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

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

From: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:20:50 +0200
CC: <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2854B970-4BF0-4B58-ACF8-27FF341ED736@unibo.it>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Hi Sarven, 

Thanks for sharing. Just two distinct and different views, that's all.

As I already said, I'm open to discuss and consider any alternative - and more founded, if you prefer - approach for handling these things in SH-CG. Really, my only goal now is to reach an agreement, and I think that several people here - thanks to their past experiences - can provide wonderful constructive inputs.

I totally agree with Ivan - I would suggest to stop the rather philosophical discussions about what is better, and just focussing to have a concrete base of articles available in those existing formats to discuss how we can reach a plausible agreement of what and how should be specified in SH-CG.

I'll look for an article in the CS that can be used for that. Looking forward to having the inputs from others about the other Disciplines.

Have a nice day :-)


> Il giorno 10 set 2017, alle ore 10:54, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> ha scritto:
>> On 2017-09-09 23:13, Silvio Peroni wrote:
>> And here is the rationale of the choice: the title, authors, keywords,
>> are not really the “body” of an article – which should be the text which
>> define the research described in it. They are just metadata of the
>> article, and the place where usually we put metadata in HTML is
>> within “head”.
>> I’m not saying these choice are the true path. However, I think they are
>> reasonable choice though.
> I would argue that most well-established publishing practices on the Web
> wouldn't agree with that approach. What you consider as "metadata" is
> very much human-visible "data" (in source) in the wild.
> For visible data, anywhere from content publishing platforms, eg
> Wordpress, to long trail of accessibility practices, to independent
> communities, eg microformats, encouraging it.
> So, I don't think they are reasonable, and probably counter intuitive to
> using HTML to begin with. Throwing what you consider to be "metadata"
> under the carpet is only really of interest to specific
> tooling/frameworks. It depends on JavaScript as well as RDF libraries to
> make it useful to a human reader.
> See also https://dokie.li/docs#human-machine-readable
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Sunday, 10 September 2017 09:21:18 UTC

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