Re: Operation / Action (former: Schema.org proposal: New Actions and Actions contigent on an Offer) from Vicki Tardif Holland on 2014-09-23 (public-vocabs@w3.org from September 2014)

From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:27:19 -0400
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Cc: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAOr1obGYtY+0KtPPE71oG2WH4kE4Vc9RsUZUnF6Z7POizarEGA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> BTW if that sounds like something with even slight possibly of making
> sense I would propose to use term *ControlAction* for Viki's proposal
> instead of *OperateAction* (operation/action)
>


ControlAction sounds good to me.



>
>
> Should I reply with further findings in this exploration on this thread
> or maybe better to move this sub-conversation to dedicated issue on github?
>

I am fine either way, but I think others found this thread more accessible.

- Vicki



Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 14:27:47 UTC