Re: Fwd: Schema.org Actions - an update and call for review

That should be "not require changes"

 > I am assuming that our proposals should mark up existing displays and
 > now require changes

k(flyingfingers)c

On 8/7/13 8:00 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I've added "services" to the "separate class" Holdings example
>    http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings
>
> These could be changed to actions. So far I have:
>
> place hold
> add to list
> get more info
> explore
>
> I think that others would be
> check out
> download
>
> These services, however, are only text in the model on that page, with
> the service or action being provided by the URI the library system uses.
> I put a link to the Google rich snippet tool using the code on that page.
>
> It seems to me that we have a trade-off between precision (action) and
> flexibility (service as text). A certain amount undoubtedly depends on
> how systems handle this kind of thing. My code is based on a III system
> holdings display. It would be instructive to look at other system
> displays (under the hood) to see how they handle this.
>
> I am assuming that our proposals should mark up existing displays and
> now require changes beyond adding the microdata markup. Is that a valid
> assumption?
>
> kc
>
>
>
> On 8/7/13 7:15 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>> Actions (at least past actions) noes in Schema.
>>
>> We should probably propose a LentAction.
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *Resent-From: *<public-vocabs@w3.org <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>>
>>> *From: *Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com <mailto:danbri@google.com>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: Schema.org <http://Schema.org> Actions - an update and
>>> call for review*
>>> *Date: *7 August 2013 12:52:16 BST
>>> *To: *W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>>
>>> *Cc: *Ian Niles <ianiles@microsoft.com
>>> <mailto:ianiles@microsoft.com>>, Sam Goto <goto@google.com
>>> <mailto:goto@google.com>>, "Alexander Shubin" <ajax@yandex-team.ru
>>> <mailto:ajax@yandex-team.ru>>
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone for the discussion and contributions - we made a few
>>> improvements and have just published the initial version of this work
>>> at schema.org <http://schema.org>:
>>>
>>> * http://schema.org/Action
>>> * http://schema.org/docs/full.html
>>> * Machine readable version is included in
>>> http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html (plus a little RDFa/RDFS
>>> in each per-term page).
>>>
>>> As mentioned at the start of this thread
>>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jul/0090.html)
>>> the plan is to move on from past-tense Actions to address the other
>>> scenarios explored in earlier drafts, i.e. the description of
>>> potential future actions, and mechanisms for handling them. As part of
>>> this we expect to clarify how Actions relate to Events. For now, we
>>> have added Action as a direct sub-type of Thing; this is
>>> uncontroversial enough as everything is considered a 'Thing'. The
>>> existing http://schema.org/Event type currently has a very broad
>>> definition (one that would embrace Actions as agent-intended events) ,
>>> but in practice focusses on social events / happenings. There is also
>>> an outstanding proposal to improve Event, including the handling of
>>> repeating events (see
>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/EventSchemaUpdate). As you can see,
>>> there is plenty more to do, but we're glad to have achieved this
>>> milestone as a foundation for richer description of actions. Please
>>> let us know of any bugs, mistakes or inclarities and we'll do our best
>>> to keep improving schema.org <http://schema.org> step by step.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> (for the schema.org <http://schema.org> team)
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 16:16:05 UTC