Re: Newsletter & Call for Papers WebSci'18

>> Having your work more openly available,
>> faster feedback by a much broader audience,
>> having more means to communicate and visualize research.
> 
> How does switching away from PDF get all this?

For HTML as a format:
 screen-based text flow instead of being locked to a page,
   so you can read on mobile and other devices
 possibility to use interactive visualizations and video
 linking to individual sections from other documents

However, it's not just a format issue of PDF versus HTML,
but rather of closed page-based communication versus open Web-based communication:
 faster feedback because the feedback loop starts when something is published on the Web
 broader audience for feedback because anyone can link and comment, not just the reviewers
 the page remains alive and updates can be added; paper is locked

> For me to  switch the new model has to be easier to author content, or make up
> for it in other ways.

Difficulty does not increase; other ways, see above.

>> The job of a reviewer doesn't change.
> 
> Again, it's not enough to just keep things the same.  There have to be
> benefits to switching.

True; I did mention them.
Just wanted to make the point it doesn't become harder,
but that it brings the benefits of doing science on an open network
without centralized control.

> Open reviewing is an interesting idea, but I'm not convinced that there are
> any benefits that come from it.  In any case, PDF can be used in open reviewing.

It's not a format war of PDF versus HTML.
It's about using the Web to do scholarly communication.

> There are benefits to having a single-file fixed-format
> publication vehicle like PDF that I don't want to give up. 

That's an interesting point, and it would be good if we'd all list them,
so we can see what we still need to do with our tooling.

Mathematical typesetting has come up already
(but still waiting for examples that are hard/impossible now).

Best,

Ruben

Received on Thursday, 22 February 2018 11:45:06 UTC