Re: Action subtypes, their properties & sub-properties plus relationships with Place & Event

On 6 October 2014 18:20, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 06:26 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 6 October 2014 17:19, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:20 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>>> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/01/2014 06:18 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:51 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>>>>> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>     In general I think that clear examples of various common cases can
>>>>> come
>>>>>     of more use then trying to nail down descriptions of all those
>>>>>     properties!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1, I totally agree. Send a patch?
>>>> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/pull/15
>>>>
>>>> so far just single commit which makes examples using object in more
>>>> consistent way
>>>>
>>>> thinking about current use of event/location on Action resources, i also
>>>> spotted example in http://schema.org/FollowAction
>>>>
>>>> <!-- John followed Steve on Twitter. -->
>>>> {
>>>>   "@context": "http://schema.org",
>>>>   "@type": "FollowAction",
>>>>   "agent": {
>>>>     "@type": "Person",
>>>>     "name": "John"
>>>>   },
>>>>   "followee": {
>>>>     "@type": "Person",
>>>>     "name": "Steve"
>>>>   },
>>>>   "location": {
>>>>     "@type": "Product",
>>>>     "name": "Twitter"
>>>>   }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> which *violates rangeIncludes* of http://schema.org/location
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, good catch. That's a bug from early revisions: we debated this one for a
>>> few rounds but forgot to remove it. The thinking at the time was to use
>>> "instrument" (or a sub-property-of like "product") to model things like
>>> "what application you used to perform the action". Makes sense?
>>
>> Someone care to file another pull request? :)
> i plan to just add another commit to pending PR once we clarify more
> details... i explicitly asked not to merge that PR yet for that very
> reason :)
> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/pull/15

Great, I'll hang on. I need a nicer workflow of merging PRs into
branches other than those they were targeted to, as this seems to be
happening a lot :) I'll roll together a bunch of proposed changes from
the community and will run them past the search engine reps for final
sanity / consistency checks...

Dan

Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 18:06:57 UTC