review-brainstorming: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(separated out brainstorming bits from old reviews-formats page) |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
== Thoughts on a Microformat == | == 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. | Thoughts towards a simple [[microformat]] subset of earlier efforts, sufficient to express 80/20 of real world review examples on the Web. | ||
Revision as of 20:26, 26 January 2006
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.