[uf-discuss] Proposal: wine

[Steve Marshall]

On 11/16/06, James Jory <james at scrugy.com> wrote:
> I think you misunderstood at least where I'm coming from. I jumped in on
> this thread since it was discussing wine but I was not intending to propose
> a wine microformat (as the original subject indicates). Anyway, what I was
> asking about was the best way to begin the discussion for how wine
> information can be represented using (existing) microformats.
In that case, yes, I did misunderstand your standpoint.

On 11/16/06, James Jory <james at scrugy.com> wrote:
> However, as an industry (wine, that is), we have separate issues that we
> need to address. Perhaps most importantly is how to uniquely represent a
> wine. Very few producers use UPCs so we have to rely on the wine name in
> most cases. And with wines throughout the world often bound by local naming
> a labeling rules which are inconsistent, the problem is not an easy one to
> solve. Much of this is not specific to microformats but if we want to
> accurately represent wines using microformats the two must come together
> somehow. I do not see  anything in hListing or hReview that currently
> addresses this. If I missed it, please let me know. As an aggregator of wine
> information, this issue is very important to me.
I guess the obvious first question, for me, would be 'can wines be
identified by a URL?'… If so, then rel="bookmark" might be - if my
understanding of rel="bookmark" is correct - appropriate to identify a
wine uniquely. I'm not sure, though, if that'd be a misuse
rel="bookmark".

On 11/16/06, James Jory <james at scrugy.com> wrote:
> As a side question, at what point is the use of additional class names
> within an existing microformat considered a "new" microformat? For instance,
> if within the "item" for an hReview additional class names were specified
> (say, "vintage" and "producer"), is this considered a mis-use of hReview?
> The semantics of the hReview are still intact but now there is additional
> definition that may help solve what I described above.
I'd imagine things like that would fall under the remit of rel="tag"…
Although I'll admit that does feel a little less fine-grained than
might be desirable. Perhaps someone more versed in other µFs can offer
some better suggestion for this? Something with properties and values
might be apt.

On 11/16/06, James Jory <james at scrugy.com> wrote:
> Jeez, my head hurts. Is this the way you welcome everyone to this list?
As it happens, that was my first post to the list; apologies if I came
across as overly hostile… I guess my sense of humour doesn't translate
wonderfully online. I was just trying to illustrate the point that a
wine µF is probably overkill.
-- 
http://nascentguruism.com