- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:56:40 -0700
- To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Is this potential action stuff, including the -input and -output constraints and their alternative textual representation being considered as a possible representation for actions in the Social Web WG? peter On 11/01/2014 01:09 PM, Jason Douglas wrote: > Yes, potential actions are a "template" for future action instances and > therefore a bit different. For example, it doesn't make much sense to use the > *-input stuff on completed actions. > > We did try several iterations of the proposal where action templates were a > distinct class hierarchy, but discarded them as unusable. > > -jason > > We did several iterations where these were kept separate, including this > published one... but in the end felt the > > On Wed Oct 29 2014 at 11:04:40 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I was just looking at some aspects of actions in schema.org > <http://schema.org> > > I noticed that actions can have a status with belongs to ActionStatusType, an > enumeration with three members - ActiveActionStatus, CompletedActionStatus, > and PotentialActionStatus. > > It seems to me that the active and completed status is for particular actions, > e.g., playing a piece of music on my laptop. Potential status appears to be > better suited for action types, e.g., playing a piece of music for whoever > requests it, and not for particular actions. This appears to be a > mismatch to me. > > Similarly, potential actions on things appear to be action types, not actions. > > > How are these issues resolved? > > > peter >
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 20:57:28 UTC