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

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

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 22:03:43 +0200
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <b64f6556-07fc-5747-5980-0eb75e73ee90@csarven.ca>
On 2017-09-07 22:26, Benjamin Young 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?

Great ideas! We can all pitch in from our respective areas. Some of the
criteria may not be directly comparable but it will at least shed some
light on coverage and scope that's a bit more digestible. Mocking up a
real (and "complex") article sounds good to me too.

>From the CG page, "to build a common, open format for the exchange of
scholarly information" is a good guide to start with. My understanding
of *scholarly information* is that, it is not constrained to articles
(in the most common use of the word "article").

Hence, I propose that we draw some boundaries on what's to be expected
from the elements of a scholarly information. Off the top of my head:

* any human visible or hidden components of an article, annotation,
notification, and anything else that's easily identifiable from existing
Web recommendations, practices etc.
* expressibility of common use cases
* modularity of the patterns, and expected level of reuse
* ..

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea here is to take the good
parts from all, filter some stuff, and then eventually come up with
well-rounded patterns that would make up the composition of "Scholarly
HTML".

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Friday, 8 September 2017 20:04:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 September 2017 20:04:14 UTC