- From: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:44:18 -0700
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 20:44:46 UTC
InteractAction was meant for interactions between people-people or people-organizations. I don't think it would fit. You could try to make a case for some intersection with UpdateAction, but I think that starting separately and merging afterwards seems reasonable too (I.e. making a distinction on operations on devices versus data/collections). (sent from phone) On Sep 21, 2014 1:38 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Vicki, > > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:21 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote: > > In order to model the operation of devices and applications, we propose > > adding the following new Actions: > > > > http://schema.org/OperateAction > > http://schema.org/ActivateAction > > http://schema.org/DectivateAction > > http://schema.org/ResumeAction > > http://schema.org/SuspendAction > > I do understand that you want to "group" those actions under OperateAction > but what distinguishes OperateAction from an InteractAction (definition > would need to be generalized to include devices) or an UpdateAction? IMHO, > the definition of UpdateAction would fit quite well for those new actions: > > The act of managing by changing/editing the state of the object. > > > Thanks, > Markus > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 20:44:46 UTC