There have been several efforts to define data formats for posting "reviews" of products, services etc. on the Web.
- Tantek Çelik
- Niall Kennedy
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
- 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.
hReview 0.3 thoughts
Changes from hReview 0.2:
- MUST (instead of SHOULD) use hCard for the item description of a business
- MUST (instead of SHOULD) use hCard to represent reviewer information
- make reviewer *optional* per feedback from Ryan King and Mark Nottingham
- SHOULD use hCalendar to represent an item of 'type' 'event'
- add one decimal digit of precision to ratings' numerical values.
- use 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.
- Note that scalar/rated tags would ideally use a tag space that explain the ratings for that tag. E.g. what does Food:18/30 mean?