review-brainstorming: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(revert some old vandalism) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
See [[hreview|hReview]] for the result and evolution of these thoughts on a microformat. | See [[hreview|hReview]] for the result and evolution of these thoughts on a microformat. | ||
See [[hreview-brainstorming|hReview brainstorming]] for iteration and brainstorming on hReview itself. | |||
Latest revision as of 09:38, 25 April 2012
Review Brainstorming
There have been several efforts to define data formats for posting "reviews" of products, services etc. on the Web.
This page serves to document the brainstorming and ideas resulting from analysis of review examples from real world sites for the design of a simple reviews microformat. -Tantek
Contributors
Copied from reviews-formats which itself was contributed from Technorati Developer's Wiki: ReviewsFormats)
- Tantek Çelik
- Niall Kennedy
See Also
Thoughts on a Microformat for a review
Thoughts towards a simple microformat subset of earlier efforts, sufficient to express 80/20 of real world review examples on the Web.
Common review fields
- item
- optional:type of item (business, Web page/site, product, event, person, place, file, text)
- name/title of item being reviewed (string | ["hCard"] if business or person)
- optional:URL (all additional information should be somewhere else, not in the review itself)
- optional:image (URL)
- reviewer (["hCard"]|name|email|URL)
- review publication/authoring date (ISO8601 datetime)
- rating 1 to 5 (default max = 5, default min = 1)
- optional:tags (keyword,rating)*
- optional:comments (string)
See hReview for the result and evolution of these thoughts on a microformat.
See hReview brainstorming for iteration and brainstorming on hReview itself.