- From: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:42:02 -0800
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Cc: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMtUnc4bGW3XxNWhxPV2Czi+gBfgi+93_tkD3gAMo70ziGgk0g@mail.gmail.com>
Absolutely! Thanks for taking a closer look! On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > +Cc: Sam > > On 25 November 2013 09:17, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> > wrote: > > Howdy :) > > > > I noticed some duplication (which causes confusion at least for me) > between: > > *Thing > Event > UserInteraction* - "A user interacting with a page" > > http://schema.org/UserInteraction > > vs. > > *Thing > Action > InteractAction* - "The act of interacting with another > > person or organization." - http://schema.org/InteractAction > > > As Dan said earlier, the plan here is to deprecate UserInteraction and its subtree in favor of actions. We believe this is a much more scalable sub-tree with a more solid foundation for extensions. Dan: is there a process for deprecating sub-trees? > > including many specific types like: > > *> UserInteraction > UserCheckins* - "User interaction: Check-in at a > > place."" - http://schema.org/UserCheckins > > vs. > > *> InteractAction > CommunicateAction > CheckInAction* - "The act of an > > agent communicating (service provider, social media, etc) their arrival > by > > registering/confirming for a previously reserved service (e.g. flight > check > > in) or at a place (e.g. hotel), possibly resulting in a result (boarding > > pass, etc)." - http://schema.org/CheckInAction > > > > *> UserInteraction > UserComments* - "The UserInteraction event in which > a > > user comments on an item" - http://schema.org/UserComments > > vs. > > *> InteractAction > CommunicateAction > CommentAction* - "The act of > > generating a comment about a subject." - > > > > On first sight it all gets me very confused! > > > > *UserInteraction* says "A user interacting with a page" and its more > > specific type *UserCheckins* says "Check-in at a place.". More generic > type > > suggest interacting with a web page while more specific with real life > > objects?... > > > > *UserComments* uses term "item" (not present in > > http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/ ) > > while *CommentAction* uses term "subject" (as in > > http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#subject ?) > > > > I've checked > > http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/raised but didn't find > issues > > related to above. > > > > If i could provide feedback in some more helpful way, please just share > your > > suggestions with me :) > > This is very fair comment. A lot of the more recent actions/activities > work was in fact motivated by issues with the earlier UserComments > construction. Having said that, I realise it is not obvious to neutral > observers which pieces of vocabulary are new and futuristic, and which > are obsolete/awkward. The 'UserInteraction', 'UserCheckins', > 'UserComments' constructs are the problematic ones which were there > from the start. The Action subtree is relatively new. It may still > change a little and we have plans to add mechanisms relating to > future/potential actions, and initiation of actions, but you're right > to draw attention to the confusion state of the current documentation. > > I've created a 'product' in the webschemas issue tracker, for feedback > on Schema.org Actions design, and added an issue there: > > https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/32 > > ISSUE-32: Schema.org's original vocabulary around actions needs > update/integration/deprecation > Obsolete action vocab > Schema.org's original vocabulary around actions needs > update/integration/deprecation > > Thanks, > > Dan >
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 18:42:30 UTC