Verbs and Object Types Roundup

[James M Snell]

Hey all,

I just wanted to send out a quick survey to see if there are any
additional new common object types or verbs we may wish to consider
adding to the core schema. Please post any suggestions you may have as
responses to this thread. I'll collect them and post a list later that
we can vote on.

Thanks!

- James

[Chris Messina]

Have you taken a look at the Schema.org Actions proposal?

http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to activity-strea...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[James M Snell]

Yes,  I've been watching that.  The question I would have is whether we want to look at incorporating any of those ideas into our spec. I can see definite advantages to doing so but would love to hear from others.

[Chris Messina]

Would be interesting to see how close in alignment we could get — to see where the diffs are, and maybe try to also inform the direction of Schema.org actions/verbs.

[James M Snell]

That's certainly a worthwhile effort. I wasn't sure if the proposed
new work had gotten any traction at schema.org so hadn't really
pursued it. Perhaps the best place to start would be to see if the
folks who came up with the new proposal could post an updated summary
here as to where things are at, what they view are the key differences
in the two approaches, and what gaps may exist.