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 22:38:41 +0200
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <41a6358a-7c6f-7639-f3fd-3f21913cda08@csarven.ca>
On 2017-09-06 11:09, Silvio Peroni wrote:
> 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. As far as I know, I have no news about further developments
> of Scholarly HTML.
Sure, I'll speak for dokieli.

You use the term "editor" and "not a format" as if dokieli does not 1)
produce or 2) consume HTML as well as various RDF formats or something.

As I've mentioned before, we have identified various scholarly
information: across article, annotation, and notification elements.
There is a "living documentation" here:

https://dokie.li/docs

The HTML patterns that are specified so far are reused across those
kinds of documents - in other words, it is not just one off HTML
snippets but stabilised. Along with that factoring in how well the
exchange works (to generate and reconsume), as well as being
sufficiently prepared to handle different presentations and interactions.

Please have a look at what dokieli specifies and compare with RASH's.

I would say that dokieli's HTML patterns have quite a bit of commonality
with Scholarly HTML's than RASH - from the looks of it at least. But, we
can leave this discussion to the comparison analysis that Benjamin proposed.

dokieli also has quite a bit of commonality with ReSpec as well. In fact:

https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/

used dokieli's HTML+RDFa and 1) conforms to some level of W3C's
expectations/approval, 2) flawlessly with W3C's CSS out of the box.

Lastly, more of the HTML patterns can be observed at:

https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli/wiki#examples-in-the-wild

If I write a "grammar" for dokieli, would its HTML be a "format" in your
opinion?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Friday, 8 September 2017 20:39:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 September 2017 20:39:05 UTC