Re: Schema.org v. 1.2. published, adding Potential Actions vocabulary.

[HTTP-N what? :)

DAML too:
   http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/services/swsa/note/swsa-note_v5.html
   http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122/
For more recent work see: http://sadiframework.org/
 ]

I haven't checked the latest updates to Actions; last time I checked there
were issues with their being oddly constrained.

For the typical schema.org use case, the most useful thing to represent is
a subcollection of action,  with certain aspects specified but the entity
described not being a specific instance of an action being performed.  For
example, the collection of all  CommunicateActions where the recipient is
danbri.

potentialAction goes a little of the way towards this, but is only
applicable to the object role.

Also, since Actions are intangible, they cannot be what a Service produces
(constrained to tangible Thing).   So a cleaning service cannot be a
Service...

Simon



On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> (cc trimmed)
>
> On 16 April 2014 15:43, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> > Great to see the idea of Semantic Web Services materialize in some form
> in a real-world setting!
> >
> > It would be interesting to see which conceptual similarities can be
> found between the new branch in schema.org and WSMO (
> http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.3/). I bet there will be overlap ;-)
>
> There have been a lot of previous explorations of this territory, e.g.
> HTTP-NG http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-HTTP-NG-interfaces/
> http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers2/141/  and there was even a
> workshop ~17 years ago, http://http://www.w3.org/OOP/ "Object
> Technology and the Web". The theme has been in the Web community since
> the early days, e.g. http://www.w3.org/Talks/WWW94Tim/ ("This means
> that machines, as well as operating on the web information, can do
> real things.").
>
> The interesting thing this time around is that schema.org Actions are
> not just an abstract architecture, but come packaged alongside a large
> supporting vocabulary. And the vocabulary in turn covers more than
> just the action types themselves, but also provides various other
> necessary types and properties that are needed to put the abstractions
> into practice. It surely won't be the last word on this matter but I
> believe it'll prove a useful milestone.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>