Danny Ayers has written up an RDF-based Review Vocabulary. I think it would work well as an interchange format for reviews, but perhaps not so well in an RSS feed.
For example, the dc:creator field seems to apply to the reviewer rather than the item. The description is blank, because it can't contain the review:text field, and the title of the post has to be the title of the item under review. I think the description of the item being reviewed (URI, title, artist, etc) should be in a block separate from the RSS data.
I like review:reviewer, embedded within the review section rather than outside. However, I still stick with my decision to use a user-defined rating scale so that not everyone has to use a 1-10 scale (as most people don't). And I think it needs more description of the type of object under review (I had to manually search Google to find out if it was an album or a single track).
Maybe I've just thought about this too much (or not enough).
Comments
All fields are optional, email address will not be shown; no HTML, URLs are automatically hyperlinked.
Thanks for the comments. In the RSS example dc:creator *is* used to express the creator of the item, though it is certainly one of the areas which could easily get messed up.
You're right about the reason for the blank description, and the general issue of putting this in an RSS feed (description is a required field in RSS 1.0) rather than just general RDF exchange.
Re. user-defined scale - hmm, good point. I'd better see what Leigh's done with it in FOAF-a-matic before changing anything.
Re. type, yep, it is lacking a bit. There is a review:type field for music/film/book (which didn't make it into the examples I just noticed).
Perhaps that's a good use for dc:description in this context?
In the RSS example, dc:creator denotes the creator of the review (the RSS item or blog post), then there's a separate dc:creator to denote the creator of the item being reviewed.
In the RDF example, there's no actual blog post - all the data refers to the item being reviewed. This could get confusing, as the dc:creator within a standard blog post would nornally refer to the person who wrote it, not the subject of the post.
Does that make sense?
Ah, right, now I get you - you've put your finger on a big difference between RVW and the way I've used this vocab with RSS.
The item here is the thing being reviewed, not the review itself as in RVW. I'll have to think about this some more (dc:creator does mess up the expectation for blog data as you say), but whichever way it goes I'll definitely need to make that clear in the write-up (thanks!).