Difference between revisions of "service-formats"

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (fix link)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= Current Service Schemas =
+
== Current Service Schemas ==
 +
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on [[service|services]] sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat.
  
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on services sites as the basis for the design of an hService microformat.
+
== existing in use formats ==
 
 
== Active Schemas ==
 
 
* [[http://base.google.com/base/services.txt Google Base Services Schema]]
 
* [[http://base.google.com/base/services.txt Google Base Services Schema]]
 
* [[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/shopsb/shpsb_specs.php Yahoo Universal Schema]]
 
* [[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/shopsb/shpsb_specs.php Yahoo Universal Schema]]
Line 10: Line 9:
 
We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population.
 
We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population.
  
== Problems with Active Schemas ==
+
== problems with current formats ==
 
In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services!
 
In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services!
 +
* Such problems should cite real world examples of services documented on [[service-examples]], otherwise the problems are purely theoretical. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  
== Conclusion ==
+
== conclusion ==
 
There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers.
 
There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers.
  
== Authors ==
+
== authors ==
 
* [[User:Wowitim|Wowitim]] 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 
* [[User:Wowitim|Wowitim]] 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== See Also ==
 +
* [[service]]
 +
* [[product]]
 +
* [[hlisting]]

Latest revision as of 19:37, 2 April 2009

Current Service Schemas

This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on services sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat.

existing in use formats

We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population.

problems with current formats

In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services!

  • Such problems should cite real world examples of services documented on service-examples, otherwise the problems are purely theoretical. Tantek 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

conclusion

There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers.

authors

See Also