- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:45:33 -0400
- To: W3C LOD Mailing List <public-lod@w3.org>
- CC: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5432C72D.5020502@openlinksw.com>
On 10/6/14 11:39 AM, John Erickson wrote: > This is an incredibly rich and interestingly conversation. I think > there are two separate themes: > 1. What is required and/or asked-for by the conference organizers... > a. ...that is needed for the review process > b. ...that is needed to implement value-added services for the conference > c. ...that contributes to the body of work > > 2. What is required and/or asked for by the publisher? > > All of (1) is about the "meat" of the contributions, including > establishing a long-term legacy. (2) is about (presumably) prestigious > output. > > What added services could esp. Easychair provide that would go beyond > 1.a. and contribute to 1.b. and 1.c., etc.? Are there any Easychair > committers watching this thread? ;) > > John +1 Kingsley > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Kingsley Idehen > <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > > On 10/6/14 10:25 AM, Paul Houle wrote: >> Frankly I don't see the reason for the hate on PDF files. >> >> I do a lot of reading on a tablet these days because I can take >> it to the gym or on a walk or in the car. Network reliability is >> not universal when I leave the house (even if I had a $10 a GB >> LTE plan) so downloaded PDFs are my document format of choice. >> >> There might be a lot of hypothetical problems with PDFs, and I >> am sure there is a better way to view files on a small screen, >> but practically I have no trouble reading papers from arXiv.org, >> books from oreilly.com <http://oreilly.com>, be these produced >> by a TeX-derived or Word-derived toolchains or a toolchain that >> involves a real page layout tool for that matter. > > Paul, > > As I see it, the issue here is more to do with PDF being the only > option, rather than no PDFs at all. Put differently, we are not > using our "horses for course" technology (the Web that emerges > from AWWW exploitation) to produce "horses for course" conference > artifacts. Instead, we continue to impose (overtly or covertly) > specific options that are contradictory, and of diminishing value. > > Conferences (associated with themes like Semantic Web and Linked > Open Data) should accept submissions that provide open access to > relevant research data. In a sense, imagine if PDFs where > submitted without bibliographic references. Basically, that's what > happening here with research data circa. 2014, where we have a > functioning Web of Linked (Open) Data, which is based on AWWW. > > Loosely coupling the print-friendly documents (PDFs, Latex etc.), > http-browser friendly documents (HTML), and actual raw data > references (which take the form of 5-Star Linked Open Data ) is a > practical staring point. Adding experiment workflow (which is also > becoming the norm in the bio informatics realm) is a nice bonus, > as already demonstrated by examples provided by Hugh Glaser (see: > this weekend's thread). > > Kingsley > > > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Mark Diggory <mdiggory@atmire.com >> <mailto:mdiggory@atmire.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Mark Diggory >> <mdiggory@atmire.com <mailto:mdiggory@atmire.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello Community, >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Luca Matteis >> <lmatteis@gmail.com <mailto:lmatteis@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Ivan Herman >> <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: >> > The real problem is still the missing tooling. >> Authors, even if technically savy like this >> community, want to do what they set up to do: write >> their papers as quickly as possible. They do not want >> to spend their time going through some esoteric CSS >> massaging, for example. Let us face it: we are not >> yet there. The tools for authoring are still very poor. >> >> But are they still very poor? I mean, I think there >> are more tools for >> rendering HTML than there are for rendering Latex. In >> fact there are >> probably more tools for rendering HTML than anything >> else out there, >> because HTML is used more than anything else. Because >> HTML powers the >> Web! >> >> >> You can write in Word, and export in HTML. You can >> write in Markdown >> and export in HTML. You can probably write in Latex >> and export in HTML >> as well :) >> >> >> The tools are not the problem. The problem to me is >> the printing >> afterwords. Conferences/workshops need to print the >> publications. >> Printing consistent Latex/PDF templates is a lot >> easier than printing >> inconsistent (layout wise) HTML pages. >> >> >> There are tools, for example, theres already a bit of >> work to provide a plugin for semantic markup in Microsoft >> Word (https://ucsdbiolit.codeplex.com/) and similar >> efforts on the Latex side (https://trac.kwarc.info/sTeX/) >> >> But, this is not a question of technology available to >> authors, but of requirements defined by publishers. If >> authors are too busy for this effort, then publishers >> facilitate that added value when it is in their best >> interest. >> >> For example, PLoS has a published format guidelines using >> Work and Latex >> (http://www.plosone.org/static/guidelines), a workflow >> for semantically structuring their resulting output and >> their final output is well structured and available in >> XML based on a known standard >> (http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd), >> PDF and the published HTML on their website >> (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011233). >> >> This results In semantically meaningful XML that is >> transformed to HTML >> >> http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011233&representation=XML >> >> Clearly the publication process can support solutions and >> when its in the best interest of the publisher. They will >> adopt and drive their own markup processes to meet >> external demand. >> >> Providing tools that both the publisher and the author >> may use independently could simplify such an effort, but >> is not a main driver in achieving that final result you >> see in PLoS. This is especially the case given that both >> file formats and efforts to produce the "ideal solution" >> are inherently localized, competitive and diverse, not >> collaborative in nature. For PLoS, the solution that is >> currently successful is the one that worked to solve >> todays immediate local need with todays tools, not the >> one that was perfectly designed to meet all tomorrows >> hypothetical requirements. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark Diggory >> >> p.s. Finally, on the reference of moving repositories >> such as EPrints and DSpace towards supporting semantic >> markup of their contents. Being somewhat of a participant >> in LoD on the DSpace side, I note that these efforts are >> inherently just "Repository Centric", describing the the >> structure of the repository (IE collections of files), >> not the semantic structure contained within those files >> (ideas, citations, formulas, data tables, figures). In >> both cases, these capabilities are in their infancy and >> without any strict format and content driven publication >> workflow, and lacking any rendering other than to offer >> the file for download, they ultimately suffer from the >> same need for a common Semantic Document format that can >> be leveraged for rendering, referencing and indexing. >> >> >> -- >> @mire Inc. >> *Mark Diggory* >> /2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 315, Carlsbad, CA. 92010/ >> /Esperantolaan 4, Heverlee 3001, Belgium/ >> http://www.atmire.com <http://www.atmire.com/> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> @mire Inc. >> *Mark Diggory* >> /2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 315, Carlsbad, CA. 92010/ >> /Esperantolaan 4, Heverlee 3001, Belgium/ >> http://www.atmire.com <http://www.atmire.com/> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul Houle >> Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF >> (607) 539 6254 <tel:%28607%29%20539%206254> paul.houle on >> Skype ontology2@gmail.com <mailto:ontology2@gmail.com> >> http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup > > > -- > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog 1:http://kidehen.blogspot.com > Personal Weblog 2:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> > Twitter Profile:https://twitter.com/kidehen > Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > Personal WebID:http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this > > > > > -- > John S. Erickson, Ph.D. > Deputy Director, Web Science Research Center > Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) > <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com <mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com>> > Twitter & Skype: olyerickson -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 16:46:01 UTC