W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org > October 2017

Re: html for scholarly communication: RASH, Scholarly HTML or Dokieli?

From: sebastien <sebastien.ballesteros@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 23:40:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+7kXNJpBTVidnFp9so9XyU6tn105mBU-X23+Jm6ETwE3QreqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org" <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>

A quick update on science.ai documentation effort.

As Robin mentioned we have been iterating quite a lot on scholarly
HTML internally. What we learned along the way (working with several
established players in the field) is that trying to standardize or
define constraints at the HTML level is somewhat too constraining (we
are planning to provide more context on that soon).

In our case, agreeing on a vocabulary and using RDFa and / or JSON-LD
to express it (without additional constraints) has proven to be more
productive.  For us, schema.org (and the process in place to extend
it) provides enough basis to make that work. For that reason we are
now mostly focused on exposing and documenting schema.org patterns
that are useful in the context of scholarly publishing.

I will post an updated link when our documentation hits our production
website but in the meantime feel free to check out
https://nightly.science.ai/documentation/archive if you are curious
about what we have been doing since the days of
http://scholarly.vernacular.io/.  If you look don't pay too much
attention to the archive stuff, but the JSON-LD / RDFa examples should
provide a good idea of the schema.org patterns that we have found
useful in the context of scholarly publishing.

Received on Monday, 16 October 2017 09:15:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:02 UTC