review-formats: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(Google Safe Search Meta) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Current Review Formats = | |||
There have been several efforts to define data formats for posting "reviews" of products, services etc. on the Web. | There have been several efforts to define data formats for posting "reviews" of products, services etc. on the Web. | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
** rating (user visible, max, normalized to 0..1 value) | ** rating (user visible, max, normalized to 0..1 value) | ||
** comments/description | ** comments/description | ||
==== Google Base Formats ==== | |||
Google Base provided examples of uploading reviews in [http://web.archive.org/web/20061028064742/http://base.google.com/base/reviews.html several formats]. They provided sample files to be used as a template for creating your own files to upload to Google Base. They provided samples in the following formats: txt, RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, Atom 0.3, Atom 1.0. In all cases, they share the same basic vocabulary: | |||
* vocabulary: | |||
** author | |||
** description | |||
** expiration_date | |||
** id | |||
** image_link | |||
** link | |||
** location | |||
** name_of_item_reviewed | |||
** publish_date | |||
** rating | |||
** review_type | |||
** reviewer_type | |||
** title | |||
** url_of_item_reviewed | |||
==== Google Safe Search Meta ==== | |||
In https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/safesearch Google recommends marking "adult" (presumably "NSFW" or "X-Rated") pages with: | |||
<syntaxhighlight lang="html"><meta name="rating" content="adult"></syntaxhighlight> | |||
=== For specific domains === | === For specific domains === | ||
Latest revision as of 18:49, 18 November 2022
Current Review Formats
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 current list of review schemas, formats, and efforts as background for the design of a simple reviews microformat. -Tantek
Contributors
Copied from reviews-formats which itself was contributed from Technorati Developer's Wiki: ReviewsFormats)
- Tantek Çelik
- Niall Kennedy
See Also
Notes
Notice that author appears several times in the lists below, and that it sometimes refers to the author of the review, and other times to the author of the book being reviewed. A parenthetical will be used to distinguish them now.
Previous Schemas and Formats
Generic to any kind of review
RVW
- http://www.pmbrowser.info/rvw/0.2/
- http://hublog.hubmed.org/archives/000307.html <- this is a really old and out-of-date version
- http://www.pmbrowser.info/wiki.pl?RVW
- variants for embedding in Atom, RSS2, RSS1, RDF
- apparent schema
- author of review
- content of review
- creator of work
- example: book author, movie director
- percentage score rating
- multiple identifiers
- example: ISBN, ASIN, UPC, LOC
- link to purchase
- appears to be loosely connected with the term "!OpenReviews" (has also referred to other efforts) which itself appears to be yet another OpenBlahBlah buzzword with no substance behind it (AKA placeholder term).
RDF Review Vocabulary
- RDF Review Vocabulary: http://www.purl.org/stuff/rev
- Deployed in FilmTrust, see e.g. user profile
- Extended version used for StructuredBlogging/RDF transformation (e.g. see sample review there's a reference to subnode-to-rdf-interpreter.xsl in the source).
- Used in AllConsuming Reading Lists in RDF
- Used in FOAF-a-matic Mark 2
Simple-Review XML
- Embeds XML in <script type="application/x-subnode">
- XSD
- apparent schema
- review-title
- item
- name/title
- type
- URL
- image URL
- rating (user visible, max, normalized to 0..1 value)
- comments/description
Google Base Formats
Google Base provided examples of uploading reviews in several formats. They provided sample files to be used as a template for creating your own files to upload to Google Base. They provided samples in the following formats: txt, RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, Atom 0.3, Atom 1.0. In all cases, they share the same basic vocabulary:
- vocabulary:
- author
- description
- expiration_date
- id
- image_link
- link
- location
- name_of_item_reviewed
- publish_date
- rating
- review_type
- reviewer_type
- title
- url_of_item_reviewed
Google Safe Search Meta
In https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/safesearch Google recommends marking "adult" (presumably "NSFW" or "X-Rated") pages with:
<meta name="rating" content="adult">
For specific domains
Movies
Books
- RDF schema for book reviews: http://www.amk.ca/xml/reviews.html
- see also book-info-examples
See Also
See hReview for the result and evolution of these thoughts on a microformat.