[uf-new] hProduct progress -- category discussion

[Paul Lee (이기수)]

Tantek, is there any way to convey hierarchy with rel-tags? We've done
both in Google Base/Product Search, going with hierarchical labels
that include breadcrumbs, as well as with tags.  I think we'd need
something that supports both; most actually seem to use hierarchical
labels/ontologies.

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Tantek Celik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Categories/subcategories - just use rel-tags as hReview does.
>
> Tantek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Myers, Jay" <Jay.Myers at bestbuy.com>
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:59:53
> To: For discussion of new microformats.<microformats-new at microformats.org>
> Subject: RE: [uf-new] hProduct progress -- category discussion
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Catching up on my hProduct work here...
>
> I wanted to address the topic of subcategories. I think that many
> subcategory-specific values may be addressed in the p-v section of the
> hProduct microformat. I agree that there are many universal product
> attributes that can be addressed using the base hProduct spec, and it
> would be worth it to continue foundational work.
>
> Speaking of category, the current foundation hProduct brainstorm schema
> doesn't include any mention of product category. I could envision adding
> category and subcategory nodes (ala category "breadcrumbs") to help
> identify product cats and subcats.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jay
>
>
> Jay Myers
> Lead Web Development Engineer
> Online Solutions, BestBuy.com
> jay.myers at bestbuy.com
> (w) 612-291-4007
> (twitter) @jaymyers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: microformats-new-bounces at microformats.org
> [mailto:microformats-new-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lee
> (???)
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:20 AM
> To: microformats-new at microformats.org
> Subject: [uf-new] hProduct progress (reply)
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> Just had two points to chime in on:
>
> 1. Reading over the page, sounds still a bit early to call it hProduct.
> =)
>
> 2. That said, I agree with you that there's a case for a separate
> format.  The hListing proposal page makes it clear that it simply
> wasn't designed to address retail products, for instance:
>
> "We are focusing on providing "just enough" structure to enable
> matching, not to consummate transactions. This is distinct from the
> majority of formats described on the wiki under listing-examples,
> which are specific enough to completely describe products for retail
> sale according to the idiosyncratic semantics of particular merchants
> and shopping engines. Instead of encoding retail-oriented fields such
> as UPCs, SKUs, and manufacturer part numbers, this proposal
> acknowledges that many listings are for "inventories of one" that may
> not have such precise abstractions."
>
> A product microformat could help fill the gap for information like
> condition, brand, MPN, and unique product identifiers (UPC/EAN, ISBN).
>
> 3. Of course, that leads to the question: What about all the product
> subcategories? My sense from reading archives is that that might be
> part of the reason why discussion on product has died out - it's a
> pretty behemoth task to design for tens of highly diverse categories,
> with their own subcategories, many of which are still evolving.  I
> think, however, there's a lot of value in focusing on the common
> ground across all products, and the value that that can add in and of
> itself, as well as as a foundation for future work on subcategories.
>
> Paul
> Google Product Search
>
>
> [uf-new] hProduct progress
>
> Jay Myers jmyers at visi.com
> Wed Aug 6 14:59:06 PDT 2008
>
> All,
>
> There is work being done on new standards and reviving the
> hProduct microformat. During the course of this effort,
> people have pointed to hListing as a more viable, mature
>
> format for displaying product data. We proponents of
> hProduct feel that a separate hProduct uF would be more
> granular, and provide more specifics around the products,
> which often are more complex and have important attributes
>
> that are outside of the scope of hListing and others.
> Please see the updated brainstorming and draft proposal
> wiki pages for more information on the updated schema.
>
> Nonetheless, there are still correlations between hListing
>
> and hProduct that can't be ignored. It has been suggested
> that hProduct be used in conjuction with hListing to
> enhance the semantics of that format, where hProduct would
> live under .item. This I agree with, but I would still
>
> propose it also be used separately.
>
> I would appreciate any thoughts or ideas you might have
> around the revival effort of hProduct.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jay
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new



--
Paul Lee
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
+1 (650) 214-6612