Difference between revisions of "review-brainstorming"

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added tags inside ratings feature variant)
(revert some old vandalism)
(9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 37: Line 37:
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.
== hReview 0.3 thoughts ==
See [[hreview-brainstorming|hReview brainstorming]] for iteration and brainstorming on hReview itself.
This iteration of hReview is directly in response to [[hreview-feedback]] and [[hreview-issues]].  See those documents for more details.
Changes from hReview 0.2:
* MUST (instead of SHOULD) use [[hcard|hCard]] for the item description of a business
* MUST (instead of SHOULD) use [[hcard|hCard]] to represent reviewer information
* make reviewer *optional* per feedback from Ryan King and Mark Nottingham
* SHOULD use [[hcalendar|hCalendar]] to represent an item of 'type' 'event'
* add one decimal digit of precision to ratings' numerical values.
* use [http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Value_excerpting the "value" construct from hCard] (as it is used in "tel" properties for example) to more explicitly markup the rating value when also providing (marking up) the best/worst of a rating.  need to also provide an example that does so.
* add [[rel-license]] to indicate the license of the hReview as a whole.
* permit tags inside ratings to denote rated tags, the same as ratings inside tags per suggestion from Eran Globen.

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


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.