1:
>
> -          add an Action “edit” for editing/changing existing data
>
> -          make writeTo a narrower term of it
>
> Solution 2:
>
> -          redefine writeTo to cover editing/changing existing data
>
> -          drop appendTo …
>
> -          … and add this Action:
> name: addTo
> definition: adding data to an asset at any location
>
>
>
> Please comment:
>
> -          should we stick to the current definitions
>
> -          if not: should we adopt either solution 1 or solution 2
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> *Michael Steidl*
>
> Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@iptc.org]
>
> International Press Telecommunications Council
> Web: www.iptc.org - on Twitter @IPTC <http://www.twitter.com/IPTC>
>
> Business office address:
>
> 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom
>
> Registered in England, company no 101096
>
>
>
>
>
>
>