Raw

Short version : An RDF Affordance is a resource description which gives a client all the information it needs to perform an action.

see RdfAffordances and AffordanceVocabulary.

My last post about what a Data Web Browser might look like led to some fertile discussion on G+. Essentially Mike Amundsen neatly reframed the question to being one about affordances, pointing to a bit of related prior work by him on Hypermedia Types.

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that presented with a simple application scenario a Web Architect will abstract it into a form that will take decades to implement.

Only joking...

Web Intents and Actions

I was initially thinking only in terms of an RDF-oriented browser (plugin/service) but it does make sense to stand back and look at the bigger picture. For starters, while RDF is ideal for describing stuff like service characteristics, there's no compelling reason to limit the data that's being manipulated to RDF. With that door open, there's an immediate tie-in with Web Intents, a JSON/Javascript way of describing/implementing generic interactions like share, edit, view, pick etc. (As it happens I added a Web Intents repository to my todo list a few weeks ago, the idea being to store the descriptions as RDF, providing a minimal API for using them in browsers as others have described - nice bit of serendipitous tie-in).

Tantek has spotted the potential around intents and in Web Actions: Identifying A New Building Block For The Web looks at common features across existing systems like Blog this, Digg, Read later, Follow, Like, Share, Tweet, +1 (he uses "Actions" instead of "Intents" for essentially the same idea).

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that presented with the potential for open-ended innovation a Microformats Geek will start paving cowpaths.

Again, joking...

On the Wiki - RdfAffordances - Mike has brought the abstraction back down to ground with some more detail of RDF-oriented actions, and with a view to hacking an implementation (on my virgin node.js installation) I've started a vocabulary - AffordanceVocabulary - this may change fairly soon, apparently Michael Hausenblas has done a vocab in this area, that'll get precedence if there's overlap/conflict.

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that offered a simple application scenario a Semantic Web Geek will always create a vocabulary that obscures the purpose of the application and that no-one will ever use.

Not entirely joking...

There is one high-level abstraction I've noted on that vocab page that is probably useful. There's a natural boundary between affordances that are essentially just HTTP (e.g. click through link, replace a page) and those which require more complex interations. For now at least I'm calling the former Actions (let me know if there's a better word that doesn't clash with Tantek's usage) - they are around the scope of Mike's Hypermedia Types and the latter Intents - around the scope of Web Intents.

Comments on G+