On 2014-10-02 10:36, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
On 01/10/2014 21:55, Luca Matteis wrote:But why is it backwards? We have different formats serving different purposes. Diversity is healthy. Simply because PDF is not in the Web stack it doesn't make it Web-unfriendly.In 2013, PDF was mentioned during ODW2013 [0] workshop and I quote part of the final report [1] below regarding PDF: "(...) PDF - often referred to as the format where data goes to die. In the open data world, PDF has a bad name as it is not deemed machine processable. As Adobe's Jim King pointed out in his presentation [2] , this is perhaps unfair. PDF can include structured tables, can carry associated metadata, extractable text and more. It is the way that PDFs are generated - using basic tools that don't support all the features - that renders PDF documents opaque to machine processes." This could be an opportunity to work closer with Adobe's folks to see how web stack can help process data in PDF... Best, Ghislain [0] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/ [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/report [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/Role_of_PDF_and_Opendata_final.pdf
Thanks for sharing Ghislain.Lets not forget that we have SW/LD supporters that go after public institutions to aim for 5-star Linked Data. Or ask for public funding to support their SW/LD research.
Ironic Facts: * Majority of the SW/LD research output is publicly funded * Majority of the SW/LD research venues promote 1-star Linked DataSo, yes, we can do a lot of different things and in fact, a lot of people are doing different things to improve open science and communication.
The question is, what efforts are the SW/LD research venues making? How are they compromising or improving the state of things? What has changed in recent memory?
-Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
