Re: Petitioning ISWC to allow Web friendly formats

Am 07.05.2013 14:57 schrieb Norman Gray :

> 
> Greetings.
> 
> On 2013 May 7, at 09:32, RebholzSchuhmann wrote:
> 
>> I guess, we look at two different use cases
> 
> Indeed!  Very much so.
> 
> I'm loth to re-enter this cluster of threads, which I thought had been beaten to death last week, so forgive me if I derail the thread into a more interesting direction with a radical proposition:
> 
>         HTML != Web.
> 
> Now I'm sure that everyone on this list is now exclaiming in outrage at my insulting suggestion that they don't already know this, but is _is_ odd to see people on the LOD and SW lists still having this argument so very loudly.  I've repeatedly double-checked the cc list to confirm that this really is happening.
> 
> For me, the really big thing about the LOD and SW movements is that they have repeatedly stressed that there is more to the (data) web than piles and piles of HTML pages (so very Web 2.0).  Yes, HTML has advantages (as has been laboriously rehearsed here), but it's not the only game in town.
> 
> If this community really wants a 'dog food' exercise, then how about advertising, running, publishing and archiving a LOD/SW conference with NO HTML in sight at all?  There could be RDF, txt, PDF, XML with XSL and CSS, RSS, ConNeg, and every other TLA you can think of; but not the FLA.  Lots of data formats, each doing the thing they're best at on the Semantic Web of Linked Open Data, together showing that it really is true that HTML != Web.
> 
> Now, _that_ would be an interesting dog-food exercise.

+1 to all of that (but whats wrong with RDFa in HTML?)
I signed the petition in the first place because it asks to commit documents
also in _other_ formats than solely PDF. That is the main point. (sorry for the
PDF bashing, I think this is a result of beeing pressed by so many institutions
to use this one format).

oo

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 13:30:41 UTC