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

Hey Silvio,



On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
wrote:

> Hi Johannes,
>
> at Fidus Writer [1] we are about ready to convert from our basic HTML
> exporter to one of the standards. As I understand it, there are currently
> three standards out there that more or less aim to do the same thing: RASH
> [2], Scholarly HTML [3], and Dokieli [4]. We had thought we would go for
> Scholarly HTML, but now I am not sure if it is being maintained at all any
> more. Is there a reason why we have three different formats for this? Are
> we moving toward just one, or do they have different purposes?
>
>
> I’m answering mainly from my side (RASH) – but I’ve added Sarven and Ivan
> into the discussion, so as to have more precise responses about Scholarly
> HTML and Dokieli respectively.
>
> You can find more information about RASH at https://w3id.org/people/
> essepuntato/papers/rash-peerj2016.html (an article about it that has been
> recently accepted at PeerJ CS). In particular, RASH restricts the use
> of HTML elements to only 32 elements for writing
> academic research articles. It allows authors to use embedded RDF
> annotations. In addition, RASH strictly follows the Digital Publishing
> WAI-ARIA Module 1.0 for expressing structural semantics on various markup
> elements used. In addition, RASH comes with a Framework that add additional
> functionalities (e.g. converters from/to different formats – e.g. ODT,
> DOCX, LaTeX, EPUB (to come) – for simplifying authors and other actors
> during their typical scholarly communication tasks (e.g. submitting papers
> to a conference in a particular format).
>

Thanks for the clarification. I did read up on the RASH documentation
before emailing the list. But it was not clear to me which one is the
better fit - and why there still are more than one standard. The fact that
there are tools fro conversion from RASH to other formats is of course a
clear plus.


>
> Please don’t hesitate to write me for additional information about RASH
> and its Framework. I would be great to have a RASH exporter on Fidus Writer
> indeed.
>
> Just to clarify: RASH and Scholarly HTML are basically specifying a
> particular use of HTML for writing a scholarly document – thus they can be
> considered HTML-based formats. Dokieli is an HTML editor like Fidus Writer,
> it is not a format, and has the advantage of being developed following
> Solid, Linked Data Notification, and other (Semantic) Web standards and
> scholarly communication principles (see Linked Research at
> https://linkedresearch.org) – I think that Sarven can provide you more
> detail here.
>

I am aware of the distinction, but there are actually some people at the
University of Bonn arecurrently working on a Fidus Writer -> Dokieli
exporter. What comes out of that is a zip file with dokieli and the article
in an HTML-format compatible with Dokieli. This can then be used to further
edit the text. So continuing on that export filter it would be one
possibility. I am just wondering what would make most sense in reality.


> As far as I know, I have no news about further developments of Scholarly
> HTML.
>
> Also, I see that RASH and Dokieli allow metadata to be added in a variety
> of different formats. I wonder if one of the ways is the recommended way to
> ensure that other tools can work with the data later on?
>
>
> Yes, they both leave the freedom to the user to adopt any vocabulary she
> prefers. I would suggest to use Schema.org and, if you need more explicit
> and precise semantic definition of things, SPAR Ontologies (
> http://www.sparontologies.net) – disclosure: I’m one of the creator of
> SPAR Ontologies.
>
> I hope it may help.
> Have a nice day :-)
>


Thanks a lot. I will look more through the links!

Have a nice day you too.

>
> S.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
> Tel: +39 051 2095393 <+39%20051%20209%205393>
> E-mail: silvio.peroni@unibo.it
> Web: https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/silvio.peroni/en
> Twitter: essepuntato
>
>


-- 
Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer
http://www.fiduswriter.org