I think XML could be sufficient. But if it is, then why hasn't any of this been done?

The reason why I believe (with my limited knowledge) microformats could be useful is I know how difficult it is to find and define products right now. Working in the product search business, we toil everyday with feeds and crawls. Nomalizing them is a difficult task. Manufacturers and merchants do not provide upc codes. And not every product has one. The descriptors that I see that we could benefit from include product name, model number, image, price, description, specs, availability, rebate, category, url, merchant name, manufacturer, upc if available, and possibly accessories. If this common data was wrapped in a standard microformat, then it would make the distribution of the product that much easier. I think that it would also help even the playing field a bit for smaller manufacturers and merchants. Essentially the better the product is defined the easier it is for search engines to find it and index it. 

I'm going to ETech this week. If any of you all are going to be there, it would be interesting to meet up and discuss. 

On Mar 5, 2006, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Message: 2

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 21:10:25 -0800

From: "Mike Dierken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Product Data Microformat

To: "Microformats Discuss" <[email protected]>

Message-ID:

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


If the goal is to automate distributing production information, then

XML is sufficient. I thought a 'microformat' was meant to be an

overlay on narrative text - like a highlighter with a color dedicated

to 'product info'. I could be wrong - who knows the purpose of

microformats as compared to simply using XML?

There are several book related formats - UIEE for example (but that

isn't XML) [1] - and there is UBL for 'business documents' [2] but I

don't know if they have a 'product' format.


[1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1161336/103-3996345-0333429

[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ubl



About the need for a UPI: While it's true that it's important to identify a

product uniquely, once you've specified the part number and/or the

description as well as the manufacturer's name you've uniquely ID'd the

part, since it's rare that a manufacturer duplicates its own part names or

numbers.

Well, not everything has a manufacturer, the manufacturer's name isn't

necessarily unique, manufacturers do actually re-use and have

duplicate part numbers. And the same product can have a UPC, EAN,

manufacturer and part number - anyone could use any of these to

reference the product. Then you get into issues of similarity, like

after-market manufacturers of 'compatible' or 'equivalent' products -

wouldn't it be nice to know those relationships?


Anyway, something that mostly works is infinitely better than not

having a system at all.




_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Reply via email to