Compatibility with Schema.org Actions Model

[kaigrunert]

Hi, I was looking at your project and wonder what is the relationship to Schema.org's Action approach? Is this project an extension for Schema.org, because there is also a subdomain called https://iot.schema.org/ (I know that this projects website is http://iotschema.org, but I wonder what the connection is?)

Somewhere in some older slides I saw the hasCapability property - this resembles to potentialAction, right? So why not subClassing Schema.org's Action instead?

[benfrancis]

(Sorry, removed my reply, I got confused about what GitHub repo this was!)

[jbkoh]

@iaktern Hi, I am just leaving a note based on my understanding because nobody answered in the last few days. However, @mjkoster should have a better answer about the relationship with schema.org and @danicic for modeling.

• We use iotschema.org for the development and will migrate it to iot.schema.org once we make a consensus. We are also trying to map our vocabulary set to schema.org. The goal is to add vocabulary to schema.org.

• potentialAction seems to represent "potential" action for which the entity can be an object.

  {
  "@context": "http://schema.org",
  "@type": "Movie",
  "name": "Footloose",
  "potentialAction" : {
  "@type": "WatchAction"
  }
  }

Here, a Movie is being watched.

hasCapability is about the other way around. It represents what the entity can do. (e.g., an entity hasCapability AirConditioning.)

I however do think that the design pattern is similar and worth discussing it for smooth integration with schema.org. @danicic: What do you think?