hreview-faq

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
(question about limited types)
Line 3: Line 3:
This page is for documenting Q&A about [[hreview|hReview]].
This page is for documenting Q&A about [[hreview|hReview]].
-
* Q: ''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) ''
+
# ''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) ''
-
** A: Tantek says: I'll get to this in a few minutes.  Have to go have brunch with parents now!
+
#* Tantek says: I'll get to this in a few minutes.  Have to go have brunch with parents now!
-
 
+
# ''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.  Am I missing something? [[User:CoriSchlegel|CoriSchlegel]] 14:31, 27 Jun 2005 (PDT)''
-
* Q: ''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.  Am I missing something? [[User:CoriSchlegel|CoriSchlegel]] 14:31, 27 Jun 2005 (PDT)''
+

Revision as of 17:57, 28 June 2005

hReview FAQ

This page is for documenting Q&A about hReview.

  1. 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? --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!
  2. 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. Am I missing something? CoriSchlegel 14:31, 27 Jun 2005 (PDT)
hreview-faq was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969

Views