Re: UserInteraction vs. InteractAction

Hi all,

Just to clarify details.

How should one use interactionCount property in schema.org/CreativeWork class without using UserInteraction? Just Text seems to be harmful. Using Actions is counterintuitive to me. 

interactionCount Text A count of a specific user interactions with this item—for example, 20 UserLikes, 5 UserComments, or 300 UserDownloads. The user interaction type should be one of the sub types of UserInteraction.

----
Best,
Alex



On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:

> 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
>