Re: Publication of scientific research

On 04/29/2013 10:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/29/13 3:23 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
>> On 04/29/2013 09:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 4/29/13 1:29 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> ok. Let's see if we can offer xhtml+RDFa as an additional format, and
>>>> see how people react. I'll spread the idea a bit.
>>>
>>> Why stop at xhtml+RDFa when you also have:
>>>
>>> 1. html+microdata
>>> 2. html+turtle -- where you use <script/> for embedding Turtle.
>>>
>>> Note,  picking winners (overtly or covertly) is always a shortcut to
>>> politically induced inertia. It's best to do the complete opposite which
>>> has the net effect of demonstrating the innate dexterity of the RDF.
>>
>> Sure, why not. We can do all of that. Not the challenge.
>>
>> Will you get the ISWC organizers to accept *HTML*?
>
> If I had such influence, of course :-)
>
>> That's what I would love to hear.
>
> You heard it now.
>
>> The rest is really details. We can have 20 different machine readable
>> versions of the document if we want. Lets have 1 that's acceptable to
>> get things rolling!
>
> Yes, but why do you think xhtml+rdfa is the one? My point is that we
> don't know "the one", because that shouldn't matter in a world of URIs
> and RDF based Linked Data :-)

You are right!

I was proposing (X)HTML(+RDFa) because that's arguably most common and 
simple enough to carry forward. By having the accompanying CSS which 
follows the widely used presentations, it is fairly on an equal footing 
with the currently dominant format. It keeps reviewers happy since the 
"papers" are fairly consistent.

If we are willing to hack around getting structured data in and out of 
PDF, I'm sure we can run circles around that via HTML+Whatever. I just 
didn't want us to get lost in those possibilities and missing the main 
mark :)

-Sarven