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

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

From: Johannes Wilm <johanneswilm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 10:40:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgm-Rj5psdVd+q4z06MMmg8dSsvtPAUVaBNXaDnEyZ_GQ5AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
Cc: Scholarly HTML community group <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Yes, so anthropology is somewhere between humanities and social sciences.
History is more clearly humanities. Political sciences or sociology should
require all the things anthropology requires plus some more and would
therefore probably be better picks to represent the social sciences.

Do we have someone in those fields? Then I could concentrate on history.
Open access and a license that allows remixing would be preferable.

On 9 Sep 2017 9:46 am, "Silvio Peroni" <silvio.peroni@unibo.it> wrote:

> Hi Sarven, all,
>
> 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.
>
>
> Thats a great idea, indeed! However, please, we should not came out with a
> huge set of example, only one per discipline. Just to be more precise, I
> would suggest to use the categorisation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> List_of_academic_fields, using the first level entities of such taxonomy,
> i.e.:
>
> - Humanities
> - Social sciences
> - Natural sciences
> - Formal sciences
> - Professions and applied sciences
>
> I think it would be enough to have one paper for each of the
> aforementioned fields for starting – better if the selected papers are Open
> Access, just to avoid useless discussions with publishers on rights to be
> shared in another channel by someone that is not the author of the article.
> I know that it is possible that subfields of each field can have different
> needs in terms of article content, but we cannot cover the whole literature
> at this point, can we?
>
> I think Sarven and I could cover the “Formal sciences” part – in
> particular, while selecting a paper in the Computer Science sub-field,
> since we are actually working there, we need to consider something that
> include mathematical formulas I believe.
>
> Could someone else help with the other fields?
>
> 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
>
>
Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 08:40:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 September 2017 08:40:58 UTC