service-formats: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (fix link) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Current Service Schemas == | == Current Service Schemas == | ||
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on services sites as the basis for the design of | This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on [[service|services]] sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat. | ||
== | == existing in use formats == | ||
* [[http://base.google.com/base/services.txt Google Base Services Schema]] | * [[http://base.google.com/base/services.txt Google Base Services Schema]] | ||
* [[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/shopsb/shpsb_specs.php Yahoo Universal Schema]] | * [[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/shopsb/shpsb_specs.php Yahoo Universal Schema]] | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population. | We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population. | ||
== | == problems with current formats == | ||
In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services! | In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services! | ||
* Such problems should cite real world examples of services documented on [[service-examples]], otherwise the problems are purely theoretical. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== | == conclusion == | ||
There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers. | There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers. | ||
== | == authors == | ||
* [[User:Wowitim|Wowitim]] 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | * [[User:Wowitim|Wowitim]] 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
== See Also == | |||
* [[service]] | |||
* [[product]] | |||
* [[hlisting]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:37, 2 April 2009
Current Service Schemas
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on services sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat.
existing in use formats
We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population.
problems with current formats
In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services!
- Such problems should cite real world examples of services documented on service-examples, otherwise the problems are purely theoretical. Tantek 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
conclusion
There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers.
authors
- Wowitim 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)