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

On 2014-10-02 10:36, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> On 01/10/2014 21:55, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> But why is it backwards? We have different formats serving different
>> purposes. Diversity is healthy. Simply because PDF is not in the Web
>> stack it doesn't make it Web-unfriendly.
>
> In 2013, PDF was mentioned during ODW2013 [0] workshop and I quote part
> of the final report [1] below regarding PDF:
>
> "(...) PDF - often referred to as the format where data goes to die. In
> the open data world, PDF has a bad name as it is not deemed machine
> processable. As Adobe's Jim King pointed out in his presentation [2] ,
> this is perhaps unfair. PDF can include structured tables, can carry
> associated metadata, extractable text and more. It is the way that PDFs
> are generated - using basic tools that don't support all the features -
> that renders PDF documents opaque to machine processes."
>
> This could be an opportunity to work closer with Adobe's folks to see
> how web stack can help process data in PDF...
>
> Best,
> Ghislain
>
> [0] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/report
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/Role_of_PDF_and_Opendata_final.pdf

Thanks for sharing Ghislain.

Lets not forget that we have SW/LD supporters that go after public 
institutions to aim for 5-star Linked Data. Or ask for public funding to 
support their SW/LD research.

Ironic Facts:

* Majority of the SW/LD research output is publicly funded
* Majority of the SW/LD research venues promote 1-star Linked Data

So, yes, we can do a lot of different things and in fact, a lot of 
people are doing different things to improve open science and communication.

The question is, what efforts are the SW/LD research venues making? How 
are they compromising or improving the state of things? What has changed 
in recent memory?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i