[uf-discuss] item in hReviews
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sun Mar 5 20:11:06 PST 2006
On 3/4/06 5:57 PM, "Alf Eaton" <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:
> On 04 Mar 2006, at 13:50, Ryan King wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Alf Eaton wrote:
>>> At postgenomic.com (an aggregator/analysis engine for life science
>>> weblogs), an attempt to get people to add markup to their posts to
>>> identify reviews of papers currently looks like this: <http://
>>> www.postgenomic.com/about_reviews.php>. The recommendation is to
>>> use either a) rev="review" on the outward link, or b) to enclose
>>> the review in <div class="hreview"> and add class="url" to the
>>> outgoing link. My question is that in the hReview draft
>>> specification, 'item' is required: would it be best to use <div
>>> class="hreview item description"> for the wrapper, or are 'item'
>>> and 'description' not really necessary in this context (where
>>> there's not always structure, such as citation metadata, in the
>>> review itself)?
>> In this case, the url would be the item being reviewed, no?
> Yes, it would. The trouble is that the item (title, url) and
> description (the text of the review) are all going to be jumbled up
> here, so it's difficult to isolate them into separate 'item' and
> 'description' sections. Could it be implicit that a 'url' class
> inside an 'hreview' class refers to the item being reviewed?
Alf, this is certainly an interesting case to evaluate and figure out.
Could you add the URLs to the examples/explanations from postgenomic.com to
the hReview feedback page, as well as perhaps example hReview markup of how
you think it could work (with your suggestion of the use of the 'url' class
inside an 'hreview' class).
This will help both the folks working on the hReview spec and
implementations to better understand the implications, as well as capture
this use case for future analysis.
More information about the microformats-discuss