Re: UserInteraction vs. InteractAction

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:32 AM, 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.
>

Any-Thing (e.g. CreativeWork) will eventually have a pointer to Actions
(e.g. via "Thing.operation"), so we could potentially have an "Group" of
people as the "Action.agent" to refer to an aggregation of all the "verbs"
that were taken in the entity (e.g. "(This video) (is LikedAction) by (a
group of people) ").


>
> 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
>>
>
>
>