Re: An updated draft of the proposal

Thanks again for the thoughtful feedback Markus!

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Markus Lanthaler <
> wrote:

> +public-hydra
> I prefer to comment here on the list instead of doing so directly on
> document [1-2] so that it is properly archived and that I can forward it to
> the Hydra mailing list as well.
> On Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:33 AM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > It has been a while since we've sent our latest update on the actions
> > proposal, so I tried to merge all the different
> > updates/improvements/feedback we got from different parts into an updated
> > proposal.
> >
> > Here is the new draft (and here is a version you can write comments on if
> > you'd like).
> >
> > We have solidified things in different areas, but most importantly the
> (a)
> > actions hierarchy, (b) the properties / semantic roles, (c) the statuzes
> > an action can be at and how to represent it, (d) a couple of well
> > understood action handlers and (e) the addition of Thing.operation to
> > point to an action which solves a wide variety of problems.
> Great to see hydra:operations being adopted.

Yep, this solves a wide set of problems. We had that originally in one of
our earlier drafts<>
Thing.action), but it took me a while to understand which problems it
solved. I understand it better now, so I'm happy to adopt!

> I'm still worried about the
> whole ActionHandler stuff as I've already explained in the past. This
> RPC-based model is quite anti-Web and thus I would like to see this stuff
> more aligned with how the Web works, i.e., the manipulation of resources by
> the exchange of state representations.
> I find this draft is a steps backwards in that regard as it couples the
> data
> expected by an action to the action itself:
>   "Each action has corresponding arguments/slots/parameters that
>    are well defined. Actions define a standard programmatic
>    predefined interface between parties (e.g. which arguments
>    "Watching a Movie" takes), and ActionHandlers helps with the
>    Mechanisms (e.g. invoking an action via an android intent vs
>    a HTTP GET)."

Just to be very clear, this specific regard (the fact that the schema
defines the arguments/parameters) is consistent with every single draft we
put out in the past (you can find all the earlier drafts
There are no changes in this draft on this subject.

> Do you really expect to, e.g., have different actions to rent a skiing
> shoes
> from renting a house?

I expect there will be high coverage of common nouns and verbs in long term. We have a, which
can be used in combination with nouns like or as these become problems that really need to be

For the long tail of problems, the extension
mechanism<> can
help us understand verbs/nouns that are not yet in

> Currently RentAction's "parameters" according to your
> draft [2] are "landlord" and "realEstateAgent". What's the rationale behind
> this decision? I think the sole purpose of the action itself should be to
> convey the semantics of what happens or, in other words, what the
> consequences I can expect when I invoke an action.
I think that should be one of the goals, yes. In addition to that goal, I
believe it is important for actions to define which arguments/parameters
they take.

> I think I'll write a draft describing how the relevant parts of Hydra could
> be integrated into Is that something you would be interested
> in?
> I'll probably write it in a similar style than your draft or do you prefer
> another form?
> > This is by no means done but we feel it is firm enough to have a
> > constructive round of feedback from an increasingly larger group.
> Markus's
> > feedback, from hydra, has been overwhelmingly constructive and objective
> > and we really appreciate that.
> Thanks for the nice words,
> Markus
> [1]
> ndM/edit
> [2]
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 22:36:38 UTC