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

On Jul 26, 2013 4:36 PM, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So far everything looks right on track, and where gaps still may
> exist, I believe the json-ld mapping support gives us decent enough
> coverage.
>

There could also be:

* A JSON-LD rendering of RDF/OWL schema:
   http://schema.rdfs.org/all.jsonld

* Examples of /Action:
   https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/tree/master/examples
 On Jul 26, 2013 4:36 PM, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> So far everything looks right on track, and where gaps still may
> exist, I believe the json-ld mapping support gives us decent enough
> coverage.
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This looks to be a much more solid piece of work than the previous
> >> proposals; and, assuming that things progress with my proposed
> >> Activity Streams 2.0 update [1], the two models ought to be able to
> >> live comfortably side-by-side, which is very good.
> >
> >
> > Thanks James! We took note on every piece of feedback you and Chris gave
> on
> > our last f2f meet up in San Francisco, and I hope you'll find a lot of
> > convergence in this new draft: a strong base Action, convergence on
> property
> > naming, convergence on activity types, etc.
> >
> > Let me know if this doesn't reflect (or if I missed anything) what we
> > discussed about a month ago, and I'd be happy to course correct as
> needed.
> > The devils are on the details, so do please take a deep look at the
> > individual actions if you have a chance.
> >
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://github.com/jasnell/json-activity/blob/2.0/draft-snell-activitystreams-02.txt
> >>
> >> As an exercise, I drafted up a few quick examples using the AS 2.0
> >> syntax mapped to the schema.org model, just to make sure that things
> >> line up well. (These use a JSON-LD @context to provide the mapping)
> >>
> >> {
> >>   "objectType": "http://schema.org/WinAction",
> >>   "verb": "win",
> >>   "actor": "acct:joe@example.org",
> >>   "object": "urn:example:games:tag",
> >>   "startTime": "2013-07-26T12:12:12Z",
> >>   "@context": {
> >>     "objectType": "@type",
> >>     "actor": "http://schema.org/agent",
> >>     "object": "http://schema.org/object",
> >>     "startTime": "http://schema.org/startTime"
> >>   }
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> {
> >>   "objectType": "http://schema.org/ChooseAction",
> >>   "verb": "choose",
> >>   "actor": "acct:joe@example.org",
> >>   "object": "urn:example:options:1",
> >>   "options": [
> >>     "urn:example:options:1",
> >>     "urn:example:options:2",
> >>     "urn:example:options:3"
> >>   ]
> >>   "@context": {
> >>     "objectType": "@type",
> >>     "actor": "http://schema.org/agent",
> >>     "object": "http://schema.org/object",
> >>     "options": "http://schema.org/option"
> >>   }
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> {
> >>   "objectType": "http://schema.org/WatchAction",
> >>   "verb": "watch",
> >>   "actor": "acct:joe@example.org",
> >>   "object": {
> >>     "objectType": {
> >>       "id": "http://schema.org/Movie",
> >>       "alias": "video"
> >>     }
> >>     "displayName": "Die Hard"
> >>   },
> >>   "@context": {
> >>     "objectType": "@type",
> >>     "id": "@id",
> >>     "actor": "http://schema.org/agent",
> >>     "object": "http://schema.org/object",
> >>     "options": "http://schema.org/option"
> >>   }
> >> }
> >>
> >> - James
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi all. Last month we circulated a version of Schema.org Actions for
> >> > review; the latest in a series of drafts exploring improvements to our
> >> > treatment of actions and activities (URLs below). This is an update on
> >> > that work, and a call for feedback and discussion as we move towards
> >> > finalising a basic Actions type and initial set of specific Action
> >> > subtypes. The schema.org team (this is a collaboration between teams
> >> > from Microsoft, Yandex, Yahoo and Google) feels it is close to a final
> >> > design for describing "past-tense" actions, and encourages detailed
> >> > review of this base Actions schema prior to publication on schema.org
> .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The latest version (and also the most recent, June 2013 draft) does
> >> > not include action handler mechanisms or a full treatment of
> >> > future/potential actions. Instead, we have focussed on solidifying a
> >> > basic Action type plus a hierarchy of specific Action subtypes,
> >> > alongside a few associated properties. This is intended as a
> >> > foundation for the broader framework (future/potential actions,
> >> > handlers etc.) presented in earlier drafts. Today's version differs
> >> > from the June draft primarily in polish and detail rather than in
> >> > broad direction.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > There is a test build of the schema.org site available for review:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > * The basic Action type is at http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/Action
> >> >
