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

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

From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 15:08:00 -0400
To: <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c270fb3e-ef63-4331-f857-aa4a65f5e0e8@nist.gov>
Hi all;
   I've been eavesdropping with great interest...
And I'm certainly not clear on everybody's goals & use-cases...

But given the variety of author source formats (LaTeX, special systems, 
whatever), the variety of "intermediate" targets that Peter mentioned
(JATS, TEI, ...), the variety of presentation styles desired (folks
will want their material to look like it is common in their field,
citation styles, etc; let alone dynamic functionality they may want to
invest in --- CSS only gets you so far), and finally the evolving
nature of the web & devices,
I'm a bit leery of being overly prescriptive about exactly how the
HTML itself should be structured, which tags used, etc.
Seems it would limit adoption.

At least, if the goal is to harvest enriched HTML from the wild,
rather than specially-prepared-for-ScholarlyXXX (in which case,
we might as well focus on a few important formats like JATS, TEI).

It would seem more productive to focus on the metadata magic
(RDFa, Aria,...) to indicate the data's meaning & purpose,
rather than to try to make HTML actually semantic after-the-fact.

But perhaps this doesn't work, or serve our collective purposes?
Please enlighten me! :>


On 09/09/2017 02:06 PM, Silvio Peroni wrote:
> Hi Sarven,
> To me having such minimal set means feasibility of developing the (various, hopefully) implementation of tools using SH-CG, and facilitating its adoption as well. My personal view though, derived from persona experience.
> How to make the distinction, well: it's matter of discussing all together, I think. I'm clearly in favour of something similar to b) as number of elements - and considering from where you have taken those numbers, you are already aware of this ;-)
> Have a nice day :-)
> S.
>> Il giorno 09 set 2017, alle ore 19:40, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> ha scritto:
>>> On 2017-09-09 17:05, Silvio Peroni wrote:
>>> For answering Peter: SH-CG should provide a "standard" way of using a
>>> minimal set of HTML tags for describing a scholarly article
>>> (independently from the discipline in consideration), and should be
>>> enough flexible - e.g. via RDFa - to allow users to assign specific
>>> discipline-oriented semantics to the various tags.
>> What's the incentive to have a "minimal set of HTML tags"?
>> How do you make the distinction between a) single element b) "32
>> elements" (or "25 elements", circa 2015), c) any number of applicable
>> elements at the discretion of the author since they precisely know what
>> to encapsulate?
>> -Sarven
>> http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 19:08:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:01 UTC