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

Hi Johannes,

> It would be different if it was a standard backed by a standardization organization and extensively discussed between different parties. As Robin pointed out, a lot of choices will be arbitrary, and the reasoning behind everything is not always immediately visible. So had this been a standard coming out of such a process, most would likely follow it anyway, no matter whether they agree with the logic, they don't or they do not care. 

That’s why we are all here. I’m not part of this CG for saying that we all need to use RASH. Quite the opposite. RASH is my bag of experience, but it is not a standard in the true term, it is a format within a project, if you prefer, that brings with it additional tools for visualising / converting it.

In case it is not clear, what I would like to reach as part of this CG is a plausible standard HTML format for describing scholarly articles, which should be developed hearing opinions of multiple actors and deciding democratically as a community. This doesn’t mean RASH or any other existing HTML format, as far as I can see from the discussion. It will be a new “spec” that will inherit several parts from several existing HTML-based formats / patterns for sure. 

To me, the goal of this CG is to have this SH-CG sorted out in a way that all the choices done are convincing and justified. Then we will talk about extending existing tools according to this new “spec” – including the RASH Framework, for what I can say.

A side note: I used the work “spec”, but SH-CG would not be a real W3C Recommendation, rather a CG outcome.

Have a nice day :-)


Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
Tel: +39 051 2095393
Twitter: essepuntato

Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 22:50:47 UTC