[uf-new] hMedia?

[Brian Suda]

On 7/19/07, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Regine Heidorn wrote:
> > Just a short thought, maybe it doesn't make sense.
> > What about using hReview for all kind of media with a subcategory hMedia
> > and a specification of the media like audio, movie, website etc.?

--- this is correct, you can do this already. Please have a look at
the Product Review example on the wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/hreview#Product_review
it is reviewing a CD. hReview probably covers alot of ground very
simply. A media format is an attempt at adding additional meta
information about the object above and beyond the basic data that is
already encoded by hReview.

hReview has "item type"
item type:: This optional field "type" provides the type of the item
being reviewed, one of the following: product, business, event,
person, place, website, url. If omitted, then in some cases the item
type may be inferred. If the item is also an hCard, then the item type
is a "business" or a "person" based upon which of those the hCard
represents. If the item is also an hCalendar event, then the item type
is an "event".

at the moment it is an emunerated list of values, sometime the
simplest solution might be to extend that list to help suit your needs
rather than duplicate all the work in a new format.


> As far as hReview is concerned, the current approach is to embed the
> information in the hReview DESCRIPTION field.

--- alternatively you do NOT have to re-encode the data in the
description field, the hReview itself can be about the object, as is
demonstated in the examples on the wiki.

> Thus, if you are doing a review about an album, you would include the
> hAudio markup of the album in the DESCRIPTION field of the hReview.

--- this is not the only place to encode the data. For instance, the
existing example on the wiki makes use of the whole hReview.
Therefore, you would not have to repeat certain data, such as the URL,
PHOTO, FN again in the description, the same values could and SHOULD
be reused.

I would start as simple as possible in attempting to mark-up your
data. See how far hReview gets you, then document the short-coming and
then we can see if some of those short-comings are commonly published
and look at working them into a more robust Media format.


I hope that helps,
-brian

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk