Re: UserInteraction vs. InteractAction

On 26 November 2013 08:32, Alexander Shubin <ajax@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just to clarify details.
>
> How should one use interactionCount property in schema.org/CreativeWorkclass without using UserInteraction? Just Text seems to be harmful. Using
> Actions is counterintuitive to me.
>

This particular piece of counter-intuitive design dates from the original
version of schema.org. I am not sure whether interactionCount should
continue to be used.

BTW recently Stephane, Guha and I were talking about question/answer site
(e.g. see notes in
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/StackoverflowResearch) and the
desire to represent 'upvotes' and 'downvotes' is there too.
Perhaps we can come up with a revised model that fixes interactionCount and
addresses this use case?

Dan


> interactionCount <http://schema.org/interactionCount>TextA 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<http://schema.org/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
>>
>
>
>