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

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

From: Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:32:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgm-S_8J9JyaTZfA5AehB06yFmotChx+F-w7obwv6WCubq6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C Scholarly HTML CG <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I and some others came up with the idea of ScholarlyHTML about 6 years ago
> - we posted a draft . Later - about 2 years ago - Robin Berjon took the
> ideas into a W3C group - but I haven't seen much since.
>

So does this mean that Scholarly HTML effectively is no longer existent? Or
do Tzviya, Ivan, Robin and/or others plan on continuing with this? If yes,
is the idea that this could eventually replace RASH, Dokieli, etc. or is
there another goal with Scholarly HTMl than the other ones?

For us priorities are to follow a standard that does as much as possible
follow good practices in terms of standardization (having a formal way to
influence the process, open discussions, a decision making process, etc.),
but secondly also to work on a format that has a future of some kind
because someone else is using it or at least planning on using it in the
future.


>
> P.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>> 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?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> [1] https://www.fiduswriter.org
>> [2] https://github.com/essepuntato/rash
>> [3] https://w3c.github.io/scholarly-html/
>> [4] https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli
>>
>> --
>> Johannes Wilm
>> http://www.johanneswilm.org
>> tel: +1 (520) 399 8880 <(520)%20399-8880>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069 <+44%201223%20763069>
>



-- 
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2017 14:33:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 September 2017 14:33:03 UTC