Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

Dear Sarven,

This stuff is really cool: http://linked-research.270a.info/

Couple of questions: How did you come up with such a close CSS/HTML
template as the LCNS latex version? Did you hand code the CSS to make
it look as close as possible or was it automated by some tool I'm not
aware of?

What you're saying about moving towards RDFa for publishing papers
should definitely be discussed more, however, CSS/HTML still fails in
a lot of things that Latex on the other hand excels at. For example
typography and font kerning/spacing. All that works really well in
latex/pdf, while in HTML you get different results in different
browsers. Journals certainly can't expect inconsistencies. I've seen
templates built in PDF using Latex that you can dream of using
HTML/CSS. It's just a better set of tools for when it comes to
publishing *static* documents, because they were built for static
documents. The Web on the other hand is rarely static. It's an
interactive playground better suited for a DOM structure such as HTML.

Isn't there just a standard way to add RDF markup to a PDF file?

Best,
Luca

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
> Apologies, Sarven. I was just trying to point out some options and
> resources for those who were interested.
>
> On 10/1/14, 2:42 PM, "Sarven Capadisli" <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 2014-10-01 19:10, Laura Dawson wrote:
>>> What about EPUB, which is xHTML and has support for Schema.org markup?
>>>It
>>> also provides for fixed-layout.
>>
>>IMO, this particular discussion is not what we should be focusing on.
>>And, it almost always deters from the main topic. There are a number of
>>ways to get to "Web friendly" representations and presentations. EPUB?
>>Sure. Whatever floats the author's boat. As long as we can precisely
>>identify and be able to discover the items in research papers, that's
>>all fine.
>>
>>I personally don't find the need to set any hard limitations on (X)HTML
>>or which vocabularies to use. So, schema.org is not granular enough at
>>this time. There are more appropriate ones out there e.g: e.g.,
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2014Jul/0179.html , but
>>that doesn't mean that we can't use them along with schema.org.
>>
>>I favour plain HTML+CSS+RDFa to get things going e.g.:
>>
>>https://github.com/csarven/linked-research
>>
>>(I will not dwell on the use of SVG, MathML, JavaScript etc. at this
>>point, but you get the picture).
>>
>>The primary focus right now is to have SW/LD venues compromise i.e., not
>>insist only on Adobe's PDF, but welcome Web native technologies.
>>
>>Debating on which Doctype or vocabulary or whatever is like the icing on
>>the cake. Can we first bring the flour into our kitchen?
>>
>>-Sarven
>>http://csarven.ca/#i
>>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 19:05:27 UTC