Re: Actions in Schema.org

+Cc: Yaar, Steve

On 11 May 2013 23:45, Jim Klo <jim.klo@sri.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking over the Actions proposal and find it welcoming.
>
> A few of us on the Learning Registry team have been considering harmonizing
> our LR Paradata 1.0 spec (1) with Schema.org and the Actions proposal really
> is a great step. The Paradata spec is an enhancement of ActivityStrea.ms (2)
> primarily directed towards Educational Activities.

Great! Sometime I'd love to understand better how your work fits with LRMI too.

> However there are two properties I feel are missing from Action. One to
> specify the object receiving the action,

That one is in there: we have an 'action' property on the Thing type
(whose value is Action).

Hmm, I see you mention 'action' property below, so now I'm not sure.
The definition of 'thing' is given as 'Action that apply to the
thing.'; how does that differ from your 'object receiving the action'?

(I'm not crazy about properties and types which differ only in
capitalization, but that's the strawman for now)

>       and possibly a target (which I
> think may be a generalization on the location property)
>
>          Dan (actor) posted (verb)  an article (object) to his blog (target)

I'm not sure how that idea would be handled; Yaar/Steve, can you comment?

Dan


> Use cases relevant to Learning Registry (and I would suspect LRMI and
> ActivityStrea.ms as well):
>
>          An Organization (actor) aligned (verb) a CreativeWork (object) to
> an AlignmentObject (target)
>
> I'd envision mapping:
>         actor: performedBy
>         verb: name
>
> But not sure how to map object and target properties.
>
> I recognize that there are 2 potential solutions to this via the proposal:
>
>        A. Thing has an action property, but that seems more appropriate to
> mark actions that can be performed vs ones that have been executed.
>
>             LR use case: CreativeWork has properties action and
> alignmentObject.
>
>        B. Extend Action to be more specific; TargetedAction that includes
> extended properties, which seems like a good way to fragment the vocabulary
> though unknown/unexpected properties, unless formally adopted.
>
>             LR use case: TargetedAction has properties sourceObject and
> targetObject both of type Thing.
>
> Thus I'd like to propose two possible directions:
>      A. an additional property to indicate the receiving object (not quite
> sure of the name yet) and possibly a relaxation of the currently proposed
> location property on Action to one that might accept a Thing to accommodate
> a target.
>      B. an extended class TargetedAction with the additional properties as
> described above
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jim Klo
>
> (1)
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IrOYXd3S0FUwNozaEG5tM7Ki4_AZPrBn-pbyVUz-Bh0/mobilebasic?pli=1
> (2) http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/1.0/
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 4:43 PM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
> New additions to WebSchemas Wiki from schema.org team
>
> I've just been updating the WebSchemas Wiki to share some drafts that
> the schema.org team are considering adding to schema.org, as well as
> making a pass over the Wiki to bring it closer to being up-to-date
> w.r.t. schema.org.
>
> As always http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas is the front page, with
> proposals listed at
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals
>
> Please comment here or in the Wiki; if you reply in email, do change
> the Subject: line to a more specific topic, to help people keep track
> of the discussion.
>
> There are also a number of longstanding proposals from the wider
> community that are ready to move forward. Working through the backlog,
> I'll next address TV/Radio, and then historical-data. I have also been
> revisiting the issues list hence the WorkersUnion thread. The next
> step you can expect to see is more formal RDFS/RDFa schemas for the
> various proposals, and some experimental test builds of the site so we
> can see how various of these drafts look when integrated together.
>
> The new and updated materials from schema.org team:
>
> 1. The most technically complex is "Actions in Schema.org". This is an
> initiative to bring a notion of "verb" to schema.org. It has a lot of
> potential; please take a  look. The page at
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions links to the earlier
> design proposals, and to the proposal in PDF form:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/3/38/ActionsinSchema.org2013-05-11.pdf
>
> This new draft takes a slightly different approach than the "Minimal
> draft" circulated late last year; in particular it is a lot more
> explicit in talking about usage scenarios. This should make it less
> cryptic to read! In particular, it is interesting as it explores uses
> of schema.org that go beyond simple public Web pages.
>
> 2. "Orders in Schema.org"
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/OrdersSchema
> "While schema.org already supports marking up offers to sell products
> (pre-transaction), it does not currently provide schema for the common
> kinds of confirmations and notifications around orders
> (post-transaction)".
> PDF:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/d/d4/Schema.org_Orders_Proposal_2013-04-19.pdf
>
> 3. "Reservations in Schema.org"
> This proposal includes new types for describing reservations and tickets
> ""This proposal includes new types for describing reservations and
> tickets. A generalized Reservation type described, as well as
> sub­types for flight, train, bus, car, restaurant, event and hotel
> reservations. An additional type ReservationPackage is also proposed,
> which should be used to group complex reservations (e.g. flights with
> multiple legs, itineraries with a flight and a hotel) under a single
> item."
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ReservationsSchema
> PDF:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/7/74/Schema.orgReservationsProposalMay2013.pdf
>
> 4. EmailMessage
> A simple additional type, subtype of CreativeWork and corresponding to
> the existing type WebPage.
>
> 5. Events (revised proposal for update)
> This is an improved version of a proposal from last year. The previous
> version's design for recurring events was flawed; see
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/EventSchemaUpdate for a new design.
> PDF:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/d/db/Events-proposalforupdatedschemav2.pdf
>
>
>
> Alongside the above proposals from the schema.org team, can I also
> draw your attention in particular to some other items in
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals:
>
> 6. WorkersUnion
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/WorkersUnionSchema
> I believe this design from last week's WebSchemas discussion addresses
> http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/17 and I'll recommend
> that schema.org adopt it immediately. Any final tweaks?
>
> 7. Accessibility proposal
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
> This is a substantive proposal on an important topic; please take a look.
>
> 8. sameThingAs
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/sameThingAs
> This proposal (from various offline converations) seems ready for
> adoption and potentially very useful in helping defragment schema.org
> data. The semantics are essentially those of owl:sameAs, but modified
> in the sense that schema.org in practice very often involves blurring
> the distinction between identifiers for pages versus identifiers for
> the entities they describe. Therefore giving it a distinct property
> name ('sameThingAs') instead of 'sameAs' should make it easier to talk
> colloquially about it alongside owl:sameAs, without excessive
> confusion.
>
> I'll recommend schema.org adopts it as 'sameThingAs', but advice on
> naming especially welcomed.
>
> 9. Citation
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/CitationPromotion
> This proposal from the http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
> community group seems sensible, practical and easy: allow 'citation'
> to be attached to any CreativeWork.
> Let's do it! Any objections, or final suggestions?
>
> There are plenty more good candidates for schema.org schemas linked
> from www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals ... thoughts on
> these proposals and their interconnections is always welcome, here or
> in the Wiki.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 01:28:30 UTC