- From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:04:03 +0200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:13:32 +0200, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 8/19/12 6:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> >> On 19 August 2012 23:00, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com >> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: >> >> On 8/15/12 7:50 PM, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: >> >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:43:48 +0200, Daniel O'Connor >> <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com <mailto:daniel.oconnor@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=146645 >> >> is a good starting point. >> >> >> That's pretty much where we are at already (Yandex also >> participates in schema.org <http://schema.org>). The question >> is whether anyone has already built the next vocabulary, >> describing the things being reviewed - we're happy to do it >> but it would be pretty silly to reinvent that wheel >> >> Chaals, >> >> There are a number of Review ontologies out in the wild. Here are >> some links: >> >> 1. http://ontologi.es/like# >> 2. http://vocab.org/review/terms.rdf >> 3. http://vocab.org/review/terms.html . >> >> >> seeAlso : http://revyu.com/ >> >> vocab: http://purl.org/stuff/rev Yeah, I looked at all these. Specifically what I wanted was more detailed terms to refer to the things I was reviewing - e.g. for a hotel booking "ease of the process", "what I was offered matched what I got", "value-for-money", "friendly staff", "clean room", "services available". Some of which will be useful for a cafe review, or a flight, and some of which won't... And that is what I cannot find anywhere. Cheers Chaals -- Chaals - standards declaimer
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 13:05:20 UTC