hreview-faq: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
This page is for documenting Q&A about [[hreview|hReview]].
This page is for documenting Q&A about [[hreview|hReview]].


# ''Some of the values for the 'type' field could use some more details, and some specific examples might be useful. In particular, I wonder about the 'product' type. If you are reviewing a book, a movie on DVD (or in a theater, for that matter), or a music CD, should you use the product type? Or since you're typically reviewing the content, and not the literal, physical product, should you just not specify a type? Or should there be a 'media' type? Also, what is the difference between the 'website' and 'url' type? --[[User:Dougal Campbell|Dougal Campbell]] 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT) ''
# ''How do you specify more detail for the 'type' field, e.g. for an item of type "product" that is a book, or a movie (on DVD or in a theater), or a music CD? -- paraphrased from [[User:Dougal Campbell|Dougal Campbell]] 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)''
#* Tantek says: I'll get to this in a few minutes.  Have to go have brunch with parents now!
#* The 'type' field was kept delibrately coarse and simple.  Any attempt to build a thorough and meaningful taxonomy of all specific types of things that can be reviewed would be futile.  Instead, the set of reviewed item types is kept small and fairly generic.  Specific "typing" information about the item being reviewed should be published as tags as defined in [[hreview|hReview]].  E.g. a review of a book would be tagged with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book book tag]: <code><a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book">book</a></code> .  Similarly a movie that was a DVD should be tagged with both: <code><a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie">movie</a> <a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD">DVD</a></code> . Or a music CD: <code><a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/music">music</a> <a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD">CD</a></code> .
# ''I'm curious as to why the limited list of types, and why it needs to be limited to the 7 values listed. I can see the benefit of limiting it somewhat, but limiting it also assumes in a sense that nothing else would be reviewed, or that users of the structured data don't care to know the type of those other items.  What if I want to use hReview to review a podcast, for example?  I could shove that into one of the types already defined, but none are quite the right fit.
# ''What is the difference between the 'website' and 'url' type? --[[User:Dougal Campbell|Dougal Campbell]] 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)''
#* The goal of the type field is to give a general category into which the reviewed item falls. The list is constricted to a set which will cover most items.
#* A 'website' presumably includes everything located on that site, whereas 'url' refers only to the particular page located at the given 'url'.
# ''What if I want to use hReview to review a podcast?  Which type should I use?''
#* As a podcast is typically a specific URL (often ending with ".mp3") the "url" item type should be used when publishing an hReview of a podcast.

Revision as of 00:14, 5 July 2005

Please, consider asking your question on the microformats-discuss list first.

hReview FAQ

This page is for documenting Q&A about hReview.

  1. How do you specify more detail for the 'type' field, e.g. for an item of type "product" that is a book, or a movie (on DVD or in a theater), or a music CD? -- paraphrased from Dougal Campbell 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)
  2. What is the difference between the 'website' and 'url' type? --Dougal Campbell 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)
    • A 'website' presumably includes everything located on that site, whereas 'url' refers only to the particular page located at the given 'url'.
  3. What if I want to use hReview to review a podcast? Which type should I use?
    • As a podcast is typically a specific URL (often ending with ".mp3") the "url" item type should be used when publishing an hReview of a podcast.