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

Dear all,

I have been silently lurking on this list for some time, and I'm quite
excited to see a discussion rising up, so let me use the opportunity to
state ongoing interest in this working group's spec.

I'm involved with two projects that are highly interested in a stable and
community-standardized Scholarly HTML dialect, one is a LaTeX-to-HTML
converter with a scholarly focus (LaTeXML, which has 60% error-free
coverage of the arXiv.org corpus), and the other is a research
writing-and-publishing web platform (Authorea). Both teams in question are
willing and eager to support/switch towards a Scholarly HTML spec, so I
will be following the ongoing discussions with high interest. Hopefully we
can contribute something back as well.

Greetings and thanks,
Deyan

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org>
wrote:

>
>
> 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 <(520)%20399-8880>
>