W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2014

Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

From: Diogo FC Patrao <djogopatrao@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 13:57:57 -0300
Message-ID: <CAFRj_AfMpmpiv5b3UBf9unfU0uZUXHJ0ur6CYMCcLFZ8a=reUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: john.nj.davies@bt.com, phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Hi Peter

Yes, these tags are semantic, in the context of a document. One could
declare a document section instead of saying that there's a container. This
way one can easily make a table of contents of several documents.

Not semantic in the sense they describe the knowledge in that document -
that's what RDF, OWL are for.

cheers



--
diogo patrão



On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm.  Are these semantic?  All these seem to do is to signal parts of a
> document.
>
> What I would consider to be semantic would be a way of extracting the
> mathematical content of a document.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 10/03/2014 02:32 PM, Diogo FC Patrao wrote:
>
>> html5 has so-called "semantic tags", like <header>, <section>.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> diogo patrão
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:01 PM, <john.nj.davies@bt.com
>> <mailto:john.nj.davies@bt.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     " Yes, but what makes HTML better for being webby than PDF?"
>>     Because it is a mark-up language (albeit largely syntactic) which
>> makes it
>>     much more amenable to machine processing?
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>]
>>     Sent: 03 October 2014 21:15
>>     To: Diogo FC Patrao
>>     Cc: Phillip Lord; semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>;
>>     public-lod@w3.org <mailto:public-lod@w3.org>
>>     Subject: Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 10/03/2014 10:25 AM, Diogo FC Patrao wrote:
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>      > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>      >
>>      >     One problem with allowing HTML submission is ensuring that
>>     reviewers can
>>      >     correctly view the submission as the authors intended it to be
>> viewed.
>>      >     How would you feel if your paper was rejected because one of
>> the
>>     reviewers
>>      >     could not view portions of it?  At least with PDF there is a
>> reasonably
>>      >     good chance that every paper can be correctly viewed by all its
>>     reviewers,
>>      >     even if they have to print it out.  I don't think that the same
>>     claim can
>>      >     be made for HTML-based systems.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > The majority of journals I'm familiar with mandates a certain
>> format
>>      > for
>>      > submission: font size, figure format, etc. So, in a HTML format
>>      > submission, there should be rules as well, a standard CSS and the
>>      > right elements and classes. Not different from getting a word(c) or
>>     latex template.
>>
>>     This might help.  However, someone has to do this, and ensure that the
>>     result is generally viewable.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >     Web conference vitally use the web in their reviewing and
>> publishing
>>      >     processes.  Doesn't that show their allegiance to the web?
>> Would
>>     the use
>>      >     of HTML make a conference more webby?
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > As someone said, this is leading by example.
>>
>>     Yes, but what makes HTML better for being webby than PDF?
>>
>>      >
>>      > dfcp
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >     peter
>>      >
>>
>>
>>
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2014 16:58:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:25 UTC