xfolk-to-rdf: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Further explanation.) |
m (Formatting change) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
xFolk can be thought of as a minimal version of hReview. | xFolk can be thought of as a minimal version of hReview. | ||
{| border="1 | {| border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
! hReview Term | ! hReview Term | ||
Revision as of 07:36, 20 June 2008
xFolk/hReview → RDF
Only a rough sketch on a piece of paper so far. "X" is the review, "Y" is the item being reviewed.
xFolk / hReview Equivalence
xFolk can be thought of as a minimal version of hReview.
| hReview Term | xFolk Term |
|---|---|
| hreview | xfolkentry |
| version | / |
| summary | / |
| type | type is always "url" |
| item fn | taggedlink (link text) |
| item url | taggedlink (href) |
| item photo | / |
| reviewer | / |
| dtreviewed | / |
| rating (best, worst) | / |
| description | description |
| tag | tag |
| permalink | / |
| license | / |
With this in mind, an xFolk entry can be treated as simply a funny-looking hReview and the hReview to RDF mapping then applied to xFolk.