> >> > * The overall Action hierarchy can be browsed via
> >> > http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/docs/full.html
> >> >
> >> > * An alternate HTML view is available at
> >> > http://pastehtml.com/view/d957mb0uc.html
> >> >
> >> > * Source files in RDFa/RDFS (ActionBase.html, ActionTypes.html) are in
> >> > W3C's WebSchemas mercurial repo,
> >> > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The core idea is that an Action type defines a handful of re-usable
> >> > properties that apply to actions, but that we can clarify and extend
> >> > these for specific action types. This allows us to use more
> >> > domain-specific language with detailed action types. At a schema level
> >> > we can often view these subtype-specific properties as specializations
> >> > or sub-properties of the more general Action properties. This approach
> >> > balances a desire for human-friendly descriptive language with the
> >> > goal of generic and extensible processing of action/activity data.
> >> > Future improvements to the schema.org site should make these
> >> > sub-property relationships more accessible to both humans and
> >> > machines; for now they are indicated via textual descriptions.
> >> >
> >> > The general 'Action' properties are: agent, instrument, location,
> >> > object, participant, result, startTime, endTime. For example, a
> >> > specific Action subtype such as
> >> > http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/FollowAction might introduce a
> property
> >> > such as http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/followee that we can declare
> to
> >> > be a sub-property of the more general
> >> > http://sdo-actions.appspot.com/object. So in this case, we can define
> >> > 'followee' ("A sub property of object. The person or organization
> >> > being followed.") in terms of 'object', i.e. "The object upon the
> >> > action is carried out, whose state is kept intact or changed. Also
> >> > known as the semantic roles patient, affected or undergoer (which
> >> > change their state) or theme (which doesn't). e.g. John read *a
> >> > book*".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Schema.org Actions have been designed to integrate fully with the
> >> > broader schema.org approach, i.e. it is syntax-agnostic (RDFa,
> >> > Microdata, JSON-LD etc.), and draws upon schema.org's existing
> >> > vocabulary (large collection of nouns and their properties) and
> >> > machinery (type and property hierarchies). The intent is to launch
> >> > with a useful package of types that draw upon community experience
> >> > (including activity streams) and industry trends. The use of hierarchy
> >> > to organize these types aims at providing attachment points that allow
> >> > both vocabulary-reuse and independent extensions. Discussion of the
> >> > detail and structure of these types is particularly welcome; ideally
> >> > via public-vocabs@w3.org, or the W3C WebSchemas Wiki. I can relay
> >> > non-public comments to the schema.org team if anyone prefers to do
> so.
> >> > Sam Goto (goto@google.com), one of the co-authors of this work, has
> >> > also volunteered to do this next week as I'll be taking some vacation
> >> > time; please copy us both to be sure.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The schema.org team is keen to move forward with this work, and to
> >> > adopt a basic Action type hierarchy that can be subsequently extended
> >> > for future/possible actions, handlers etc. We will take a look next
> >> > Thursday on discussions so far, and decide whether we have rough
> >> > consensus that this work is ready. As you know we can always tweak,
> >> > improve and edit published schemas, but any comments on these
> >> > near-final efforts would be much appreciated prior to their inclusion
> >> > in schema.org.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Having said all this, we still have a few final additions and modest
> >> > tweaks to make over the coming week to integrate some more action use
> >> > cases (e.g. see http://help.yandex.com/webmaster/?id=1127989), but
> >> > nothing that should alter substantively what you see. We'll keep you
> >> > posted as that evolves, and we expect this thing to continue evolving
> >> > incrementally after that. If you read this far, thanks for your
> >> > patience and any thoughts you can share on this work.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > cheers,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dan (for the schema.org team)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > See http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions for earlier
> >> > drafts:
> >> > * [April2012]
> >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Apr/0030.html
> >> > * [Nov2012]
> >> > http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/7/79/Schema.orgActionsMinimaldraft.pdf
> >> > * [May2013]
> >> > http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/3/38/ActionsinSchema.org2013-05-11.pdf
> >> > * [June2013]
> >> >
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/6/6a/Actions_in_Schema.org_-_Draft_3.pdf
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>