Re: feedback on some Action subtypes

+thor, who was very active in writing these individual actions with me

Hi Elf! Thank you for the feedback, certainly much appreciated! Responses
inline!


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:08 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> Please let me know if i can find better channel then this list to share
> such feedback!
>
> * http://schema.org/JoinAction
> ** Parent type Action already has property *object* used in JoinAction
> examples with SportsTeam, MusicGroup and TheatreGroup. I don't understand
> why we make *Event* a special case and use *event* property instead of
> generic *object*.
>

Yep, known bug, will be removed in the latest builds.


>
> * http://schema.org/CheckInAction
> ** If I check in to a Place or Event they already might have *location*. I
> would find very useful suggestions, from people who implemented such cases,
> if they simply copy object.location into location?
>

That's a reasonable point and certainly one that I've heard before. I think
you are generally right, but the details/context are important too.

My intuition is that reasoners (e.g. google, bing, gmail, etc) need to
understand both forms. Not *all* types of check-ins have a "location"
property, and I want to optimize for how easy this schema is for the
developer to produce.


> ** Example "John checked in at Yandex" links to Place using *location*
> property. I have impression that some implementations might use generic
> *object* property instead. How about convention: "Use location for actions
> only if different then object"?
> ** Example uses not existing object - type *Flight*
> ** Looking at properties from CommunicateAction I have impression that
> CheckInAction doesn't fit as its sub type.
>
> * http://schema.org/PhotographAction
> ** Example "John took a photo of Steve." puts ImageObject as *object*
> property where *result* property seems to fit more to link Image, while
> Steve would fit as *object*?
>

Good point. Bug. I'll file a bug report for me to fix this.


>
> * http://schema.org/CommentAction
> ** Example "John commented on a blog post.", object=UserComment &
> about="ScholarlyArticle". My first thought led in direction
> object=ScholaryArticle & result="UserComment"... (result explained with:
> e.g. John wrote *a book*.) I don't argue that we should model it the second
> way, but maybe provide links to strong reasoning why preference of one way
> over another! (similar to previous example of PhotographAction)
>
> * http://schema.org/SubscribeAction
> ** missing UnSubscribeAction ? (eg. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
> Public/public-vocabs/2013Nov/0176.html)
>
>
Yep, we'll be adding all these antagonyms as needed. Do you actually need
these antagonyms or are you just pointing out that


> * http://schema.org/FollowAction
> ** missing UnFollowAction ? (i do it very often during online activities!
> twitter etc.)
>
> * http://schema.org/BefriendAction
> ** missing UnFriendAction ? (sad but happens ;)
>
> * http://schema.org/MarryAction
> ** missing DivorceAction ? :D
>
> I plan to look on other actions in near future. Once again, if you can
> think of better way for me to provide feedback, please let me know!
>

Thanks! Much appreciated! This is early enough that changing these actions
isn't terribly hard, so now is the perfect time for more feedback!

Sam