From OpenBRR

We should use a standard format to facilitate the exchange of reviews data. The obvious candidate is RDF, the standard pushed by the W3C.

There has already been some work to build a standard vocabulary for reviews - see in particular what Danny Ayers has proposed: http://www.purl.org/stuff/rev#

We only need to extend this vocabulary to account for the specific aspects of the BRR methodology. Extending a vocabulary is natural in RDF. It turns out that we only need to define two concepts: - Assessment Category - Assessment Category Rating I propose to use brr: as prefix for this (short) BRR namespace.

Here's what the BRR review of SuperWidget would look like in RDF:

<rdf:RDF

   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
   xmlns:review="http://www.purl.org/stuff/rev#"
   xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
   xmlns:brr="http://www.openbrr.org/wiki/index.php/RDFVocabulary#"
   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">

 <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.iterating.com/products/SuperWidget">

   <review:hasReview>

     <review:Review rdf:about="http://www.iterating.com/products/SuperWidget/review/Paul/2006-07-04">

       <review:rating>2.6</review:rating>
       <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
       <review:text>SuperWidget is not quite ready for prime time. It has great functionality, but it's unstable and not well supported </review:text>
       <review:createdOn>2006-07-04 14:34:54</review:createdOn>
       <review:reviewer rdf:resource="http://www.iterating.com/users/Paul"/>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating rdf:parseType="Resource">
         <dc:subject>functionality</dc:subject>
         <review:rating>5</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>Very ambitious: does as much or more than other widgets</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating rdf:parseType="Resource">
         <dc:subject>operational software characteristics</dc:subject>
         <review:rating>2</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>I found an unacceptable level of unreported bugs</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating rdf:parseType="Resource">
         <dc:subject>documentation</dc:subject>
        <review:rating>4</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>I found the documentation clear and extensive. I only wish there were more input from users</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating 
         <dc:subject>support and services</dc:subject>
         <review:rating>2</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>The forum is not very active, many questions were left unanswered</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating rdf:parseType="Resource">
         <dc:subject>software technology attributes</dc:subject>
         <review:rating>3</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>Nicely architected, but I wish support for EJB were already available</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating rdf:parseType="Resource">
         <dc:subject>community</dc:subject>
         <review:rating>1</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>Very little activity in the community</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

       <brr:assessmentCategoryRating rdf:parseType="Resource">
         <dc:subject>development process</dc:subject>
         <review:rating>1</review:rating>
         <review:maxRating>5</review:maxRating>
         <review:text>Looks like the work of a single man, with no communication on process and releases</review:text>
       </brr:assessmentCategoryRating>

     </review:Review>
   </review:hasReview>

 </rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

This could be further extended to include more detailed data on the assessment metrics.