Re: [Orga-semantics-2018] Reply to Semantics Proceedings Inquiry

On 2018-02-06 01:34, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
> Hi Sarven,
> 
> 
> On 05.02.2018 23:29, Pellegrini Tassilo wrote:
>> * Why are contributors forced to communicate using print-centric medium
>> as opposed to Web?
> 
> We did the exercise to publish HTML-only proceedings at CEUR for the
> posters last year: https://github.com/webdata/SEMANTiCS2017-posters/
> 
> This is complemented with a full RDF version in NIF and HDT, also
> Spotlight annotations. We are currently finishing it and submitting it
> to CEUR. Should only be another week now.
> 
> As lessons learned, we can say, that http://dokie.li/ was not really
> recommendable, because the HTML editing lacked usability


Classic straw man. I'm not even going to bother.

Based on past conversations, I'm fairly certain that there is a giant
gap between what you think dokieli does or intended to do, and the
reality. But don't let me get in the way, please send the results of the
usability study.


> We tried
> Google Docs, which is a very good HTML editor underneath, but it was
> hard to export it in a good way. Overall, we stuck with the tools of
> Silvio Peroni: https://github.com/essepuntato/rash  They were quite
> good, but there was some conversion and post editing involved. We had to
> remove Javascript and there were some really difficult and specific
> issues found by the NU validator for HTML.
> 
> So my answer to your question: while there are approaches, nobody solved
> the engineering problems involved. Latex2Rash export would be sweet and
> doesn't seem to hard. As far as I see from your publication list, you
> also did not manage to produce any proceedings according to the
> standards you request. Where is the proof of concept?
> 
> For the other questions, you can also ask Elsevier. I am sure they will
> explain you all the different details of their offers. We are just
> users, so we rely on good tools and organisations to publish.


You need to be more precise on a number of things up there. Which
engineering problems are you referring to exactly? I think you are
conflating articles and proceedings.

CEUR-WS's proceedings template uses a subset of dokieli's HTML patterns.
Tooling at:

https://github.com/ceurws/ceur-make/tree/dev/dokieli

Here is one:

http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1809/


dokieli was *never* advertised to do any print-centric stuff. What
"proof of concept" are you are referring to? My own articles?

http://csarven.ca/dokeili-rww

What do you think that I didn't "eat my own dogfood" on exactly? ;)


I was approached about dokieli and your posters session. So I explained
what dokieli does, its approach, intentions, and differences from other
tooling etc. I've asked you numerous times to define the
criteria/requirements for what you seek. I'm not here to sell you a tool
or try to force you to use one.

I've been a strong proponent for not forcing a particular tool / format
on article/review contributions, and to strive for interopable
solutions. You've decided to do otherwise for the posters. Forcing a
particular toolchain is a crystal clear case of what's widely accepted
to lead to "vendor lock-in" solutions. Anyone that puts in an honest 10
seconds into my work or initiatives can tell you that.


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2018 03:40:11 UTC