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

Great!

I am an anthropologist and a historian. I can put something together in
those areas, if someone else takes STEM.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> That sounds like a great idea.
>
> I would also think doing that with two different types of papers would be
> beneficial, namely one from a STEM field and one from, say, a historian or
> sociologist. In my limited and anecdotical experience the habits in
> humanities may be different than what we are used to in the technical
> fields.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> On 7 Sep 2017, at 22:26, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone fancy doing a comparative analysis or even mocking up the same
> (ideally rather complex) article in ScholarlyHTML, RASH, and anything else
> we'd care to compare/discuss?
>
> There are obviously overlaps from all these fabulous attempts (including
> the internal ones at many publishers). It would be great to understand what
> (beyond simple syntax choices) is quantifiably different in the approaches.
>
> One key thing provided by the W3C (as with the Apache Software Foundation,
> etc) is clear governance and IP-related clearance.
>
> For something to be solidified in the marketplace, having those governance
> and IP stuff clearly stated, organized, and operated on would be most
> helpful.
>
> Thanks!
> Benjamin
>
> --
> http://bigbluehat.com/
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 6, 2017 5:35:55 PM
> *To:* Johannes Wilm
> *Cc:* Robin Berjon; Peter Murray-Rust; W3C Scholarly HTML CG
> *Subject:* Re: html for scholarly communication: RASH, Scholarly HTML or
> Dokieli?
>
> Hi Johannes,
>
> Just a clarification:
>
> I guess RASH is more tied to specific tools, and from the looks of it, the
> format is not governed by any formal decision making process, so it's
> basically up to the development team behind it? I mean I understand,. Our
> Fidus Writer format is also just what we decide to put into it. But I
> wouldn't expect anyone else to adopt it either.
>
>
> Well, the first version of RASH has been released as a work of my
> colleagues and I. However, we have been always open to suggestions and push
> requests via the Github repo, in particular when compliant with the
> intended guidelines of the language – be pattern-based according to a
> specific theory, adopt a minimum number of elements that enable the full
> description of a scholarly paper, use one element for conveying a specific
> structural semantics (e.g. you cannot choose between “em” and “i”, you have
> to use “em”), avoid verbosity when possible (see how in-text reference
> pointers to bibliographic references are handled), etc.
>
> In fact RASH has been modified and extended in the past thanks to several
> contributions and suggestions by the community – e.g. single researchers,
> as well as W3C working groups, such as DPUB-ARIA. The format has not been
> changed anymore since one year so far – we think it is pretty stable,
> indeed –, and we are focussing on the development of tools to extend the
> Framework right now – as side projects and/or student thesis. Of course
> RASH is not a formal standard, since it is not released by any standard
> organisation or institute. However it is a formal (i.e. there is a RelaxNG
> grammar defining it) subset of HTML5.
>
> If my suspicion is correct, it sounds like the main difference is that in
> RASH, several different ways of doing the same are allowed, whereas in
> Scholarly HTML, just one way is allowed.
>
>
> If you consider RASH as a format, then honestly it is quite strict, since
> it allows to markup scholarly documents in a precise way, as defined in its
> documentation (https://rawgit.com/essepuntato/rash/master/
> documentation/index.html) – while leaving the freedom of specifying RDF
> statements using any vocabulary.
>
> If you consider the RASH Framework (i.e. the set of tools available to
> work with the RASH format) then yes, you can use different WYSIWYG ways
> (OpenOffice, Word, and RAJE – the latter still in alpha testing) for
> obtaining RASH documents, plus of course the possibility of writing a RASH
> document by using a common text editor.
>
> If the tools exist for RASH but not for Scholarly HTML, could we then not
> simply choose one of the various ways to express things in RASH and use
> that sub format for interchange? Something like "Strict RASH”. And would it
> not be possible to continue the development of that under some kind of
> community (if that is not the case yet), so that others can have a stake in
> it as well?
>
>
> As mentioned before, I think RASH is enough strict as HTML5 markup – you
> have not three different ways to express article structure, you have only
> *one* way to do that, so as to remove ambiguities. And, for what RASH is
> concerned, I would love to organise or be involved in a formal community so
> as to discuss how to extend it and its Framework, according to the needs of
> various actors. Thus, I’m happy to talk about this, if there is interest.
> Even, and in particular, in the Scholarly HTML Community Group, if people
> think is the appropriate space for such discussion.
>
> Have a nice day :-)
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>


-- 
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880