- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:45:21 -0700
- To: Yaar Schnitman <yaar@google.com>
- Cc: Jim Klo <jim.klo@sri.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Steve Macbeth <Steve.Macbeth@microsoft.com>
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Yaar Schnitman <yaar@google.com> wrote: >[snip] >> >> FWIW, as an aside - I have my doubts on the whole Schema.org extension >> process which just feels haphazard. To me I just see the flurry of >> http://schema.org/Action/FubarAction appearing without really understanding >> how to process the properties. > > I'm concerned about that too. But the flurry would be controlled by how many > people process and do something meaningful with FubarAction. If nobody > understands it's properties, it won't be widely used. So the incentives to > stick to the standard actions is strong. This has proved to be the case with > other Schema.org non-action types. > > I hope schema.org will move fast to introduce an extensible, useful > vocabulary of verbs. That will reduce the need to create FubarActions. >[snip] Well, as a starting point, activitystrea.ms already has a fairly extensive set of verbs defined... http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/schema/activity-schema.html#verbs There is also a proposal on the table for using the activitystrea.ms base format for describing new verbs [1] [1] https://raw.github.com/activitystreams/activity-streams-verb-definition/master/activity-streams-verb-definition.txt - James
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 22:46:08 UTC